The Glade 4.0

[youtube]k2iiirr5KI8[/youtube]


"Better start lookin' for a job!"

“I don’t worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest.”

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

"Oh please..."

Get him the hell out of there. Wow.

_________________
The Dude abides.

That was painful to watch, I had to stop.

23 cent solution for betraying the public trust. Actually more like 47 now.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I got a better way Elmo... bar of soap and a sock, most people already have those lying around at home.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Somebody watched Full Metal Jacket this weekend.

_________________
The Dude abides.

I planted berries, weeded, and burned down stumps, but I would have liked to fit it in.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I watched it. I found the guy talking unseen to be an obnoxious jerk, and while I don't agree with the Phil Hare (and find his district to be amazingly jerrymandered http://hare.house.gov/index.cfm?section ... tree=3,318 - but hey, its Illinois) I felt his frustration when the guy wouldn't let him answer the questions. Didn't blame him for leaving, even though he was pretty careless in the answers he did make.

Saying you do not care about the Constitution does not mean you will not uphold it. That statement in and of itself is not treason.

SCOTUS will eventually rule on the constitutionality of the Health Reform Bill, until then, charges of treason still fall under the innocent until proven guilty aspect of American Law.

Suggesting someone execute another vigilante style, based on the way they voted in Congress, while another rare but existant American tradition, is just impotently swinging your e-peen.

Yawn.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Micheal, feel free to propose a solution to our system which is only reactive to mistakes. Feel free to come up with a penalty for violating one's oath of office, betraying the public trust, and dismissing one's raison d'etre. That penalty must have enough force to seriously dissuade these actions which have become rampantly infectious.

Or, you could simply insult people and feel superior about one'self while not even attempting to address the problem.

Oh, seems you've chosen your course of action after all.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

There are several options available. None of them require you to call for his murder, legal execution definitely, but lawless murder, no.

You have yet to prove he has violated his oath of office. You state it is so. Many believe as you do. I would like to see proof that holds up in a court of law.

While that is being proven, as a private citizen, you have two basic options, recall him from his post, or if it is election time vote him out.

You can also charge him with treason in a civil suit, sue for damages to his constituents, hold him personally responsible for his actions. Good luck finding a court to hear it but with the mood of the country right now you might succeed. Appeal to members of the Senate or House to remove him from office and bring him to trial - oh,wait, most of them voted as he did and committed the same treason you claim he did. Guess that one isn't going to happen.

You can work on a campaign for a Constitutional amendment that will further define treason as voting for a bill that later becomes defined as unconstitutional.

What you define as treason, claim is a violation of his oath of office, is that he is not upholding the Constitution. Both the House and Senate have long assumed powers not granted to them by the Constitution. At this point in time they have precedence if not Constitutional law backing them up. What you need is a mandate from the people to return to the strictures of the Constitution. This would be a legal method, voted and ratified in the required number of States. Something as simple as no Branch of the Government may assume powers not specifically granted to them in the Constitution, made legally binding and holding the government to the limitations in the Constitution.

Right now they have most of the History of the United States telling them they can play fast and loose as long as their is no law prohibiting what they are doing,and when there is one, see if they can change it.

Once civilization crumbles, which it may at some point in the future, but I doubt in our lifetimes, vigilantism may come back into vogue once more. Until the crumble occurs I prefer to see us play by the Rule of Law and not lower ourselves to their level.

Any of those suggestions meet your request, or is the legal method just too much work for you when you just want to murder him and be done with it?

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Elmo:

Stop being a dick.

_________________

Butt the hell out Khross. If Mikey wants to insult me and I want to call him on it, its not your business.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Don't you just love it when the opposition writes your campaign ads for you.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

First off its not a Rule of Law if the law changes its meaning by the whim of people. If interstate trade is not enforced as interstate trade, you can forget the idea of Rule of Law right now. There exists plenty of case law where the Law is no longer Law but law.

Second, as you admit its an entirely flawed system why would you wish it to be upheld?

Third, I have more than two options, I have the one I mentioned which is listed as a duty and a right in the DOI.

Fourth, nothing in our system suggests the kind of massive reform necessary for peaceful restoration of the Rule of Law can be implemented. (You even acknowledge that in your post).

Fifth, the restriction you talk about (the 10th amendment) is the most ignored segment of writing in the entire document. Why do you propose writing the same thing will stop them? You're suggesting as a reasonable action one of the very definitions of insanity.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Elmo:

When did you adopt the <intentionally blank> definition of insult? Micheal said suggesting vigilante behavior was nothing more than internet posturing. He didn't insult you. He didn't even specifically address you or anything you posted.

Stop being a dick.

_________________

You're not this dense Khross, this will be last reply to you in this thread regarding this.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Ok, so there's no evidence that he doesn't defend The Constitution as a matter of record of voting, at least it's not presented by the questioners in this case.

However, he wants to "bring health insurance to everyone". How does he intend to do this? Is he going to personally pay all their policy premiums or start up some sort of private charity which will? Or does he intend to enact Unconstitutional legislation that will?

Furthermore, he doesn't ever point out where The Constitution gives the authority to Congress to create such legislation. He erroneously references The Declaration of Independence, a common error even committed on this very board. The same as erroneously citing "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare" which comes from the The Constitution's preamble, and not where it actually enumerates powers, which is contained in the forgoing articles.

So, is refusing the answer the question because he simply is ignorant of it or because he is posturing due to the "rudeness" of the people asking him to cite where he gets the authority? What do you think in the context of the evidence above?

Yet, remember The Constituents are his boss. He works for them. When my boss asks me things, he can be a rude or polite as he wants. The only thing I can threaten him with is my resignation. This keeps him from being a dick because of the time and resources invested in me via training and compensation as well as the experience I've managed to gain. I dare say that Phil Hare's resignation carries barely any weight of threat. Not that I'm so valuable in comparison, but Phil Hare is clearly so worthless.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

If you want to keep others out of it, I recommend using private messages.

Elmo, your calls for killing anyone that does you wrong makes you sound like a **** lunatic all the time.

and stop being a dick.

^ this

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Thirded.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

I watched it. I found Rep. Hare to be an ignorant, self-aggrandizing jerk, and while I don't agree with the tone of the questioner, I felt his frustration when the guy wouldn't answer the questions he was asked until he was pushed and pushed. Didn't blame Rep. Hare for leaving, even though it made him look even more like he was unable to defend his position intelligently.

Saying you do not care about the Constitution leads people to believe you will not uphold it, however, that statement in and of itself is not treason.

The Supreme Court will eventually rule on the legal challenges to the Law in question; even after they do, charges of treason still fall under the innocent until proven guilty aspect of the American legal system.

Suggesting someone execute elected officials for perceived acts of treason, based on the way they voted in Congress, while incendiary, and kind of pointless, is merely talk, and I'd hate for people to try to sound self-righteous by making personal attacks on you for it.

It's telling that people find the ignorance, belligerence and hubris of our elected public servants to be worthy of being summed up by typing "yawn".



^ this

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

All you people telling Elmo to stop being a dick need to shut the **** up. This forum has no rules. He can be a dick if he wants.

Now sure, you can respond with "stop being a dick" to his being a dick, but he it's a waste your time, his time, and overall effort. You don't want that type of behavior? ***** to the proper people, not at Elmo.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

If it has no rules, they can tell him to stop being a dick as well.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Sure they can, but what does it contribute?

The root of someone saying, "stop being a dick," is by necessity something along the lines of "you're not contributing so quit it." In other words, by making that statement they're only contributing to the level of bullshit "in the room." It's stupid.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine