• nobody's_hero's Avatar
    Today, 06:03 AM
    I think it's a sign the dems are going to lose the majority in a few weeks. I remember Obama trying to provoke Russia with that training exercise in eastern Europe in Dec 2016 before he handed the keys over to Trump. Create some $hit so the donors' interests are still maintained. (and of course, still not having cleaned out all the neocons, McConnell will be like, 'well, we have to do what we have to do.' )
    49 replies | 1006 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    09-24-2022, 05:24 AM
    As harsh as this suggestion is, that is pretty much how things worked before the world started going crazy. Maybe there was something to it.
    27 replies | 785 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    09-22-2022, 11:40 AM
    Well, we could go back to 'my side' not doing this. I don't think DeSantis or Abbott will be able to keep this up forever. In which case it just reverts back to the status quo where democrats ship illegals to red states, and you remain curiously silent about it. I mean, what's the deal? you got a vacation home in Martha's Vinyard or something? If you want to welcome them into your community, you should be able to welcome them. But . . . you're not going to, are you? That was the point of the entire exercise. It kinda makes the outrage a bit disingenuous.
    13 replies | 759 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    09-22-2022, 10:15 AM
    What Abbott and Desantis are doing is like the story my uncle told me once, about how when he was a kid, his grandfather caught him smoking a cigarette from a pack he had lying around. He wanted to teach my uncle a lesson, so he made him sit there and smoke the rest of the pack. My uncle got so sick he decided that he wouldn't smoke another one as long as he lived. My grandpa was out a $2 pack of smokes, but it was worth the lesson. This is like making the democrats smoke the whole pack. (actually, it's not even that much).
    13 replies | 759 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    09-22-2022, 06:03 AM
    You were paying for it when this was happening (is happening): In 2021 the FedGov spent $340 million "seeding" migrant invaders around the country. America Last - Biden admin flying back previously deported invaders Biden secretly flying underage migrants into NY in dead of night US paying for and coordinating flights of inbound migrant invaders
    13 replies | 759 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    09-21-2022, 03:14 PM
    You do realize, though, that the author was quoting Lysander Spooner as an example of what he often hears from the Constitution's critics—it wasn't actually part of his argument.
    191 replies | 3676 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    09-21-2022, 02:47 PM
    I would try to play devil's advocate and present the 'pro-choice' counter-equivalency to that, but seeing as I'm actually pro-life I'd probably muck it up. It would probably go something like: "Some states have laws against mandating personal medical decisions, and not others, specifically mothers." That was hard to type out because I can't conscientiously relegate what I see as murder to a 'personal medical decision', but I'm well aware that there are areas of the country where a majority of people would think that the mother's right to choose is the most important right to protect (ironically the states that still have mask mandates, but whatever). So, they can have their laws for their people, I can have my laws for mine. Or, we support federal Congress passing a simple majority-vote law that will apply to everyone, but will not have near the endurance against repeal efforts that constitutional amendment would. Bonus question: Why didn't the framers put in an enumerated power for the federal government to make laws against murder? That seems pretty important, but regular old murder is still not a federal crime. Only in certain circumstances does the federal government get involved. Otherwise it is handled by the states.
    191 replies | 3676 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    09-21-2022, 02:40 PM
    I've admitted that I wasn't able to finish Larkin's video, so if you stopped reading after that then I guess we're even.
    191 replies | 3676 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    09-21-2022, 02:23 PM
    This is probably deserving of its own thread. did-the-constitution-fail-the-people-or-did-the-people-fail-the-constitution?
    191 replies | 3676 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    09-21-2022, 02:05 PM
    I meant allegedly in the sense that the government doesn't do a very good job of guaranteeing equal protection under the 14th. That's why liberals can burn down city blocks and get released 30 minutes after arriving at the jail, while conservatives break one window and they rot in jail for months. I agree completely, that's what the 14th says. Just making an offhanded observation on whether it is applied in practice. The 10th Amendment is what makes it a state issue. It's why some states require you to have front and rear license plates displayed on your vehicle, while other states only require the rear one. If we're to leave such a broad interpretation of the 14th to mean that the federal government has the power to make any laws it wants to under the pretext of making all things equal, then there's really no limit whatsoever to what they could do.
    191 replies | 3676 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    09-21-2022, 01:37 PM
    The dilemma of using the 14th Amendment is that there's no consensus on what the "right" is here. Yes, the 14th guarantees equal protection of rights (allegedly), but you still have to settle the debate over what the 'right' is. To give another example: People in California think everyone has the right to have a roof over their head (those homeless programs are getting nuts), but if someone tries to tell the state of Georgia that it must force hotels to give up vacant rooms to homeless people, it's gonna cause quite a stir. Chicago thinks everyone has the right to a universal basic income. That ain't gonna fly in Georgia. Is this unequal protection of rights? How could Georgia allow such an injustice against homeless, jobless American citizens living in its state, who only desire free money and a hotel room with HBO? Or . . . perhaps there a disagreement over what the 'right' is. So with abortion, what is the right in question? Half will argue that the woman's right to choose takes precedence to decide whether to continue the pregnancy to full term. The other half argues that the right to life of the unborn has priority. It really needs to either be codified into the Constitution via an amendment, or simply left for the individual states to determine (10th Amendment). A simple 51% majority to pass a basic law is fragile and frankly, useless, for settling the issue.
