Third Party & Independents Archives

I'll not apologize for your feeble sensibilities.


Now, repeat after me.
The U.S. Constitution is dead.

It is all to obvious to me, having been demonstrated by the comments in my last post that was censored, that the U.S. Constitution is a moot document. What was described in those comments as illegal, completely inappropriate, not politics, not entertaining, in indescribably poor taste, does indeed happen to thousands of people across this country every day.

It is in indescribably poor taste, it is illegal, it is not entertaining but it is politics, and it is appropriate. Your sensibilities may have been ruffled by the way it was presented to you, but the facts remain the same. What I was describing in my now censored post was a saliva swab drug test. A forced search of my person without a warrant or probable cause. A mandatory search that completely contradicts the Constitution's fourth and in other cases, fifth amendments.

It pains me greatly to see the callous responses to my post and it's being censored. The freedom of speech is our greatest gift from God. But apparently not when it offends the weak sensibilities of others. With a callous disregard for the fourth amendment in this case and in the case of the innocent seven year old, Aiyana I have concluded that this United States of America is a sick, mentally ill country. It is a paranoid, disfunctional country that has caused it's own problems with these, so called solutions. Solutions that cause more problems and do not solve the targeted problems are failures. Repeating the same failures over and over again is irrational and displays the mental illness our country suffers from.

I am doing what I can to cure this illness, but I am censored. My first amendment rights are denied. My forth amendment right is now a fantacy taught to school children to give them a sense of comfort. The reallity shows that our constitution is ignored and moot and might as well be dead. So repeat after me, "The U.S.Constitution is Dead!" Make this the first step in the cure for the mental illness that grips our country.

The Constitution IS The Point
Thanks goes to The Roanoke Tea Party for the photo.

Posted by Weary Willie at June 11, 2011 7:37 PM
Comments
Comment #324334

Your post was a little strange, but I threw in my $0.02 because video is the way to go in catching bad guys. As far as Freedom of Speech, I am a staunch supporter. However, we do not own this blog, so we can be censored.

At the end, RF started to turn it into an “SD Sucks, and I Want to Spread My Message/Obsession” reply thread anyway.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at June 11, 2011 8:45 PM
Comment #324336

WW
I’m not sure where this is going to go.

In elementary school thru high school we were taught that “the machinery of government work well”. I still agree with that altho with lesser enthusiasm.

The problem with “the machinery of government” is not the machinery but with the operators of the machinery. The machinery work fine.

When we allow perverts, security risks, and people of all kinds of questionable backgrounds into the “operators” cage, we will have to weigh the consequences for putting them their. Some are appointed, some have to pass a vote of the Senate, some have to be voted into position by the electorate.

The answer is that the people pulling the lever in the voting booth need to be richly educated about the ones they vote for. Then those that were elected hopefully will make wiser decisions about the people around them and how they will vote for an appointment placed before them.

Today the electorate is ignorant. Case in point. A person runs for the presidency of these United States. He refuses to abide by the law as far as his qualification credentials are concerned. He refused to release university records. He names one of his key mentors who is a communist. He associates himself with terrorists. And on it goes. But the electorate vote him in. He is a ghost. The first ghost to be successfully elected to the presidency.

I empathize with your comment that the Constitution is Dead. I hope we are both wrong.

Posted by: tom humes at June 11, 2011 8:52 PM
Comment #324337

Understood, Spinny Liberal. I am allowed to post at the benevolence of the WatchBlog Manager/Owner. I understand that. But I broke no rules with my previous censored post. It was simply not taken well by others and the first amendment was created exactly for that reason. Just because someone doesn’t like what I post is no reason to censor it.
I respect the decision to unpublish that post and have not tried to republish it.

Thanks again for the link to the camera pin. I have been looking for something like that.

tom humes, Schools are certainly lacking in the education of our children, and it is the media who has allowed the population to be ignorant of our president’s lack of qualification. Had they vetted him as they did Sarah Palin he would not have been elected. We can blame the media as I just did but we should also blame ourselves for allowing the media to keep the wool over our eyes.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 11, 2011 9:06 PM
Comment #324339

WW,

I can’t read Cameron’s mind, but I think your article would have remained if you had more clearly explained what happened and how it related to politics instead of just creating one big double entendre.

