so thirsty...for FREEDOM It's a regrettably completely true truism that Republicans absolutely hate government, even as they've spent their entire careers swaddled in the warm embrace of a state or federal paycheck. In fact, it is really only the Terrible Tyrant Trump who can at least claim to loathe government with some level of honesty. Listening to that claptrap from someone like Marco Rubio, though, is absurd. Rubio is a mere whelp of 44, yet has managed to work as a politician or for a politician for the last 20 years. But make no mistake. In his zeal to become president, Rubio will pretty much give a wet sloppy open-mouthed kiss to every anti-government Tea Party piece of bullshit he comes across, even if it is completely insane.
Let's stop at this cool idea that you like that calls for a balanced budget with exceptions.
How does that refute my original 'a balanced budget amendment is stupid' statement? My point was that there are times that the federal government needs the latitude to overspend. Everything you've posted since says the same thing.
Ok, so we've come all this way to agree that a balanced budget amendment (not the specific plan that you like but a true 'The Budget Must Be Balanced Amendment") is a stupid idea? :-)
BTW, I failed to thank you for the link earlier. So thank you. I will read it later.*
* Later being 'sometime this week, probably'
Also too, not just for you Michael, but for anyone that thinks balancing the budget is a piece of cake, you can go here and do it! See if you can do it without deep deep cuts to the DoD.
There probably won't be a response after I read the link. I can say with certainty that there is nothing in the article that is going to make me think that the states having a say in the budget of the federal government is 'good clear thinking'. I mean, I'd like to think that I am open to new info, continuing my education informally, etc but I have to be honest on this one: I see zero chance that I will be a convert.
Having said that, I'll still read it because it may now, or could in the future, be used for other matters: updating the entire Constitution to reflect today's issues and not just the "Congress controls the purse strings' part.
I have no idea what alternate universe you live in that causes you believe this idealist nonsense. You are projecting based on your own beliefs. My father might offer some assistance in war that matches his level of ability, but so would my husband and he is not a gun owner. My father mostly would not be able to perform a combat role and if you dispute that, either you don't know many elderly people or just silly.This line of argument of yours raises so many questions but mostly, back to the unanswered one:How does owning a gun automatically make you fit for military service, especially if said ownership is not related to ability to use a gun effectively and safely, or whether you can transfer your skill with your personal weapon to a government issued one. Or have you just skipped ahead to a post apocalyptic dystopia?Your logic is flawed and has not provided good reason for regulation of personal fire-arms. Not confiscation ( unless you are likely to be a danger to others), reasonable regulation. Inconvenience is not infringement. Licensure is not infringement, periodic testing of aptitude is not infringement, trigger locks and limits on magazine size, armor piercing bullets and automatic weapons are not infringement. In the event of a war you can sign right up and get issued an lovely government weapon that's fully automatic and shots rainbow sparkles. Unless you fall through a time portal, ain't nobody gonna let you use your own arsenal in a war. Last word: the Internet and blog comments particularly are an echo chamber, but you are truly obtuse if you really think everyone, even everyone who owns a gun is going to volunteer for service (which is almost guarantteed to be abroad, unless Texas succeeds and the rest of the country actually cares.) if you think every person who owns a gun is able or willing too use their firearm experience (however limited that may be. But that is a whole other can of worms there.) to fight for our country. Why, think about the folks who call themselves militia now, they sure as hell aren't going to sign up to defend the government that they despise. I don't lack courage, I have common sense and know my own limitations. I also know the limitations of others, something which it appears you are unable to see. Although I have to thank you for the hearty laugh my family will have when I tell my mom about this. Seriously man, you need to get out more. Have a lovely afternoon.
oh, I do love a troll who pretends he's never used the word fuck in a sentence.I'm not sure what our previous talk of invasion has to do with pregnancy or 3 states in the Southwestern U.S. Are you claiming Mexican and Central American immigrants are agents for a foreign take-over of our government? Or is it cultural invasion that you personally are not prepared to ignore or adapt to? Either way, from your Disqus history, particularly on Wonkette, you appear to be a mild mannered quasi Federalist troll by day and a wearer of coats with over sized hoods. It does look comfy though. Shearling lined? Cuz those are the best. Tah.
You are confusing militia and military service. They are not the same thing. A citizen may belong to a militia (as many did in England in WWII and in America) and do services other than combat but not be in military service. Many who did so were well into their 70's and 80's. I'm not suggesting we send old people out to fight--I merely point out the Constitution allows for this to occur should Congress choose to so order.
Your second paragraph again tries to move past the matter of the 2nd Amendment. There is no "volunteer" in any of this. All must serve if so ordered. As to ability to handle a weapon again read the language of the Constitution which allows for such matters to be addressed by law. And by the way it would be expected as it has every time Congress has used such power that it would be BYOG (bring your own gun).
