Who will the US Armed Forces back?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

When things get dicey here at home

[AggieTool]

When things get dicey here at home

I dunno, but I bet if you watch Red Dawn a few more times, it'll become all too clear.:D

[Curly Bill]

They'll probably back the Chinese, since they're the only ones that'll have any money to pay soldiers with.

[Frozen Sooner]

Man, I really hope you're not insinuating that the United States Armed Forces are full of traitors. I'm sure you mean something else entirely.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

They'll probably back the Chinese, since they're the only ones that'll have any money to pay soldiers with.Good point! What will the Chinese do?

[SicEmBaylor]

I'd really rather the armed forces stay out of any internal political problems. The idea of being another banana republic with a military that is constantly overthrowing civilian leaders has very little appeal to me.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'd really rather the armed forces stay out of any internal political problems. The idea of being another banana republic with a military that is constantly overthrowing civilian leaders has very little appeal to me.Prediction?

[SicEmBaylor]

Prediction?

Prediction of what? I'm not sure I even know what the hell you're talking about.

[olevetonahill]

Prediction of what? I'm not sure I even know what the hell you're talking about.

Does anyone ?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Prediction of what? I'm not sure I even know what the hell you're talking about.

Does anyone ?Things happen brought on by the government that are deemed unacceptable by large segaments of the population, and organized resistance forms. What the heck did you think I was talking about? I thought some of you might have some ideas on the likelihood of that, how severe that might become, and how might law enforcement and maybe even the military get involved. I don't know what else you could have thought I meant.

[SCOUT]

Things happen brought on by the government that are deemed unacceptable by large segaments of the population, and organized resistance forms. What the heck did you think I was talking about? I thought some of you might have some ideas on the likelihood of that, how severe that might become, and how might law enforcement and maybe even the military get involved. I don't know what else you could have thought I meant.

I honestly still don't know what you meant. Are you trying to determine who would fight whom in something like an internal war?

I hope not. The beauty of our elective process is that there are many options prior to military involvement.


EDIT: Sorry about that Vet. I am not sure how I managed to throw your name in there.

[olevetonahill]

Shat
I didnt say that carp
Some how the quote thingy got all ****ed up:eek:

[Harry Beanbag]

Man, I really hope you're not insinuating that the United States Armed Forces are full of traitors. I'm sure you mean something else entirely.

I agree. I would hate to think the armed forces has anything in common with Congress.

[SoonerBorn68]

Isn't using our military against our civilians banned by the Consitution?

[bluedogok]

Man, I really hope you're not insinuating that the United States Armed Forces are full of traitors. I'm sure you mean something else entirely.
I think he is asking if anyone feels that IF ORDERED by a higher command will they follow orders to act against their own citizens.


I hope not. The beauty of our elective process is that there are many options prior to military involvement.
What if those in power choose to bypass the elective process?


Isn't using our military against our civilians banned by the Consitution?
The Constitution seems to matter less and less to more politicians. Those who do not respect the document should not be expected to honor it.

[SoonerBorn68]

Mattering, and upholding & defending are two different things.

[KABOOKIE]

Isn't using our military against our civilians banned by the Consitution?

Even so, what's keeping Brack from ordering the military to take out those "domestic enemies of the Constitution"???

[SoonerBorn68]

Hopefully the 2nd Amendment. :D

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

"What if those in power choose to bypass the elective process?"-bluedogok

or tamper with it enough to render it fraudulent?

[GottaHavePride]

Things happen brought on by the government that are deemed unacceptable by large segaments of the population, and organized resistance forms. What the heck did you think I was talking about? I thought some of you might have some ideas on the likelihood of that, how severe that might become, and how might law enforcement and maybe even the military get involved. I don't know what else you could have thought I meant.

Zero likelihood.

This thread is starting to remind me of a guy I met in San Diego. He walked up to me wearing an entire suit made of tinfoil carrying a squashed styrofoam thing. He claimed he was a time traveler, the tinfoil was his spacesuit, and the styrofoam thing was the last egg of an alien species destined to save all mankind from total destruction.

I told him to keep up the good work and left as quickly as I could without looking like I was leaving quickly.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Zero likelihood.