    191 replies | 3676 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    09-20-2022, 05:34 PM
    What makes you think I'm even saying that? Maybe the confusion is coming from you seeing something about abortion in the Bill of Rights that I'm just not seeing. You must be reading from a different version of the BoR because apparently yours doesn't include the 10th Amendment. Take slavery, for example. Kind of a critical issue to the topic of freedom, wouldn't you say? Yet, they did actually bother to amend the Constitution to abolish it (messy details aside). They didn't just strain to interpret something out of the existing Bill of Rights to justify making it illegal. Why do you suppose they didn't just pass a law to make it illegal? Maybe because 10 years or so later the other side gets a simple majority and passes a law that makes it legal again. Then the other side comes back and says "no it's illegal! Legal. Illegal! Legal!" If you think banning abortion is critical enough to require an amendment to the Constitution, then campaign to have one passed. (i'll even sign the petition myself, although I have little expectation that it would pass). If that seems insurmountable, be GLAD that you can at least find agreeable company to make it illegal at the state level. And you know which amendment expressly reserves that right? I'll give you a hint: It's a whole number between 9 and 11.
    191 replies | 3676 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    09-20-2022, 04:47 PM
    My word, I hope you didn't pay for lessons on the Bill of Rights. I'd get my money back if you did. I think it sounds more ridiculous than it did last week, TBH.
    191 replies | 3676 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    09-20-2022, 04:36 PM
    Again you completely ignore the 10th Amendment, but . . . you aren't alone. You're joined by over 2 centuries of people who completely ignored it. Or maybe the Constitution was supposed to jump out of its glass display case and elbow-drop the first guy who tried to ignore it, keeping with the logic of the thread. Useless piece of paper.
    191 replies | 3676 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    09-20-2022, 03:54 PM
    Well because for one, all the people who think abortion should be legal can leave my state, and go live with the weirdos in California (or Kansas, apparently). If I could kick them out of the country I probably would, but I can settle for kicking them out of the state. I could ask the same thing of you, in which, what do you think will be accomplished by perpetually flipping back and forth on the issue at the federal level? To give another example: The states have made more progress in having flexible policies on marijuana simply by ignoring the Federal laws against it and deciding for themselves. Some states still prohibit it. Some states make exceptions for medical use. Some states have decriminalized it. Some states have made it outright legalized. Drug use is personally not my hill to die on, but good grief how long will the wasteful War on Drugs last if we keep chocking the responsibility to the Feds on the matter? Texas is doing a better job of keeping drugs out the country than Washington DC. WTF are we paying the feds for? I firmly believe you'd see more lives saved by leaving the matter of abortion to the states than leaving it in the hands of D.C.
    191 replies | 3676 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    09-20-2022, 03:38 PM
    You misunderstand me. I don't think the mere existence of the Constitution will keep us free. (there are those who do, and are acting just as foolishly as those who stamp their feet saying' this damn piece of paper is the root of all evil.') A constitution is not some As-Seen-On-90's-TV infomercial rotisserie oven that you just "set it and forget it." Anyone looking for a form of government that thinks that is possible, is going to be sorely disappointed. What you are describing in bold is not a failure of the Constitution, it is a dereliction of duty by the people. It is a failure of the people to see to it that it is upheld. If the constitution turned to ash and blew away tomorrow, it's not magically going to make people form a backbone, or understand that not every issue has to be settled at the Federal level. To give you an example: Roe V Wade: Even after R v W has been overturned, half the country wants a federal law to ban abortion. Half the country wants a federal law to protect abortion. If by some miracle you could get both sides to agree that the Feds don't even have the Constitutional authority to consider the issue, I'd consider that magnificent progress away from the status quo.
    191 replies | 3676 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    09-20-2022, 02:47 PM
    So you think because you don't want to form a government, your neighbors won't? the Texan isn't wrong. Governments are inevitable. And as I said, if everyone agrees with you, it works fine. The moment someone doesn't . . . That's why I usually don't dedicate much time to these philosophical masturbatory threads, and I feel like I've spent too much of the day involved with this one.
    191 replies | 3676 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    09-20-2022, 02:18 PM
    How do you suppose the first governments in the history of mankind ever came into existence? I'm talking about the very first primitive tribal chief with a half dozen ho mo-sapien followers who subjugated their neighbors. Someone had to voluntarily agree to follow him. At least at first. Wait! I know, maybe he had a written Constitution! Damn, that piece of paper. Why didn't others voluntarily agree to come together to defend against this petty tyrant warlord? Maybe they did and accidentally ended up creating tribes themselves. Oops. If you guys wanna bounce philosophical idealism off each other all day, let's get philosophical. really RPF: ****sapiens? Ho mo To be clear, I have no argument against you guys in principle. If the entire world followed this arrangement and understanding, it would be a much better place. The moment one person doesn't, the seed is planted. And that's where the reality that pcosmar describes kinda drops a turd in the think tank. We probably don't disagree on the basic premise that ultimately it's the duty of the people to decide the best form of government for themselves, if any at all. Any written formal agreement is irrelevant if that foundation doesn't exist. I just think it's silly to be getting mad at a piece of paper, when the people have no desire to uphold it as written, much less resist any form of over-reaching government that, I strongly believe, would ultimately have come into fruition even without the Constitution.
    191 replies | 3676 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    09-20-2022, 02:01 PM