In any case, I agree with some of your sentiment. In the last few decades, the Constitution has had to weather some pretty fierce attacks. Violations of the fourth amendment are becoming disturbingly more frequent (such as the drug test you unwillingly submitted to). Hopefully, these things will not prelude a far worse outcome, although with the way the tea party movement has acted over the past two years I have my doubts. I’m still optimistic though that the Constitution will weather these attacks from the right just as it has weathered rightist attacks in the past that were far worse.

TH,

My education came in the last 15 years so I’m not familiar with the curriculum that you were taught. Could you please explain what you meant by “the machinery of government work well”. Are you insinuating that you are OK with these violations of the Constitution so long as the “operators of the machinery” fit certain standards?

Posted by: Warped Reality at June 11, 2011 9:38 PM
Comment #324340

Weary the first amendment does not apply to the private sector, the owner of this site may do as they wish regarding what is posted here. The first amendment applies to the government only, the government would not be able to sensor your speech. Your rights were not violated.

That being said the the quality of your last post was not up to your usual level, IMHO. It was vague and could have had some legal consequences had you been more forthcoming. Perhaps it was not up to the standards of Watchblog when it comes to political opinions and commentary, but whatever the reason it was pulled it is probably for the best. I would assume at the very least you have learned that despite your comment “It was simply not taken well by others and the first amendment was created exactly for that reason.” that this is not a first amendment issue.

When we attempt to privatize the government it is usually for this reason, the constitution gets in the way of those running things. A capitalism anything is by definition a dictatorship. Any corporation is a dictatorship and not held to the rights guaranteed to we the people in the constitution. That is why democratic capitalism was invented , to fool us into believing it does take the constitution into account.


A person runs for the presidency of these United States. He refuses to abide by the law as far as his qualification credentials are concerned. He refused to release university records. He names one of his key mentors who is a communist. He associates himself with terrorists. And on it goes. But the electorate vote him in.

Good job Tom, you have managed to blame Obama for the conservatives running roughshod over the constitution the past 30+years. Of course your “facts” are wrong to do it but well done. What law is he not in compliance with and what does that have to do with the constitution? Where in the constitution does it say a communist cannot be a mentor? Where in the constitution does it say university records are required to be released as a condition of accepting the office of the presidency? You do realize that to the British our founding fathers were terrorist and the constitution does not prohibit association with terrorists>

Posted by: j2t2 at June 11, 2011 9:49 PM
Comment #324343

Well…….why didn’t you just say what you meant, instead of the bizarreness which you threw at us? Had you just brought out what you actually meant, it may have been received differently…………

The dramatic approach may have failed you. Lesson learned.

No one is forced to hold a job for which drug testing is required. Get over yourself.

Posted by: steve miller at June 11, 2011 10:18 PM
Comment #324344

Had I simply stated that the drug testing is unconstitutional I would have received no response. Having described it the way I did evoked the reaction I was looking for. That it is illegal and invasive. Wording it the way I did got the response I was looking for and I would have explained it in that post had it not been unpublished.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 11, 2011 10:40 PM
Comment #324345

WR

The “machinery of government” was used to describe the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the several states. It is the framework from which people must work with and comply with for successful governance. That means that the three separate branches of government have boundaries to operate within. When the “machinery operators” start messing with it, the “machinery” still operates and is very functional. The operators of that “machinery” are the ones who cause problems. There are all kinds of examples of actual machinery that works fine, but if the operator mis-uses the machinery it can cause problems. Just to be clear a couple of examples.

If a bulldozer operator tries to scoop mud out of a lake and the mud is 10 feet deep, that is easy to understand the mis-use and abuse of the machinery.

