PDA

View Full Version : The Republic ,The way it was supposed to be.


Wehrwulf
10-15-2006, 12:32 PM
The Republic to me resembles more of an Empire to me these days.
Originally the founders never intended there to be a large central power.
Originally there was to be no standing army. Look in New York, there you will find a statue of a soldier. G.A.R. Grand Army of the Republic. inscribed beneath it.
When the Civil War happened the sovereignty of the states came into question.
Lincolon created the army and history shows what we did with it. Jefferson stated that a federal banking system would pose more of a threat to the republic than even a standing army. We have no true states , no real money, an army that we use to force our will upon others. Imperial Federalist Government ? Crossing the Mason Dixon is the equivalent of crossing the Rubicon . We must return to the constitution or the original intent is lost. The only thing the fed is supposed to do is , be a third party arbitrator for disputes among the states. Defence of the nation, well the 2nd took care that. Just as many here I assume support the Minutemen. Look at how the people and govt treat them. Too many today take freedom for granted and trade security for liberty, they deserve nither. Shame is we have done it to ourselves. I hope that in the near future we will have a 3rd party worthy of the people, one that knows it serves us not us serving them. A government that is by the people, not plutocrats. The first real act would be the recognition of the states and that they have final say inside thier borders.

Medula Oblongata
10-15-2006, 09:21 PM
The Republic to me resembles more of an Empire to me these days.
Originally the founders never intended there to be a large central power.
Originally there was to be no standing army. Look in New York, there you will find a statue of a soldier. G.A.R. Grand Army of the Republic. inscribed beneath it.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that there was to be no standing army, that just isn't true. The standing army was to be used on the Frontier, which is where the statue of the GAOTR soldier is in NY is posed. Our Army was to be used for national defense (securing our borders), enforcing our sovereignty at our ports (inspections of ships and trade tarriffs through Naval blockades and inspections), and ensuring our trade routes were secure throughout the territories and ocean trade lanes from pirates and highwaymen.

I was intended that we have a citizen military, which we do. The vast majority of active duty troops serve less than 6 years before returning to civilian life. We also have nearly twice the number of active federal troops serving in the militia's, a true citizens army.

When the Civil War happened the sovereignty of the states came into question.
Lincolon created the army and history shows what we did with it. Jefferson stated that a federal banking system would pose more of a threat to the republic than even a standing army.

Lincold didn't create anything. The army already existed and Lincoln used STATE MILITIA'S to bolster the size. Thats why you had the "Massachussets 6th Volunteer Infantry" and the like. And what does the Federal Banking System (which isn't what you believe it to be) have to do with Lincoln's use of the militia?

We have no true states , no real money, an army that we use to force our will upon others. Imperial Federalist Government ? Crossing the Mason Dixon is the equivalent of crossing the Rubicon .
No TRUE STATES??? Then why is CA and the other states allowed to ban people from the free excercise of their liverties??? Imperialist Federal Government? Perhaps, but no more so than Imperialist states!?! AND WTF does the "Crossing of the Mason Dixon line have to do with an ancient Roman decree of keeping armies outside of Rome?

1. IT was the SOUTH that first crossed the Mason Dixon line in their assault against the North, who was pushed back to within miles of DC.

2. All government, even in 1800 was imperialist. Thats why our constitution allows us to vote the politicans out the next term, or recall them from office. WE have allowed our government to become that way through LAZYNESS.

3. No, he have no real money, and haven't since the Gold Standard was abolished. THis is with every country.

We must return to the constitution or the original intent is lost. The only thing the fed is supposed to do is , be a third party arbitrator for disputes among the states. Defence of the nation, well the 2nd took care that. Just as many here I assume support the Minutemen. Look at how the people and govt treat them. Too many today take freedom for granted and trade security for liberty, they deserve nither.


1. Where in Sam Hill do you get the idea that the only thing the government is for is arbitration between the states? Have you aver actually READ the constitution??? From the looks of it, NO. Read it, I will not waste my time trying to explain the thousands of responsibilities of the government, I haven't the time.

2. The second amendment has NOTHING to do with national defense. It has everything to do with acting as a mechanism to protect the people from a tryannical government. our government may be full of treason, treachery, and fraud, but it is not yet tyrannical. Our second amendment does not require that the average citizen take up arms in defense of the nation.

3. The minutemen are protesters and expressing their 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS to freedom of speech, freedom of association, the freedom to peaceably assemble, and to petetion the government for a redress of greivances. What does the minutemen, a group of protesters, have to do with national defense??? Do you see them on the border forming a garrison? Of actually securing the border with force and the barrel of a gun?

Yes too many people take things for granite. However to say that they don't deserve liberty, freedom, or security is utter bunk. That is a guarantee of the constitution, which you proport to espouse. Statements like that are what tyrants make when they abolish laws "most wholesome for the public welfare."


I hope that in the near future we will have a 3rd party worthy of the people, one that knows it serves us not us serving them. A government that is by the people, not plutocrats. The first real act would be the recognition of the states and that they have final say inside thier borders.

1. There are 3rd parties worthy of the people. Its the people who are not worthy of the thrid parties because they are too LAZY to become informed voters.

