Gunboards Forums banner
61 - 80 of 85 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,018 Posts
Discussion Starter · #61 ·
Exactly.
And teach non-partisan CIVICS again so that these kids understand how our system works. Things like discussing politics is the duty of a citizen and part of keeping oneself informed in order to vote accordingly.

The Marxist left is intentionally indoctrinating our children and working to undermine our society in order to replace it with a single party totalitarian system of their creation. There is a reason that philosophy was arrested when it took action to harm society in the past. IMHO, we need a return to going after Un-American activities and a dismantling of the financial engine that is driving the financing of organizations whose stated purpose is to destroy our country and replace it.

The pendulum has swung. While the excesses of the House Un-American Activities Committee need not be repeated, it is obvious that some of its principles need to be enforced. The House Judiciary Committee was given the responsibility of the HUAC when it was dissolved. They HJC is not doing their job when officials elected to office under an oath to uphold and defend our Constitution so blatantly and publicly announce their intentions backed up by their actions to undermine that very document they swore to uphold. Accountability must happen for nowhere in the Constitution does it discuss taking the labor of one man to give to another outside of very limited powers to tax. Even welfare went to the SCOTUS who deemed it Unconstitutional outside of a narrow scope to help a few needy connect with economic freedom. The current welfare system as envisioned by the left who use it as form of economic slavery to farm votes from that demographic is unsustainable and unconstitutional. Those that push such a philosophy and act upon it need to be held accountable as the law allows. It does allow and is just being ignored for fear of repeating the excesses of the HUAC. Time to recognize that fear is not unfounded but should not detract from the lawful use of the HJC powers to stop subversion against the People of the United States. For that is exactly what is happening when one professes to want "fundamental change". Fundamental Change is nothing more than treason and a calling for the destruction of the foundations of a society.
Interesting point, but I am not in favor of a group of politicians defining what is american. But our school children should be getting a true picture of the founding of the USA. Both roses and manure that made the roses grow.
I simply want them to have the knowledge of the classical civilizations starting with the babylonians, greeks, etc. A good understanding of Roman history. The history of European government starting with the post-roman germanic states, and the medieval and more modern history of European government. They need to read locke and Hobbs.

I think in many ways the government of the USA took a lot from the Roman republic.
Font Currency Coin Money Circle


For making the left get something out of we can teach about labor strife, imperialism, you know civilize them with a Krag and the civil rights movement.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
103,551 Posts
Correct. Democracy is where the Majority Rules. We don't have a Democracy . We have a Republic where the rights of individuals cannot be changed , altered or denied because the "Majority" decided so. That's why we have 2 parties. Democrat-cy and Republic-ans . Who do you choose to protect you ?
The Founders HATED (and feared) "democracy", even though willing to allow it at a local level (townships and such). Mob rule - and they saw it happening within a decade of our gaining freedom and establishing the Constitution (to replace the unworkable Article of Confederation). French Revolution and its perversion of what we had fought for. They also HOPED for avoidance of party (partisan I seem to recall them calling it) politics, though that was a vain hope indeed. And its practitioners ahve done us (the citizens) much harm over the years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,368 Posts
Interesting point, but I am not in favor of a group of politicians defining what is american.
Nobody is and Which is why.....

While the excesses of the House Un-American Activities Committee need not be repeated, it is obvious that some of its principles need to be enforced.
It is simply a fact that if your political beliefs call for the destruction of a nation, it is subversion and sedition. If you are elected to an office and take an oath to uphold the Constitution....then you have a duty to uphold it. You cannot adhere to an oath to uphold something and then call or act towards its destruction without violating that oath, that is subversion. Advocating the destruction of our nation is sedition.

What you saw this past summer of rioting was seditious conspiracy.

18 USC Ch. 115: TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
§2384. Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Advocating for others to track you down and assault you for your political beliefs is a call for the use of violence and force. Those holding office who advocate such behavior must be held accountable. Then the rest of us can get back to a civil discourse using fact and reasoned debate to solve our problems in order to form a perfect union.
 
  • Like
Reactions: barnetmill

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,368 Posts
But who will watch the watchers?
We will.

Whose is watching them now?? These Marxist Progressives do not care about the rule of law and happily subvert it where it benefits them politically. Moderates on both sides DO adhere to the rule of law. Eliminating the fringe extremist and holding them accountable to the rule of law will establish that rule as supreme once again restoring the great equalizer to our society.
 
  • Like
Reactions: staffy

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
103,551 Posts
A complete job with the knife removes the trust issue for sure.
Might need to take the fingers and tongues as well,,,

plonker either did some poking on the web or is well educated - identifying Decimus Junius Juvenalis as the author of the question and that it was aimed at marital fidelity is not what most folks think of these days.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,018 Posts
Discussion Starter · #71 ·
Might need to take the fingers and tongues as well,,,

plonker either did some poking on the web or is well educated - identifying Decimus Junius Juvenalis as the author of the question and that it was aimed at marital fidelity is not what most folks think of these days.
In other languages it is often the guardian of the well never goes thirsty.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,286 Posts
A little of both.
I'm a mine of useless trivia.
Did you know one whelk in 8,000,000 is "left handed"? That means some poor devil counted 16,000,000 marine snails to get an average!
But can't remember my street house number!
 

·
Diamond with Oak Clusters Bullet Member
Joined
·
77,313 Posts
Free speech is the right to think and therefore state what you wish as long as it criminally does not endanger another person. Period. Anything above or below that is meddling for either end of nonexistent utopian societies. To prevent or alter is agenda bias, based around politics, societal wokeness and even control.
So you are saying that you could come into my house and start stating things that I object to & I would not have the right to eject you from my house?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,018 Posts
Discussion Starter · #74 ·
So you are saying that you could come into my house and start stating things that I object to & I would not have the right to eject you from my house?
If it is your house, you can eject at your pleasure. He/she/it have no right of trespass in your house. It does not matter what or what not they say.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,018 Posts
Discussion Starter · #76 ·
That is not what Jovialmadness said. He made no exceptions.
It is what you said that I was responding to:

CPW
So you are saying that you could come into my house and start stating things that I object to & I would not have the right to eject you from my house?
I said:
barnetmill said:
If it is your house, you can eject at your pleasure. He/she/it have no right of trespass in your house. It does not matter what or what not they say.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
493 Posts
So you are saying that you could come into my house and start stating things that I object to & I would not have the right to eject you from my house?
Nope. I am not saying I have the right to squat at your house and refuse to leave.

That is not what Jovialmadness said. He made no exceptions.
...and that is the problem. All the "exceptions". It's like being trapped in a mine and your rescuers use a nuclear bomb to clear the rubble thereby saving you to death. The intentions were good, the actions taken sucked. That is how society and politics like to blurr rights in the form of rules/regulations/laws/whatever...
 

·
Gold Bullet Member
Joined
·
6,672 Posts
Free speech is the right to think and therefore state what you wish as long as it criminally does not endanger another person.
You need to add "and doesn't upset the decorum of the situation ". There are numerous cases where speakers have been interrupted so much that they quit speaking and leave . That is not an example of something protected by the 1st Amendment but instead is a tactic to disrupt and intimidate someone with whom you disagree and therein prevent them from speaking. This post is an example where the so called free speech of wearing a hat that is controversial , is disruptive to the purpose of the classroom which is to teach life skills, not promote political opinions. There's a time and place for everything. Schools should not be subjected to controversial subjects unless it is in the area of a controlled debate.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
493 Posts
You need to add "and doesn't upset the decorum of the situation ". There are numerous cases where speakers have been interrupted so much that they quit speaking and leave . That is not an example of something protected by the 1st Amendment but instead is a tactic to disrupt and intimidate someone with whom you disagree and therein prevent them from speaking. This post is an example where the so called free speech of wearing a hat that is controversial , is disruptive to the purpose of the classroom which is to teach life skills, not promote political opinions. There's a time and place for everything. Schools should not be subjected to controversial subjects unless it is in the area of a controlled debate.
It can get insanely deep, I understand that. Who decides what where and when is the problem as a society evolves. People alowing people to decide subjectively is why this discussion exists. It should be as difficult to screw with 1st amend rights as it is for a state to secede from the union. It should be meddled with by adding exceptions as often as honest politicians appear on t.v.

Edit: error fix.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
103,551 Posts
You need to add "and doesn't upset the decorum of the situation ". There are numerous cases where speakers have been interrupted so much that they quit speaking and leave . That is not an example of something protected by the 1st Amendment but instead is a tactic to disrupt and intimidate someone with whom you disagree and therein prevent them from speaking. This post is an example where the so called free speech of wearing a hat that is controversial , is disruptive to the purpose of the classroom which is to teach life skills, not promote political opinions. There's a time and place for everything. Schools should not be subjected to controversial subjects unless it is in the area of a controlled debate.
Remember that the First Amendment's free speech protections are aimed ae controlling the Government and preventing it from censoring the Press, NOT private citizens and organizations. That really is sort of important.
 
61 - 80 of 85 Posts
Top