If you have a punch press that the die is designed to use 1/16” aluminum and the operator tries to punch out 1/8” steel, that will be mis-use and abuse of the machinery.

j2t2

“Of course your “facts” are wrong to do it but well done. What law is he not in compliance with and what does that have to do with the constitution? Where in the constitution does it say a communist cannot be a mentor? Where in the constitution does it say university records are required to be released as a condition of accepting the office of the presidency? You do realize that to the British our founding fathers were terrorist and the constitution does not prohibit association with terrorists>”

I am blaming those in government who should not be there for a variety of reasons. You twisted my words and when you released they sprung back to proper form.

The Constitution does not prohibit what kind of mentor we have nor who we associate with. So your straw man did not keep the crows out. The point I was making is that people have to have some knowledge about the person they are voting for or appointing to position. When the knowledge is not present, and the person votes for that person anyway, that is an ignorant vote and that is why the “machinery of government” has such lousy operators.

Obama did not produce an actual copy of his birth certificate in a timely manner. There is a process where and how that is to be done. He violated it and got a pass. Again a howl should have arisen when that violation happened. But the ignorant electorate gave him the pass.

Leon Panetta is going to get grilled over his support for terrorist groups. We will see how that turns out. I suspect he will get a pass to get the new appointment to DOD director.

Posted by: tom humes at June 11, 2011 10:48 PM
Comment #324346
I am blaming those in government who should not be there for a variety of reasons. You twisted my words and when you released they sprung back to proper form.

Tom you may think they should not be there but the fact is the “they you are referring to was duly elected and in fact should be there. I did not twist your words you hide behind the constitution many a time, and as Weary stated to open this post the constitution is dead. That is what this post is about. The fact is that just because you think these people are commies or terrorist sympathizers does not make it so. In addition as I said earlier where in the constitution does it say no commies, capitalist only?


The Constitution does not prohibit what kind of mentor we have nor who we associate with. So your straw man did not keep the crows out.

My strawman! You told us it was the reason the machinery of the government, or as we say it the constitution, was all messed up.

The point I was making is that people have to have some knowledge about the person they are voting for or appointing to position. When the knowledge is not present, and the person votes for that person anyway, that is an ignorant vote and that is why the “machinery of government” has such lousy operators.

People do need to have knowledge about who they vote for. But to lay the blame for the problems with the machinery that is our government on Obama is wrong and misleading. It shows how far you have to go to get to the point of being included in those knowledgeable to vote IMHO. You forget to mention the influence corporate America has in the decisions being made for our nation this past 30 years.


Obama did not produce an actual copy of his birth certificate in a timely manner. There is a process where and how that is to be done. He violated it and got a pass. Again a howl should have arisen when that violation happened. But the ignorant electorate gave him the pass.

Obama did present what ever was required to be considered for the office of president, or he would not have been on the ballot. To say it was not in a timely manner is pure foolishness Tom. Because he did not make whatever records the extremist on the far right thought was necessary available to every extremist does not mean he did not fulfill the requirements to run for president. This nonsense of the “birthers” shows the lack of knowledge that is necessary to be an informed voter. The electorate knew this BS from the far right was without merit from the beginning of the fraud perpetrated by these nutcases.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 11, 2011 11:39 PM
Comment #324349
Had I simply stated that the drug testing is unconstitutional I would have received no response.

Weary perhaps so but to falsely accuse someone of sexual harassment is not the way to accomplish your goal. To people who have been the victims of sexual harassment it trivializes their plight. To those of us who would like to know why IYHO it is unconstitutional it serves no purpose.

When I read your post I didn’t know if you were serious or if you were actually talking about a drug test, as a drug test is not sexual harassment by any stretch.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 12, 2011 12:07 AM
Comment #324351

To force someone to give evidence against themselves is unconstitutional and illegal. To force someone to submit to a search of their person without a warrant or probable cause is as illegal as someone forcing another to submit to a rape or sexual harrassment. There are no legal crimes. And to be sure I did not accuse anyone of sexual harassment. No one person was named. Please quit putting words in my mouth, j2t2. It’s getting quite tiresome.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 12, 2011 12:27 AM
Comment #324352

You said you were raped. Disgusting and belittling to those who actually suffer that crime.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 12, 2011 7:37 AM
Comment #324354

I unpublished your previous article because it did not meet the standards we uphold at WatchBlog for publication.