This thread is starting to remind me of a guy I met in San Diego. He walked up to me wearing an entire suit made of tinfoil carrying a squashed styrofoam thing. He claimed he was a time traveler, the tinfoil was his spacesuit, and the styrofoam thing was the last egg of an alien species destined to save all mankind from total destruction.

I told him to keep up the good work and left as quickly as I could without looking like I was leaving quickly.Right on! Food for thought, and very astute!

[SoonerStormchaser]

This thread needs a quick death...lock it please!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

This thread needs a quick death...lock it please!You going PC? It will be discussed in time, if not now. If not in the open, behind closed doors.

[lexsooner]

Poor guy doesn't even know the meaning of the term PC. PC has nothing to do with it. The other posters, including conservatives, are saying the subject matter of this thread is ridiculously stupid. That is all. Lock it.

[SicEmBaylor]

Poor guy doesn't even know the meaning of the term PC. PC has nothing to do with it. The other posters, including conservatives, are saying the subject matter of this thread is ridiculously stupid. That is all. Lock it.

In practical real-world terms, I agree. This notion is too absurd to even contemplate.

However, as a purely theoretical exercise, I'll say this: Deep down in my heart I do favor the secession of the southern states and the formation of a Southern Republic designed and built on a Jeffersonian utopian model of a de-centralized national government, the elimination of a national banking system, a healthy distrust of big business, a robust agrarian society, the nobility of the planter class, and a free and open marketplace of ideas.

That's my dream.

[JohnnyMack]

In practical real-world terms, I agree. This notion is too absurd to even contemplate.

However, as a purely theoretical exercise, I'll say this: Deep down in my heart I do favor the secession of the southern states and the formation of a Southern Republic designed and built on a Jeffersonian utopian model of a de-centralized national government, the elimination of a national banking system, a healthy distrust of big business, a robust agrarian society, the nobility of the planter class, and a free and open marketplace of ideas.

That's my dream.

Sounds like you're the one who needs a time machine. :D

[KABOOKIE]

I can't wait to the revolution. I'm gonna head out west and see if someone can really shoot a nat's weiner at 1,000 yards.

[SicEmBaylor]

I simply can't envision a scenario that the people, directly, would rise up and revolt. It's never ever going to happen.

The most plausible scenario would be for state delegations in Congress to just walkout and then to have those state governors and legislatures refuse to execute or enforce Federal law, acts, or orders. Once that happened I'm not sure what would happen next. The Feds would likely have to send in Federal troops in order to enforce Federal law in those states that, for all intents and purposes, left the Union. At that point, I suppose armed conflict could result if the state militias were to somehow resist the Federal troops ordered into the state. Even then, each soldier would have to decide for his or herself whether or not their allegiance rests with their home or to the Feds.

[Curly Bill]

Damn boys, I'm gonna go buy more bullets and stuff. :D

[GottaHavePride]

I simply can't envision a scenario that the people, directly, would rise up and revolt. It's never ever going to happen.

If there is ever another revolution in the United States, it will be fought with lawyers.

[StoopTroup]

If there is ever another revolution in the United States, it will be fought with lawyers.

I thought that happens every four years?

Also...I watched Conspiracy Theory again today and Captain Picard is probably gonna waterboard the clone soon.

[GottaHavePride]

I thought that happens every four years?


No, I just call that the Biggest Internet Weenis-Fight in the Universe.

[King Barry's Back]

No civil meltdown is coming here.

Obama is arm twisting for all he's worth to get his medical reform onto the Senate floor, despite the biggest Democrat majorities in decades.

He'll get something passed. It won't be much like what he really wanted, but it'll be enough that he'll claim a victory.

His global warming bill is dead.

The economy will probably continue to sputter forward slowly, and he'll probably pick up a little support from that, but not much.

The Congressional elections will role round next year, some more Republicans will get elected, and Obama's agenda will have to drift somewhere to the right as he seeks re-election.

If Obama makes the right adjustments, he'll be re-elected, but won't have any coat tails, and his left-leaning base will be badly disillusioned and bitter towards him.

In short, Obama's wave has crested, the populace is making it's policy preferences known, and Obama will have to adjust or him and his party will pay the price.

That's the way it works, no matter who's in charge.

I kind of wish President's would stop trying to force revolutionary chance on the country all the time, and start embracing evolutionary reforms. When the small steps prove successful, launch another round of reforms. When those are successful, and public support is mounting, launch more ambitious reforms.

That's how it should work, but I guess President's see a short time between elections, and Congress gridlocks in election years, and they are weighing political factors, etc; and think I have to show a big success or I'm screwed.

[Chuck Bao]

This is such a preposterous “what if” scenario. But, it goes way beyond that. The whole question of whether the US military would turn traitor against an elected US government should be offensive to all Americans, especially to the memories of those brave men and women who served in the armed forces and sacrificed all for the sake of freedom and democracy, as enshrined in the US Constitution.

There are a number of people here who feel strongly that disrespecting the US flag is tantamount to disrespecting those who have served or are serving our country. I don’t disagree with that, but the US flag is still just a symbol. The US Constitution is our way of life, legally protecting our liberties and freedoms. Tearing up the US Constitution through a military coup would be the ultimate act of betrayal.

The original poster might as well have said that he will take a crap on the American flag. In my opinion that would have been better than putting up a direct question as to the loyalty of US military troops.

I never served in the military, but I have great respect for those who have. I also live in a country that has frequent military coups and let me tell you that a military-run government or a government with the military pulling the strings is not ideal. They control without direct responsibility. There are factions within the military and they can stage a coup against their own government at any time and once you tear up the constitution, it gets easier every time and to re-write the constitution to pardon the latest batch of coup-makers.

[soonerinabilene]

all i know is it didnt work out too well for bruce willis in The Siege. also, ghp, you should have asked the time traveler when the **** we are getting our damn flying cars. its almost 2010 for christs sake.

[Harry Beanbag]

This is such a preposterous “what if” scenario. But, it goes way beyond that. The whole question of whether the US military would turn traitor against an elected US government should be offensive to all Americans, especially to the memories of those brave men and women who served in the armed forces and sacrificed all for the sake of freedom and democracy, as enshrined in the US Constitution.

There are a number of people here who feel strongly that disrespecting the US flag is tantamount to disrespecting those who have served or are serving our country. I don’t disagree with that, but the US flag is still just a symbol. The US Constitution is our way of life, legally protecting our liberties and freedoms. Tearing up the US Constitution through a military coup would be the ultimate act of betrayal.


That's just it. As a soldier/sailor/marine/airman you take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.".

Some people tend to confuse government with the Constitution. It ain't the same thing. The last phrase pertaining to regs and UCMJ is an important one.

[SicEmBaylor]

That's just it. As a soldier/sailor/marine/airman you take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.".

Some people tend to confuse government with the Constitution. It ain't the same thing. The last phrase pertaining to regs and UCMJ is an important one.

x2.

In fact, the biggest threat to the Constitution is the government itself and always has been.

[Chuck Bao]

x2.

In fact, the biggest threat to the Constitution is the government itself and always has been.

What are you talking about? The US Supreme Court is there to be that check and balance and I think it has and will continue to serve that purpose. The biggest threat is if people no longer feel that the US Constitution is valid given risks to our society. That would be a very sad day.

[SicEmBaylor]

What are you talking about? The US Supreme Court is there to be that check and balance and I think it has and will continue to serve that purpose. The biggest threat is if people no longer feel that the US Constitution is valid given risks to our society. That would be a very sad day.

You have to be kidding. Why does everyone view the Supreme Court as some sort of infalliable group of men and women who ALWAYS have the right and correct answer to any constitutional question? The Supreme Court has shown itself to be just as capable of screwing up the constitution as the other two branches of government if not more so. At the end of the day, they are still a branch of the FEDERAL government and as such they have cause to ensure a strong central/federal government of which they are a part.

The only true "check" to Federal power is a strengthening of state power.

[Chuck Bao]

You have to be kidding. Why does everyone view the Supreme Court as some sort of infalliable group of men and women who ALWAYS have the right and correct answer to any constitutional question? The Supreme Court has shown itself to be just as capable of screwing up the constitution as the other two branches of government if not more so. At the end of the day, they are still a branch of the FEDERAL government and as such they have cause to ensure a strong central/federal government of which they are a part.

The only true "check" to Federal power is a strengthening of state power.

You are a dangerous guy with dangerous beliefs. The US Supreme Court is not infalliable, but they get it right more times than not.

And, I am not opposed to states' rights. But, our culture has changed and our society is quite mobile and I think championing states rights is a throw back to earlier, simplier times. In the modern age, a wide range of state initiated rights not carried out uniformly will lead to a widening split and that can't be good for the union or people who want protection of their rights and freedoms. Gay civil unions is probably one of the best examples.

[SicEmBaylor]

You are a dangerous guy with dangerous beliefs. The US Supreme Court is not infalliable, but they get it right more times than not.

And, I am not opposed to states' rights. But, our culture has changed and our society is quite mobile and I think championing states rights is a throw back to earlier, simplier times. In the modern age, a wide range of state initiated rights not carried out uniformly will lead to a widening split and that can't be good for the union or people who want protection of their rights and freedoms. Gay civil unions is probably one of the best examples.

I couldn't disagree more. I think one of the reasons modern political discourse is so negative is because everyone looks for a Federal/national solution to domestic problems that are best solved on the state level. Gay civil unions are an excellent example -- if states were free to craft their own domestic policy free of uniform Federal policy then it'd allow more progressive states to freely pass civil unions without worrying about how it would conflict with a more conservative state's policy. Which, actually, is already the case (it's called the public policy exemption to the full faith and credit clause) but that's beside the point...

I'm actually of the opinion that a strengthening of state power would be most beneficial to progressive causes. The marquee causes of the left have always been held back because the country, like it or not, leans to the right and simply will not tolerate a huge shift in national domestic policy to the left.

Furthermore, it's totally inconsistent to champion the cause of the Constitution on the one hand and then say that the delicate balance between levels and branches of the government is outdated for our time. Like it or not, the original constitution attempted to equally balance the powers of the Federal and State governments specifically to avoid the national political turmoil that would result from diverse states with diverse populations all fighting a zero-sum game for national dominance.

[Chuck Bao]

I couldn't disagree more. I think one of the reasons modern political discourse is so negative is because everyone looks for a Federal/national solution to domestic problems that are best solved on the state level. Gay civil unions are an excellent example -- if states were free to craft their own domestic policy free of uniform Federal policy then it'd allow more progressive states to freely pass civil unions without worrying about how it would conflict with a more conservative state's policy. Which, actually, is already the case (it's called the public policy exemption to the full faith and credit clause) but that's beside the point...

I'm actually of the opinion that a strengthening of state power would be most beneficial to progressive causes. The marquee causes of the left have always been held back because the country, like it or not, leans to the right and simply will not tolerate a huge shift in national domestic policy to the left.

Furthermore, it's totally inconsistent to champion the cause of the Constitution on the one hand and then say that the delicate balance between levels and branches of the government is outdated for our time. Like it or not, the original constitution attempted to equally balance the powers of the Federal and State governments specifically to avoid the national political turmoil that would result from diverse states with diverse populations all fighting a zero-sum game for national dominance.

Sic'em, you are delusional and clearly just in love with the idea of states' rights. It works up to a point and then it doesn't. How many families are spread out over several states? If social policies were up to the individual states, I am 100% certain that we wouldn't have gotten as far as we have. It would get progressively worse with the Balkanization of the US. Or, maybe that is what you want. It isn't my ideal for the US.

[Curly Bill]

All I know is this thread has me thinking I need to go buy myself a new scary looking black rifle.

If for no other reason that that, this thread is a WIN! :D

[Chuck Bao]

All I know is this thread has me thinking I need to go buy myself a new scary looking black rifle.

If for no other reason that that, this thread is a WIN! :D

Go ahead and buy that scary looking black rifle. But, if you need this thread as a reason, you are living in a cartoon world.

[Curly Bill]

Go ahead and buy that scary looking black rifle. But, if you need this thread as a reason, you are living in a cartoon world.

Well, if that cartoon world turns dark and scary I want to be able to shoot the hell outta stuff. :D


...and I figure one more rifle can't hurt in that regard. ;)

[olevetonahill]

Go ahead and buy that scary looking black rifle. But, if you need this thread as a reason, you are living in a cartoon world.

Naw Chuck it aint the REASON its just THE EXCUSE :D

[olevetonahill]

Well, if that cartoon world turns dark and scary I want to be able to shoot the hell outta stuff. :D


...and I figure one more rifle can't hurt in that regard. ;)

I figured out a long time ago that if the world turns Dark and scary, Im in a world of shat anyway
All I can do is Grab ONE of my weapons and some ammo and try to fade off in to the woods
Cause My shack aint gonna be defensible :cool:

[Curly Bill]

You know what else though? Is there a better investment these days than to buy those things? I don't think they're going to be depreciating too awful much over the years.

[Curly Bill]

I figured out a long time ago that if the world turns Dark and scary, Im in a world of shat anyway
All I can do is Grab ONE of my weapons and some ammo and try to fade off in to the woods
Cause My shack aint gonna be defensible :cool:


That's why I plan on going on the offensive! :D

[Curly Bill]

I gotta hit the hay, if the stuff hits the fan tomorrow I need at least a little rest to meet the challenges head on.

[yermom]

i think the military will be too busy to come after small potatoes like us. they will have to start with the real enemies of the state, Rush and Fox News

[Chuck Bao]

i think the military will be too busy to come after small potatoes like us. they will have to start with the real enemies of the state, Rush and Fox News

And Sic'em. Don't forget Sic'em as an enemy of state.

[NYC Poke]

Nobility of the planter class? WTF?!


http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/students/Chang-Schneider/Pictures/Mr.%20Peanut.bmp


And Sic'Em, gay marriage is a horrible example in your argument for states rights because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and issues regarding divorce, adoption, custody, inheritence, employee benefits, social security benefits, etc., in a mobile society like ours. Your view of states rights federalism produces some absurd, unjust, contradictory, and unworkable results in issues like these.

[SicEmBaylor]

Nobility of the planter class? WTF?!


http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/students/Chang-Schneider/Pictures/Mr.%20Peanut.bmp


And Sic'Em, gay marriage is a horrible example in your argument for states rights because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and issues regarding divorce, adoption, custody, inheritence, employee benefits, social security benefits, etc., in a mobile society like ours. Your view of states rights federalism produces some absurd, unjust, contradictory, and unworkable results in issues like these.

Brush up a bit. Did you miss where I said that gay marriage falls under what's known as the public policy exemption to the full, faith, and credit clause?

The Supreme Court has found that on hot button social issues, such as gay marriage, states are not bound by the full, faith, and credit clause when it contradicts another state's public policy. Meaning, for example, Texas is not obligated to recognize a gay marriage conducted in Massachusetts since it contradicts the written laws of the state of Texas and the determination of the people of the state of Texas.

[SicEmBaylor]

Any Federal restriction aside, without the exemption you'd have a situation where, for example, the state of Utah could legalize polygamy (which should be their right in any case) and the state of Montana would then have to recognize a polygamist marriage. The same applies for not only marital issues but a whole host of social issues that are acceptable in one state and not another. The state of Oklahoma should not be bound to recognize the social policy of another state.

[NYC Poke]

Brush up a bit. Did you miss where I said that gay marriage falls under what's known as the public policy exemption to the full, faith, and credit clause?

Sez who? The issue is far from settled. In fact, Oklahoma's laws regarding gay adoptions originating in other jurisdictions are unconstitional under the FF&CC. And you have not addressed the other issues, which are very thorny, and very real.

BTW, the issue of Southern secession may be fun for you to talk about. But how many people in these jurisdictions are truly willing to give up their Social Security benefits, Medicare/Medicaid, veteran's benefits, agricultural subsidies, military bases (much less the need to support a military), highway funds, and other benefits that the individual states have absolutely no way of being able to make up for? Given that most of the states you refer to are net tax beneficiaries, those states would have to jack up taxes astronomically to replace these losses? I'm not asking for your individual opinion on whether these programs should be in place to begin with, I'm asking you how you're going to sell it to your public.

Let's face it, the states are stronger together than they are separately, and talk of secession is just foolish.

[SicEmBaylor]

Sez who? The issue is far from settled. In fact, Oklahoma's laws regarding gay adoptions originating in other jurisdictions are unconstitional under the FF&CC. And you have not addressed the other issues, which are very thorny, and very real.
Court decisions arising from the public policy of a state is a somewhat different issue. I happen to vehemently disagree with the Supreme Court on the issue, but even the Supreme Court never said Oklahoma has to recognize homosexual marriage they simply have to recognize the ancillary results of that marriage whether it be adoption, property division, etc.