As to your theory that licensing and so forth is not infringement I beg to differ. If the purpose is to regulate the citizen so as to allow him to serve in a militia as the amendment specifies then you are correct. However it is clear the liberal purpose of all this legislation is NOT to allow a citizen to effectively serve in the militia but in fact to deny him the right to the weapons he or she is required to have in order to fulfill his constitutional and required duty in such militia. In such case therefore the laws clearly are infringement and unconstitutional. Hence the purpose of the laws lies at the heart of the matter. Clearly by your language and general comments you would have citizens improperly armed and unable to defend themselves and more importantly you who obviously would have to be arrested (and this has been done) and escorted to the front, given a weapon and forced to do your duty.
You presume those who currently believe the government is a threat to them will stand by and watch while their nation is placed at risk meaning their lives, their homes and their families. Somehow I think, and history bears me out, when that occurs, you might find their reaction quite different than you predict.
And finally as to your mother. I'm interested to hear her comment--whether or not based on the fact that Congress would not use this power unless it were obvious it were needed as clearly such threat would mean the military was incapable of accomplishing the matter itself thus being required by events to call upon its citizens. Ask her if this were the situation would she then fight or would she sit by and watch everyone else die while she did nothing realizing of course that if she did so and those who did fight failed, she'd be on her own.
It's fun to have theories like yours that mean nothing when there is no rubber on the road. But when there is a real threat and real bullets and real people are trying to really kill you and you watch your family and friends and others you know actually die, then comes the moment you have to decide--am I so committed to my theory I'm willing to let someone kill me? When the time comes and it may and you're in shopping mall, church or whatever and a bomb goes off or someone starts shooting into the crowd and you watch everyone falling around you remember--you were part of the crowd that ensured no body, including yourself, could fire back. Consider it your last thought as you fall to the ground yourself. Reality has a nasty habit of vaporizing liberalism.
My goodness sir you are a perceptive numpty. Where did you learn about my side business in smut? By which you no doubt mean coal dust. Unless you found my Etsy site selling hand crafted Trucknutz. Thank goddess I don't live in a city, why I hear they are full of smut! How many brothers do you have? Literal or metaphorical ones? Are they all so easily riled? Any gingers? I fancy gingers, even the ones with freckles.
When the truth is spoken by conservatives and backed by factual evidence liberals run. Goodbye Tansy Geek. You will be back. Citizens United is on the convention agenda as is prohibition of gay marriage, right to life and oh yes formation of a world government. The fun has just begun.
Let's stop at this cool idea that you like that calls for a balanced budget with exceptions.
How does that refute my original 'a balanced budget amendment is stupid' statement? My point was that there are times that the federal government needs the latitude to overspend. Everything you've posted since says the same thing.
BTW, you are right - I did not read the link you provided yet. I will later.
But US News and World Report think it sucks.
http://www.usnews.com/news/...
Ok, so we've come all this way to agree that a balanced budget amendment (not the specific plan that you like but a true 'The Budget Must Be Balanced Amendment") is a stupid idea? :-)
BTW, I failed to thank you for the link earlier. So thank you. I will read it later.*
* Later being 'sometime this week, probably'
Also too, not just for you Michael, but for anyone that thinks balancing the budget is a piece of cake, you can go here and do it! See if you can do it without deep deep cuts to the DoD.
http://crfb.org/stabilizeth...
There probably won't be a response after I read the link. I can say with certainty that there is nothing in the article that is going to make me think that the states having a say in the budget of the federal government is 'good clear thinking'. I mean, I'd like to think that I am open to new info, continuing my education informally, etc but I have to be honest on this one: I see zero chance that I will be a convert.
Having said that, I'll still read it because it may now, or could in the future, be used for other matters: updating the entire Constitution to reflect today's issues and not just the "Congress controls the purse strings' part.
Didn't read it. Doesn't exist. You can't fool me.
What about it?