It’s not censorship to unpublish an article that clearly needed more work, more thought and some semblance of being professionally written.

You are welcome to rewrite your article and republish it.

Posted by: WatchBlog Publisher at June 12, 2011 8:27 AM
Comment #324356

Here’s a hypothetical: One party says to another, “I’ll give you a job, but in return you have to prove, via drug testing, that you are not impaired”.

A contract between two private parties doesn’t meet your libertarian standards?

Posted by: steve miller at June 12, 2011 8:48 AM
Comment #324358

Steve,

Your correct that private contracts are not subject to Constitutional restrictions with certain exceptions. However, private contracts that violate the spirit of protections we all enjoy with regard to government activity are, in my opinion, repugnant. Sure, private businesses can search and violate privacy with impunity. But should they? Should we encourage such activities? Drug testing without cause falls into that category, in my opinion.

Posted by: Rich at June 12, 2011 9:22 AM
Comment #324360


Weary, as a construction worker, I was required to submit to mandatory drug testing. It is primarily a blue collar thing. You here of very few white collar workers being forced to submit to drug testing.

Tom, It wasn’t a commie, a socialist, or even a liberal that got the ball rolling on mandatory drug testing.

It was a conservative Republican free market capitalist by the name of Reagan that did that violation of the Constitution.

Capitalism and capitalists can’t be held to the same standards as ordinary citizens. Things like the Constitution and patriotism are deterrents to capitalism.

From Reagan through Obama, in the name of free market capitalism, We The People have surrendered our government and our Constitution to capital. In return we get to consume wantonly while we surrender freedoms.

Our Founding Fathers fought a revolution to free themselves from the King and his corporations. Today, we have crowned capital and it’s corporations our new rulers. So, if capital wants to outsource millions of our jobs to low wage markets and illegally import millions of low wage workers, our government is there to support the desires of our new rulers.

So, tell us again Tom, which voters are the misguided ones?

Posted by: jlw at June 12, 2011 9:28 AM
Comment #324361

Willie et al

Constitutional guarantees of free speech are deigned to limit the power of government.

No private supplier is required to provide you a forum, nor is anybody required to listen.

The beauty of free speech is that it gives people information and choices. Some speech is more valuable than others. We do not allow the authorities to make the choice, but we certainly allow the people to do so.

I have the right to assert the existence of ghosts, UFOs or witchcraft. You have the right to not listen or tell me that it is stupid. If you choose not to invite me to speak on these issues, I have no recourse.

I didn’t follow the post you are talking about because I could not understand what you were talking about.

Posted by: C&J at June 12, 2011 9:33 AM
Comment #324362
There are no legal crimes. And to be sure I did not accuse anyone of sexual harassment. No one person was named. Please quit putting words in my mouth, j2t2. It’s getting quite tiresome.

Not by name Weary, but by position in the company you work for, so I am not sure why you think I am putting words into your mouth.

As far as drug testing I do agree with you, but once again the shift to conservatism 30 years ago is why the constitution has been abused. Its ok when it is a war to violate the constitution I guess.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 12, 2011 9:53 AM
Comment #324364

steve

“A contract between two private parties doesn’t meet your libertarian standards?”

so long as the conitions were made clear as a condition of employment, and it is an agreement between private parties, i’de say yes. the problem lies in the gov’t mandating random testing for certain occupations within the private sector. it was the drug free workplace act that opened this padoras box. the funny thing about it is many saftey sensative occupations are left out. why should police officers be exempt for example. you have to make life and death decisions very quickly, and have the legal authority to use deadly force. while we’re at it, lets require ALL elected officials to submit to random testing. after all they saw fit to put it in place, they should be ok with setting an example for the rest of us. personally i think workplace drug testing should only take place when there is probable cause.

Posted by: dbs at June 12, 2011 10:39 AM
Comment #324365

willie

i read your post, and to be honest i didn’t know what the hell you were talking about. a couple more paragraphs of clarification would have been extremely helpful. i understand the comparison now, but without a little more information it just sounded like you were literally sexually assaulted at work.