BTW, the issue of Southern secession may be fun for you to talk about. But how many people in these jurisdictions are truly willing to give up their Social Security benefits, Medicare/Medicaid, veteran's benefits, agricultural subsidies, military bases (much less the need to support a military), highway funds, and other benefits that the individual states have absolutely no way of being able to make up for?
I wouldn't say it's fun. In any case, I clearly stated that in practical terms the entire notion is absurd. However, I'm not really all that interested in the benefits that people want to hold onto. Social benefits are the drug by which the Federal government keeps the states and the citizens complacent. Certainly, if the Southern states were to form a new Republic, a lot of things would have to change. Saying that they couldn't survive though is absolutely absurd.

Given that most of the states you refer to are net tax beneficiaries, those states would have to jack up taxes astronomically to replace these losses?
Not at all. Social benefits, services, and probably the quality of life would have to be downgraded and become more reasonable but I don't consider that to necessarily be a bad thing. You'd only have to jack taxes up as high as you say if the Southern Republic attempted to provide what the US provides.


I'm not asking for your individual opinion on whether these programs should be in place to begin with, I'm asking you how you're going to sell it to your public.
Oh, I didn't say I could sell it. It can't be sold. It'll never happen. It's just my personal dream and preference.


Let's face it, the states are stronger together than they are separately, and talk of secession is just foolish.

Stronger isn't necessarily better and "better" is a matter of perception. I think a less commercialized and more localized state and community is a very good thing. I oppose globalization and national centralization and if it means having to "downgrade" things a bit then all the better.

[Crucifax Autumn]

This is the same shat I heard when George H.W. Bush was in office...the same shat I heard when Clinton's second term was winding down...the same shat I heard during W's tenure....blah, blah, blah....martial law...blah, blah...secede...blah, blah...etc.


But...

It's time for someone to throw the argument off in a random direction. What do you state's rights guys think of the policy that finally just ended of the feds going into places like Oregon and California to impose their federal law over state law regarding medical marijuana? This one seems even more relevant to some of the discussion than the gay mariage issue despite the gay marriage issue getting more press and a more hateful argument from both sides.

If I have Glaucoma in Nevada and my state says I can have a little bag of weed, why should some DEA guy be able to arrest me or the distribution center I got it from? 8 years of the State's rights party thought the feds could override my state law as voted on by the people of said state.

[SicEmBaylor]

It's time for someone to throw the argument off in a random direction. What do you state's rights guys think of the policy that finally just ended of the feds going into places like Oregon and California to impose their federal law over state law regarding medical marijuana?
I'm in absolute agreement. There is ZERO constitutional justification for the Federal government to deny a state the right to decide their own drug policy.


If I have Glaucoma in Nevada and my state says I can have a little bag of weed, why should some DEA guy be able to arrest me or the distribution center I got it from?
They absolutely shouldn't. It's an outrageous misuse of Federal authority, and it disgusts me to no end.


8 years of the State's rights party thought the feds could override my state law as voted on by the people of said state.

The GOP is anything but the States' rights party. They use it to pander to the base when they need to win an election, but they've never truly believed in states' rights. I detest the GOP nationally -- I'd love to see the whole damned party collapse and thrown into the trash bin of history.

[SicEmBaylor]

HOWEVER, the Feds do have the Constitutional authority to regulate the sale and transport of drugs across state lines. California, as well as any other state, should be free to allow whatever drug they wish but the Feds still have a role to play when it comes to moving that drug from California to another state (especially one where that drug is illegal).

But should the Feds have a damned thing to say about what any state wants to do visa-vie their own drug policy? Abso-f'ing not.

In fact, I think the Obama administration's decision on this issue is the best thing the administration has done. If they'd apply this same reasoning to more issues then I'd work my *** off to re-elect him.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Good answers all around!

[SicEmBaylor]

Let me say one thing regarding the party issue.

The split isn't between Republican/Democrat when it comes to this issue. The split is between nationalists/de-centralists.

Both the DNC and GOP are firmly committed to centralization -- perhaps the GOP to a slightly lesser degree but the differences are negligible. George W. Bush did more to centralize power in Washington than even Clinton did, so drawing lines between the parties on this issue is useless.