    We're just talking past each other. As the Texan often sarcastically (but correctly) points out, collectivism is unavoidable. If for example, you have a bunch of individuals who all collectively agree that the rights of the individual should not be violated, well that creates somewhat of conundrum doesn't it? It's like, do you want to be part of that group or . . .lol. The thing is, you're going to need a group like that if a (usually much larger) collective of people who hold absolute disdain for the rights of the individual shows up at your door, if you have any hope of resistance. And that, kids, is how baby governments are made.
    191 replies | 3676 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    09-20-2022, 01:44 PM
    Yeah, and as far as I can tell, you being an agorist has changed nothing about the existence of the United States Government. —Which, incidentally, has been my point this entire thread. The moment you use force, particularly any form of organized force, even if only for the purpose to defend your rights, you have formed a de facto government. And you wouldn't even need a constitution to do it.
    191 replies | 3676 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    09-20-2022, 01:40 PM
    So let's get rid of it. See if anything changes. I would probably make a copy of it and stash it somewhere first though, just in case things don't work out as wonderfully as advertised.
    191 replies | 3676 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    09-20-2022, 01:11 PM
    Well let's not forget that half the people here joined in the chorus of admonishing and ridiculing them, for specifics I'm not going to get into here, because I know how quickly it would derail the thread. About that little insurrection . . .
    191 replies | 3676 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    09-20-2022, 12:52 PM
    The same recourse they would have if it didn't exist: the balls to do something about it, to alter or even abolish government. Everything King George III did was legal up until the people decided it wasn't. But again that responsibility rests entirely on the people, not a piece of paper. You could sneak into the national archives and replace the Constitution with some kindergartener's first finger-painting, and it wouldn't change much. However on my list of priorities of things to change about the federal government, getting rid of the Constitution and the BoR with it, would not make the first thousand pages. Especially when there are people who are ALSO calling for the abolition of that 'racist document hatched by white nationalists' because they want to rule uncontested in a vacuum devoid of any common principles. I cannot abide that. And I do not see the merit in helping them point out its flaws, at this time. (which is why, you must forgive me, I could not finish even this dude's short video) The constitution, at least, is as Jefferson put it: "a text to which those who are watchful may again rally & recall the people: they fix too for the people principles for their political creed."
    191 replies | 3676 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    09-20-2022, 12:40 PM
    And would the absence of a piece of paper prevent that? (<--- my point in all this) (my answer: No.) You need only look at areas of the world where actual warlords exist. The weak submit to the strong. Or more accurately, the unorganized submit to the organized. But they don't need any paper to show who is boss. In the absence of government, one will be formed. Just like 'bad money drives out good money'. Bad government drives out good government (or even no government).
    191 replies | 3676 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    09-20-2022, 12:31 PM
    I'm listening to it now, and there is much I agree with, at least in principle. However, I still think it's rather silly to blame a piece of paper for our woes. Whether it's the US Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, or mama's List of Chores for the household that she slapped to the fridge with a magnet, it's all utterly meaningless if it isn't enforced. And I'd be willing to bet everything that if the people had been steadfast in enforcing the constitution as it exists in writing today, this guy would have no audience.
    191 replies | 3676 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    09-20-2022, 12:17 PM
    To be frank, I was responding to your implication that pcosmar endorsed communism with his comment, which was a matter-of-fact statement of reality rather than an opinion. It really had nothing to do with the video. Let's say you live in a land with 1,000 rugged individualists and a massive government rolls up to the border er, excuse me, non-border of your land, how do you intend or expect to stop it, without organizing? And what would you call this organization, keeping in mind that it quacks like a government, walks like government, and swims like government?
    191 replies | 3676 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    09-20-2022, 12:15 PM
    This is true. I amended my post while you were typing this to say just that.
    191 replies | 3676 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    09-20-2022, 11:47 AM
    Do you think that if we had kept the Articles of Confederation, with the spineless people we have in the nation now (present company and myself included), that it would not have ballooned into the government we have today? Or if we had nothing at all on paper, that we would have kept government either restrained, or from forming at all if it did not exist? I do not believe that pcosmar was "embracing" anything. He was stating an inevitability. Governments come from somewhere. Even in the complete absence of government, it must be kept at bay, lest one be formed, and that has NOTHING to do with a piece of paper, and everything to do with the people. In the effort to keep one at bay, you must organize, and in essence, you have at that moment created a de facto government. Ooopsie.
    191 replies | 3676 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    09-20-2022, 05:25 AM
    Probably gets tired of having to pay off people to keep a lid on his kiddy diddling.
    10 replies | 539 view(s)
  • nobody's_hero's Avatar
    09-18-2022, 09:01 PM
    I believe what Ron Paul said about the 9/11 attacks. When you piss people off enough who have no recourse, there is blowback. Of course, the media attacked him for "justifying" the 9/11 attacks but really what he was doing was pointing out the motive. AFAIK he has never personally endorsed any of the beliefs that there was a controlled demolition of the towers. People are free to believe what they want, but that is a really tough pill to get (most) people to swallow. We're doing good enough to convince people that our meddling overseas is not really in America's best interests, for a variety of reasons.
    40 replies | 2602 view(s)
More Activity

3 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    Don't give up!!! The revolution starts with education even in the face of denial. Facts will prevail.
  2. check back
  3. View Conversation
    Nice profile pic!
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 3 of 3
About nobody's_hero

Basic Information

Signature


Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
This is getting silly.
Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
It started silly.
T.S. Eliot's The Hollow Men

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato

We Are Running Out of Time - Mini Me

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
9,788
Posts Per Day
1.83
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
3
Most Recent Message
07-07-2011 07:49 PM
General Information
Last Activity
Today 06:07 AM
Join Date
01-23-2008
Referrals
0

5 Friends

  1. CaptainAmerica CaptainAmerica is offline

    Banned

    CaptainAmerica
  2. georgiapeach georgiapeach is offline

    Member

    georgiapeach
  3. HarrySeaward HarrySeaward is offline

    Member

    HarrySeaward
  4. RCA RCA is offline

    Member

    RCA
  5. Theocrat Theocrat is offline

    Member

    • Send a message via Skype™ to Theocrat
    Theocrat
Showing Friends 1 to 5 of 5

09-20-2022


09-08-2022


07-29-2022


09-12-2021


09-09-2021


01-14-2021


11-28-2020


04-06-2018


03-17-2018


No results to display...
Page 1 of 73 1231151 ... LastLast

09-21-2022


09-20-2022



Page 1 of 73 1231151 ... LastLast