Posted by: dbs at June 12, 2011 10:48 AM
Comment #324368

Dbs,
Fair enough. I suppose we have here a “slippery slope” scenario. It sounds great to have all bus, plane, and ship operators submit to drug testing; you don’t want to be a passenger while the operator is impaired, right? But wait, why not all construction workers, too? Of course you can’t leave child care workers out…….right? :) Where does it end?

I myself am required to be in a random testing program to hold the Master Captain credential. The USCG does a thorough security clearance upon issuing, and renewing, the license. In addition, I must carry a Transportation Workers Identification Card (T.W.I.C.), imprinted w/a biometric fingerprint. This requires a SECOND, full security clearance. Doesn’t the Coast Guard do it well enough? I don’t know, but I AM forced to subject myself to the time and expense of this redundancy.

I am not in complete disagreement w/ Willie’s view. Perhaps the overly dramatic and self-involved presentation tweaked me.

Posted by: steve miller at June 12, 2011 10:53 AM
Comment #324370

I respect your decision to unpublish, WatchBlog Publisher.

However, with regards to the comments, in this and other posts, argueing against, they are basically putting the pennies on the eyes of the U.S. Constitution.

j2t2, argueing in favor of the Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling that says:

“We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.

is arguing in favor of removing the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

The Indiana Supreme Court has destroyed the fourth amendment with this ruling. The Indiana Supreme Court has given law enforcement permission to disregard the law. To excuse this by saying:

Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes, more than likely Weary, but the good news is you are alive to defend your position in court. As a libertarian you should also for go any government help with costs for your defense and paying the bills whilst in the jail. However because it is a rich man’s world Weary,you will need money to prove the search was illegal.

is expecting me to defend myself in the same court that gave law enforcement permission to break the law. This is another form of insanity. And, submitting to a contract under duress is no contract at all.

You people may very well wake up one day to find this forum illegal and subversive and extinct.

So… Repeat after me!

The Constitution is dead!
Posted by rsejncsu82 on 04/12/11 9:00 PM


THE CONSTITUTION IS DEAD
By Al Duncan

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 12, 2011 11:01 AM
Comment #324371

Thank You, steve miller. My post is vindicated.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 12, 2011 11:03 AM
Comment #324372

I took your article completely seriously. You’re saying it was a drug test?

Good heavens. On a figurative level, you’re really stretching it. Being required to take a drug test is not having somebody force you to have sex with them. And making that complaint without further explanation could only lead people to come to a certain conclusion.

On a literal level?

First, you should understand that you are employed by a private corporation, and that it is well within their rights under the law to require a drug test, especially if you work a job where other’s safety is on the line, and intoxication can therefore be dangerous.

As for free speech, this is a private website that you are allowed to post on at the discretion of the owner, and according to his rules. Surely an economic libertarian such as yourself would understand that this is the way it goes with property rights on the internet, short of government intervention, and government intervention in this case would mean you getting the government, in the form of the courts or the executive branch, to force Cameron Barrett here to publish your post. Now minus some agreement, some contract, that you were going to get to be published in general for a time period, or X amount of times, or whatever, you don’t have that right to force publication. In fact, if you are required to adhere to certain standards or if Cameron believes your article to be libel (which is certainly possible in this case, since you are accusing those you work with of a serious manifestly illegal crime) then you might not even be able to force him to publish it then.

People wonder why I beat up on Breitbart, and this is part of the reason why: his success, and the success of others who publish falsely defamatory, reputation destroying material, encourages others to be equally reckless. There have long been exceptions to free speech, and libel and slander are among the oldest we can speak of.

People respond to content. Defamatory claims and stories can motivate firings, reprisals, can damage relationships with family, can bring people’s good faith behavior into permanent question, and so on and so forth. This is not simply, “I get to post what I want because it’s in the name of a cause I believe in, which is right, and the other side are moral degenerates, socialists and anti-American.”