Sadly, people who think like I do don't have a party. Believers, such as me, of the old-right and our libertarian cousins are fighting a rear-guard action at best but we lost the war to the nationalists and statists (state as in a "national state") a long time ago.

Barry Goldwater wouldn't have a chance in the GOP today regardless of how many conservative activists lay claim to his legacy. He was too libertarian and too much of an anti-internationalist to ever get the nomination. The nationalists/internationalists control the GOP. Reagan, as great as he was, was merely a bridge between what remained of the old-right and the emergence of the neocons. The last truly great conservative President was Calvin Coolidge and before him it was Grover Cleveland.

Calvin Coolidge and Grover Cleveland should have monuments in D.C. In fact, it'd be great if the Lincoln and FDR memorials could be bulldozed to the ground to make room for them.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Don't feel bad, people like me don't have a party either since both major parties sell out on the issues I agree with them on and the minor parties are either too weak or to wacko to ever accomplish anything more than swinging a state to one side or another in a national race between the major parties and in the end have little or no impact on national races.

I nominate me as king!

[OUDoc]

http://riverdaughter.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/tinfoil.jpg

[TUSooner]

So we're having a coup-d'etat? I guess if I had been watching Faux News I would have known. Thanks for the heads-up.

[olevetonahill]

C1KtScrqtbc

[jkjsooner]

HOWEVER, the Feds do have the Constitutional authority to regulate the sale and transport of drugs across state lines.

I think the FEDs argument is that it is impossible to control interstate tranportation of drugs if they are freely available in one location. For example, Nevada would be fighting a losing battle if they wanted very strict drug laws.

I believe that's the excuse that the Supreme Court used give the federal government power over this via the commerce clause.

(Don't shoot the messenger here. I'm playing devil's advocate to an extent.)

I do like the idea of state's rights although it's hard for me to argue that state's rights were a good thing back in the civil rights era. Maybe a constitutional ammendment would have been a better solution to the civil right's problems but I don't know if that would hvae passed and even if it did it might not have done so for a decade or so.

[Harry Beanbag]

Sadly, people who think like I do don't have a party. Believers, such as me, of the old-right and our libertarian cousins are fighting a rear-guard action at best but we lost the war to the nationalists and statists (state as in a "national state") a long time ago.

Yep. :mad:

[rainiersooner]

Deep down in my heart I do favor the secession of the southern states and the formation of a Southern Republic designed and built on a...a robust agrarian society.

Bahahahaha. A robust agrarian society? Yeah, I guess the southern states were doing really well as an agrarian society until that whole "free" labor thing caught up with them.

[Pricetag]

So we're having a coup-d'etat? I guess if I had been watching Faux News I would have known. Thanks for the heads-up.
It was a sweet segment. They had video of all these people who were all fired up for it. There were thousands of them.

[SoonerBorn68]

If there is ever another revolution in the United States, it will be fought with lawyers.

If the fate of our nation is going to hinge on Froze, Homey, & Rus--I'd better buy more guns. :D

[Frozen Sooner]

If the fate of our nation is going to hinge on Froze, Homey, & Rus--I'd better buy more guns. :D

We've already got 'em. :D

Well, I know Homey and I do. Don't know about Rus. I assume he does.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If the fate of our nation is going to hinge on Froze, Homey, & Rus--I'd better buy more guns. :DDon't forget NYC Poke, Lid and TU Sooner.

[Frozen Sooner]

And Half a Hundred (who's as close to being a lawyer as I am-he's just finishing up his first semester as well) and Sooner_Havok.

[Frozen Sooner]

And John Kochtoston.

[Frozen Sooner]

And 47straight.
There's another attorney who posts on here I know from the real world but don't know her username.

[NormanPride]

We've already got 'em. :D

Well, I know Homey and I do. Don't know about Rus. I assume he does.

Rus + guns = ????

[Frozen Sooner]

Rus + guns = ????

Profit?

[NormanPride]

I don't see how I could possibly profit from that. :D

[Frozen Sooner]

Step 1: Rus and Guns
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Profit!

[NYC Poke]

Don't forget NYC Poke, Lid and TU Sooner.

We'll bury you in paper. Be afraid.

eta: But please see Global Warmings thread, supra, re: recycling.