I have no idea what alternate universe you live in that causes you believe this idealist nonsense. You are projecting based on your own beliefs. My father might offer some assistance in war that matches his level of ability, but so would my husband and he is not a gun owner. My father mostly would not be able to perform a combat role and if you dispute that, either you don't know many elderly people or just silly.This line of argument of yours raises so many questions but mostly, back to the unanswered one:How does owning a gun automatically make you fit for military service, especially if said ownership is not related to ability to use a gun effectively and safely, or whether you can transfer your skill with your personal weapon to a government issued one. Or have you just skipped ahead to a post apocalyptic dystopia?Your logic is flawed and has not provided good reason for regulation of personal fire-arms. Not confiscation ( unless you are likely to be a danger to others), reasonable regulation. Inconvenience is not infringement. Licensure is not infringement, periodic testing of aptitude is not infringement, trigger locks and limits on magazine size, armor piercing bullets and automatic weapons are not infringement. In the event of a war you can sign right up and get issued an lovely government weapon that's fully automatic and shots rainbow sparkles. Unless you fall through a time portal, ain't nobody gonna let you use your own arsenal in a war. Last word: the Internet and blog comments particularly are an echo chamber, but you are truly obtuse if you really think everyone, even everyone who owns a gun is going to volunteer for service (which is almost guarantteed to be abroad, unless Texas succeeds and the rest of the country actually cares.) if you think every person who owns a gun is able or willing too use their firearm experience (however limited that may be. But that is a whole other can of worms there.) to fight for our country. Why, think about the folks who call themselves militia now, they sure as hell aren't going to sign up to defend the government that they despise. I don't lack courage, I have common sense and know my own limitations. I also know the limitations of others, something which it appears you are unable to see. Although I have to thank you for the hearty laugh my family will have when I tell my mom about this. Seriously man, you need to get out more. Have a lovely afternoon.
oh, I do love a troll who pretends he's never used the word fuck in a sentence.I'm not sure what our previous talk of invasion has to do with pregnancy or 3 states in the Southwestern U.S. Are you claiming Mexican and Central American immigrants are agents for a foreign take-over of our government? Or is it cultural invasion that you personally are not prepared to ignore or adapt to? Either way, from your Disqus history, particularly on Wonkette, you appear to be a mild mannered quasi Federalist troll by day and a wearer of coats with over sized hoods. It does look comfy though. Shearling lined? Cuz those are the best. Tah.
Why not both? Everyone else does it.
Jesus loves me this I know.Because I pay the preacher all that dough.
You are confusing militia and military service. They are not the same thing. A citizen may belong to a militia (as many did in England in WWII and in America) and do services other than combat but not be in military service. Many who did so were well into their 70's and 80's. I'm not suggesting we send old people out to fight--I merely point out the Constitution allows for this to occur should Congress choose to so order.
Your second paragraph again tries to move past the matter of the 2nd Amendment. There is no "volunteer" in any of this. All must serve if so ordered. As to ability to handle a weapon again read the language of the Constitution which allows for such matters to be addressed by law. And by the way it would be expected as it has every time Congress has used such power that it would be BYOG (bring your own gun).
As to your theory that licensing and so forth is not infringement I beg to differ. If the purpose is to regulate the citizen so as to allow him to serve in a militia as the amendment specifies then you are correct. However it is clear the liberal purpose of all this legislation is NOT to allow a citizen to effectively serve in the militia but in fact to deny him the right to the weapons he or she is required to have in order to fulfill his constitutional and required duty in such militia. In such case therefore the laws clearly are infringement and unconstitutional. Hence the purpose of the laws lies at the heart of the matter. Clearly by your language and general comments you would have citizens improperly armed and unable to defend themselves and more importantly you who obviously would have to be arrested (and this has been done) and escorted to the front, given a weapon and forced to do your duty.
You presume those who currently believe the government is a threat to them will stand by and watch while their nation is placed at risk meaning their lives, their homes and their families. Somehow I think, and history bears me out, when that occurs, you might find their reaction quite different than you predict.
And finally as to your mother. I'm interested to hear her comment--whether or not based on the fact that Congress would not use this power unless it were obvious it were needed as clearly such threat would mean the military was incapable of accomplishing the matter itself thus being required by events to call upon its citizens. Ask her if this were the situation would she then fight or would she sit by and watch everyone else die while she did nothing realizing of course that if she did so and those who did fight failed, she'd be on her own.
It's fun to have theories like yours that mean nothing when there is no rubber on the road. But when there is a real threat and real bullets and real people are trying to really kill you and you watch your family and friends and others you know actually die, then comes the moment you have to decide--am I so committed to my theory I'm willing to let someone kill me? When the time comes and it may and you're in shopping mall, church or whatever and a bomb goes off or someone starts shooting into the crowd and you watch everyone falling around you remember--you were part of the crowd that ensured no body, including yourself, could fire back. Consider it your last thought as you fall to the ground yourself. Reality has a nasty habit of vaporizing liberalism.
Geronimo!
Hallelujah! I'm saved!
You must have a very interesting life to have this much free time. Bye.
My goodness sir you are a perceptive numpty. Where did you learn about my side business in smut? By which you no doubt mean coal dust. Unless you found my Etsy site selling hand crafted Trucknutz. Thank goddess I don't live in a city, why I hear they are full of smut! How many brothers do you have? Literal or metaphorical ones? Are they all so easily riled? Any gingers? I fancy gingers, even the ones with freckles.
When the truth is spoken by conservatives and backed by factual evidence liberals run. Goodbye Tansy Geek. You will be back. Citizens United is on the convention agenda as is prohibition of gay marriage, right to life and oh yes formation of a world government. The fun has just begun.