No, you don’t. You must stick to the truth, because the alternative is manipulative, harmful, dangerous, and underminds the public discourse.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 12, 2011 11:12 AM
Comment #324373

What about those on boards of directors, CEOs and other corporate officers?

We now see states passing mandatory drug testing for students. What about teachers, administrators and members of the school boards?

If we are going to have mandatory drug testing, it should apply to every citizen, randomly, once a year. That is how you fight the war on drugs, every citizen is guilty until proven innocent, once a year.

Posted by: jlw at June 12, 2011 11:19 AM
Comment #324374

I will say again, I respect WatchBlog Publisher’s decision to unpublish. It is not an issue to me. Sure, the post was inflamatory. That was the point. The parallels are identical. The wording is different.

As for libel. This does not fall into that catagory whatsoever. No names were mentioned. My employer was not named. For that matter Weary Weary is a fictional character over two-hundred years old! There is no libel against anyone. You would be very hard pressed to prove this incident even happened. Many posts have doubted the authenticity of that post. Beyond a reasonable doubt, Stephen Daugherty. Does that sound familliar? It’s not a catchy lingo or a republican talking point.

I may also go as far to say that;

Defamatory claims and stories can motivate firings, reprisals, can damage relationships with family, can bring people’s good faith behavior into permanent question, and so on and so forth.

is another way of saying “don’t say things we disagree with”. What other people do and what their motivation is rests solely on their choice to act the way they did. My words did not force any of these actions. They are responsible for their reaction, not my words.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 12, 2011 11:35 AM
Comment #324376

http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/161181-our-society-mentally-ill.html

Of course we often prefer to judge individuals who are failing to thrive in our society, judge them as dysfunctional and/or socially maladjusted losers. We do so because our egos get a nice payoff from this, evaluating others as life-failures gives our petty egos an enjoyable rush of superiority. So we let our society off the hook and cruelly sink the hook into its soul-sick victims.

As if there should be no maladjusted individuals in a maladjusted society! As if an unbalanced mode of life isn’t going to produce plenty of unbalanced people. Ours is a crazy-making society but we stay in denial about this by keeping our focus on individuals and holding them totally accountable for their mental problems.
Nowhere is this tendency to wrongly and moralistically assign blame to the mentally ill more unfair and egregious than in the so-called criminal justice system, where seriously impaired people who fail to meet the law’s strict definition of “insanity” routinely get punished for acting out their mental illness. Society produces weird and deranged people and then keeps them in check by locking them up. Not too brilliant, but it keeps an incompetent society from imploding.
So, the way it works is profoundly unjust, it’s the body politic, body economic, and body sociologic itself that’s sick, but it’s we the people who bear the mental pain and anguish of living in an ailing system. And the powers that be in our society show no interest in rectifying this demented state of affairs. Of course they don’t, because they enjoy their economically and politically powerful and privileged status in society, it’s not in their pragmatic interest to try to socially engineer a better form of life for their fellow man.


Posted by: Weary Willie at June 12, 2011 12:42 PM
Comment #324377

http://www.culturechange.org/e-letter-27.html

When we consider the fact that the global economic system is destroying the planet’s biosphere and is far from equitable, we can take the view that what challenges us is social mental illness unprecedented on a mass scale. The word “sane” derives from the French word for health. Insane = unhealthy. Apply the concept to society as well as the individual.

The daily grind is sold as a lifestyle of responsibility and self-fulfillment. More and more so, that’s a sales job, a sham. Not being able to see this can be a result of victimization, propaganda, or psychological denial. Compassion and cooperation are abandoned in favor of pure personal interest. Refusing to see this, hiding one’s head in the sand, is a form of insanity. Others are affected unfairly by one’s denial of the insanity of the daily grind.
The U.S. government is the king of the insane asylum. The U.S. is not an outside entity, but is of the nut house. In this case, the bully of the hospital for the criminally insane is both a patient and the administrator.
If this sounds too dismal, it’s because you don’t want to believe it.


Posted by: Weary Willie at June 12, 2011 12:58 PM
Comment #324378

Weary Willie-
That is perhaps the only saving grace in this situation. I seriously considered that some real harm had been done to you, but instead it was just inflammatory rhetoric, and deliberately so.