2. Do you have any idea what a "plutocrat" is??? A plutocracy is a controlling class of the wealthy. While the government may be comprised primarily of wealthy politicians, we are NOT a plutocracy. We are in fact a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. Our founding fathers, one and all, were very wealthy. That was why they had the time to spend making our laws. Because they didn't have to work the mill every minute to afford their bread.

3. If we were to recognise that every state had the right to have the "final say" within its borders then California would be well within its rights to ban firearms ownership completely. New Mexico could announce its intent to nationalize all private property. Were the states to have "final say" you can wave goodbye to liberty as you would see real TYRANY the next election cycle. Imagine having a Barbara Boxer governorship that went unchecked. Or a Bloomberg Governorship.

You, Sir, appear to have some serious issues. That or you have been drinking. I hear and read statements like these daily on other forums and blogs. THIS site is run by, and contributed to, by "law and order" citizens. We don't want to abolish the government, we want to make it better. We don't want to sit and complain about it either, we actually DO it when we vote.

To assume that everyone that contributes to this site is ignorent of the Constitution, as evidenced by your rambling post, I find insulting. To attempt to assert your own misguided opinion as to what the constitution means, what our founding fathers intended, and what is in place, is demeaning and irritating.

I would suggest that if you feel the need to write something like this in the future, it be posted at THR, Arf.com, etc. Things like this are not taken seriously here.

Wehrwulf
10-15-2006, 11:02 PM
No , I don't assume people who are on this site to ignorant Bet you have more in common with me than you think. Have a look a Boortz.com there is no www. in front of it. Take the political test. Those who would sacrifice liberty for security, deserve nither is a paraphrase of Ben Franklin... He was asked at one time, what kind of government did they create for us... A republic , if you can keep it was his reply. Seems that didn't last very long. The roman empire went from a republic to empire. We did the same, as you say we were imperialist as early as the 1800s. What happened to the Romans? Empires do not last. Serious. Never take these things serious anyway we all think alot and know little. The US as a collective suffers from cranial metaphysial xanthoma metaphoricaly.

Medula Oblongata
10-16-2006, 05:50 AM
No , I don't assume people who are on this site to ignorant Bet you have more in common with me than you think. Have a look a Boortz.com there is no www. in front of it. Take the political test. Those who would sacrifice liberty for security, deserve nither is a paraphrase of Ben Franklin... He was asked at one time, what kind of government did they create for us... A republic , if you can keep it was his reply. Seems that didn't last very long. The roman empire went from a republic to empire. We did the same, as you say we were imperialist as early as the 1800s. What happened to the Romans? Empires do not last. Serious. Never take these things serious anyway we all think alot and know little. The US as a collective suffers from cranial metaphysial xanthoma metaphoricaly.


Definition: Giant cell tumor of the bones.

"Giant cell tumor of the bones is a relatively uncommon tumor. It is characterized by the presence of multinucleated giant cells. The tumor is usually regarded as benign. In most patients, giant cell tumors have an indolent course, but tumors recur locally in as many as 50% of cases. Metastasis to the lungs may occur."
http://www.emedicine.com/Radio/topic307.htm

All levity aside. Neil Boortz is a TALK SHOW HOST. Do you know the difference between an entertainer and a constitutional scholar? Apparently not. I know who Boortz is, I listen to him on the radio nightly. Neil Boortz is NOT the new messiah of our nation. I disagree with his anarchist stances regularly, but I do agree with his fair tax ideas.

I don't think I have much in common with you at all.

You made a series of allegations in your first post without any solutions or reasons as to why they were allowed to happen. It was disorganized, accustory, and full of misinformation and outright poppycock. When I responded with logical informed answers you became even more outlandish and disorganized, but untimately didn't defend your previous statements as if you realized they weren't defendable. Seriously pal, it seems like you've been on a bender.

Empires don't last? Tell that to the British. Tell that to the Ottoman's. Tell that to the Persians. They all (have) had empires for more than a thousand years. Our republic has lasted only 230 and we are currently tearing ourselves apart because we have become complacent. but we are still a republic. We still have our vote, argue as you may about its value.

People who have no origional ideas of their own often spout quotes from others to make themselves seem informed and intelligent rarely understanding what was said. After reading you postings, the opinion is becoming closer to confirmed. Thomas Jefferson was speaking of those who would legislate their freedoms away and purposefully make themselves slaves to secure safety deserved neither. That is not what this country has done. We are still a nation where One may do anything, become anything, that they desire. There are costs for those libertys however.

That is what anarchists fail to understand. We have responsibilities that come with our liberties. Among those is to control the government, not to bitch piss and moan about it without doing anything.

What would you do to change all the things you see wrong???

What would you sacrifice?

Or are you just a complainer?

Do you vote? Or do you believe that one vote can't make a difference as the government is too corrupt?

No, I think this thread has gone far enough. Your points may have some validity if worded differently and supported with facts, but rambling unorganized rants of vitriol have no place here.

I have nothing against you personally, but there is nothing more to be gained in this conversation.

btown02
10-16-2006, 06:50 AM
And as Jmz5 would say, I agree. It's went far enough.