Now that decision in the Midwest, that’s genuinely controversial, and the folks on DailyKos don’t like it much either. But how do we get there? Well somebody else got inflammatory about the threat that crime posed to the average person, so we got on this authoritarian bent concerning the police. We got so worried about a crook getting off on a technicality, that we shaped the laws and the judgment to greatly expand police powers at our own expense. We did the class liberty/security trade, and got little for it, just like Ben Franklin said.

Now, he and others supported a kind of government that was built on rationality and working out of common, general interests. But that only works if standards of honesty, of logic and rhetoric, of evidence and academic discipline help us to rule the country wisely. Otherwise, we will find solace for our inflamed opinions in bad law and travesties of good government.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 12, 2011 1:29 PM
Comment #324379

I don’t see people speaking out on the decision in the Midwest, Stephen Daugherty. Not here on WatchBlog. I see poeple defending it and telling me it’s up to me to defend myself against unlawfull behavour in the court that gave the police permission to be unlawful. That makes no sence and on it’s face leaves me unprotected and without redress.

Somebody is going to have to wake up and smell the stench this country is consumed with. Somebody must realize this country is sick. If it takes a little inflamitory retoric that hurts no one then I am willing to try that route, but I’m very concerned that this may be the route we are walking on.

http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/007543.html#323747

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 12, 2011 2:12 PM
Comment #324381

willie said it well.

i read your post, and to be honest i didn’t know what the hell you were talking about. a couple more paragraphs of clarification would have been extremely helpful.

Before you clarified that you were making the comparison - hyperbolic, but hey you got over 30 responses to it, I didn’t really know what you were talking about either. Now I see the connection.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at June 12, 2011 3:30 PM
Comment #324385

Weary Willie-
You know, the thing about it is, you could get a lot more help from people if you were willing to unite with people beyond your political position on the spectrum.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 12, 2011 5:28 PM
Comment #324387

I am willing, Stephen Daugherty. I am willing, but it seems that the root word in the current definition of patriotism is compromise. The root word of compromise is submittion to the current power structure.

I’m being told how tall my grass should be, Stephen Daugherty! I’m being told I must pay the city for permission to have a yard sale. My mayor and her cohorts passed this ordinance the same year Reagan passed the Free Trade Agreement. How ironic is that?

Local governments are eating their citizenry’s wealth while a superflous federal government controls their thought patterns with the media and constant partisan bickering.

I’m not afraid to live in the United States of America, Stephen Daugherty. I don’t believe I am in danger here. But the mindset of the enviroment is, BE AFRAID, IT’S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!

I don’t want help from people who just want me to agree with them. I want help from people who also want to be left alone. I want help from people who don’t want help.


Posted by: Weary Willie at June 12, 2011 7:12 PM
Comment #324389

stephen

“You know, the thing about it is, you could get a lot more help from people if you were willing to unite with people beyond your political position on the spectrum.”

good advice. you might think about taking it yourself.

Posted by: dbs at June 12, 2011 7:17 PM
Comment #324399

dbs-
I did take that advice. Problem is, though I would try to be bipartisan, though I would try to meet them halfway, the demand was for total conformity, not just when policy was merely different, but even when it was obviously failing and falling apart.

I was content to occasionally argue politics, but spent most of my life studying computer animation, writing fiction, and following movies and things like that.

The problem became that even as Bush policies failed to do as predicted, they were zealously defended. In the beginning, what people like me wanted was for folks in the GOP to acknowledge the problems and take care of them. What happened is that eventually, even people like me, people who liked being the Clintonian middle way, realized that it was pointless to push bipartisanship, not when all compromise meant was supporting what we knew to be defective policy.

But, if your people were willing to compromise, if your people realized that you have to keep most of the rest of the country, not just your base, happy, then we could have peace.

That’s what I’m suggesting here. The reality is, if you want a majority on a certain subject, it helps if you’re not picky. If people can come together on their general interests, they can overcome many more problems.

Weary Willie-
For my part, I think sometimes fear is a good thing. Fear is what keeps you from following stupid impulses, from rushing in where angels fear to tread.

But fear can’t be everything. And you can’t get everything you want. You live in a nation with all kinds of other people. You aren’t going to get what you want simply by appealling to just those who automatically agree with you on everything.

The power structure in America is designed to frustrate people of strong feelings, to force them either to recruit a majority to their side, or find one ready-made.

That’s how we keep peace, that’s how we prevent tyranny.

People will want the power to see to their interests, no matter what. They’ll want that power, and holding it out of their grasps won’t lessen their thirst for it.

The key for a conservative, I would think, would be to figure out ways to do the most with the least, not simply to insist that nobody does anything. Why? Because if real problem are arising from not doing anything, that undermines people’s faith in conservative governance, in governing least.

The key is not merely to pull as hard as you can to keep people from choosing what the other side has to offer, but to create a situation that has some kind of equilibrium to it, so you don’t have to push and pull people so hard.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 12, 2011 11:00 PM
Comment #324403

The problem with all revolutionaries is that, if they win, they become the establishment.

Posted by: Tom Jefferson at June 13, 2011 9:17 AM
Comment #324435

Weary in reference to your false conclusion as to what I said on the issue I offer the following. The option is you are another statistic and a dead one at that. Whether the entry is legal or illegal will not be decided whilst you are barricaded into a building shooting at the police, because by doing so you have gave them the legal right to return fire and to enter and arrest you. Propose a law that peacefully resolves the problem, but don’t expect the judges you call traitors to do it for you. You were wrong to call them traitors for their ruling on the issue.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 13, 2011 10:43 PM
Comment #324439

We had a law, j2t2. It was called the fourth amendment.
What good would another law do if the original is now nul and void?

Why don’t you ask that little girl if she had a chance to peacefully resolve the problem, j2t2.

It appears you are taking a cowards way out, j2t2. You should man up and at least admit what our government and what those judges did was wrong. Individual lawsuits are not going to change it. Mass protests might, but it may very will turn into a Syrian situation.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/13/fbis-new-rules-to-give-agents-more-leeway-on-surveillance/?test=latestnews

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 14, 2011 4:52 AM
Comment #324449


One thing is certain, the corpocracy and it’s free market is going to need all the protection it can get from it’s government. Consider these intrusions into personal privacy the tip of a great iceberg that is headed our way.

I would say that in thirty years, the corpocracy owned government will have the ability to monitor every citizen, 24/7. Of course, the sheep will need little monitoring, but the sheep dogs will definitely need to be monitored and dealt with.

Winston Smith would not have gotten himself into trouble if he had just kept his mouth shut and done what he was told to do.

Posted by: jlw at June 14, 2011 1:36 PM
Comment #324653
We had a law, j2t2. It was called the fourth amendment.

Yes we did Weary. However your solution will only serve to make the law less and less restrictive.

What good would another law do if the original is now nul and void?

A good law that upholds the 4th amendment is bewtter than taking the laws into your own hands Weary.

Why don’t you ask that little girl if she had a chance to peacefully resolve the problem, j2t2.

Why don;t you ask the question “why did not the DOJ civil rights people investigate this case”.


It appears you are taking a cowards way out, j2t2. You should man up and at least admit what our government and what those judges did was wrong. Individual lawsuits are not going to change it. Mass protests might, but it may very will turn into a Syrian situation.

Jeez Weary cowardly!
Instead of “man up” perhaps you should state it more truthfully, “idiot up” comes to mind. The police do make mistakes, as do we all. The judicial branch of government has become more conservative and true to form has restricted the rights of the people by abusing the 4th amendment, at all levels of government. However the judges you have called traitors are not traitors, they have given you some sage advice, use the courts to fight your battles. Two wrongs don’t make a right Weary.

As far as protests, I am not against it at all. Protest the right issue Weary not the “manly” issue of opening fire on the cops but the issue of what needs to be done to curtail the militarization of the police.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 18, 2011 9:21 PM
Post a comment