What did the guy say that is so implausible? He never said that Omaba would declare martial law. He only described, accurately, in my opinion, what would happen if he did.
But this brings-up a topic that Frank is unable to comprehend- the issue of a limited government with only clearly defined powers- the powers expressed in Article I., Section 8., of the US Constitution, and explained by Madison in Federalist # 41. Today, thanks to the Socialist-Democrats and judicial activists, we have a government with unlimited power. And an unlimited debt to go with it.
How often have you heard the left and country-club Republicans cry about “gridlock,” or a “do-nothing Congress?” Well, under the original Constitution, the Founders intended That the Congress to do only what the Constitution prescribed, which wasn’t much- the rest was reserved to the states. The left and country-club Republicans always want to “get things done.” But what things? And when do we reach the point where we don’t need any more things to get done? At what point does the Congress say, “okay, we can stop expanding now?”
Under socialism- and the US is now a socialist country- you never reach the point at which government need no longer expand. Under socialism, the “job” of government and the rush to “get things done” only ends when the government controls everything. Conciliatory appeasers like Frank, Mouse Castle and so forth simply don’t realize that they are unwittingly collaborators in the left’s plan for utter cultural and political hegemony. Instead of a leftist revolution, as occurred in Cuba or the USSR, here it is being done incrementally. But the result will be the same- equality for all. Everyone will be equally miserable, equally oppressed, equally hopeless and equally broke.
An unlimited government will never be limited until it is all-encompassing. Period.
Rick, I simply asked a question. It would seem that you either read a lot into that question, or you actually realize how certain factions are perceived by the majority of Americans, and seem to have a slightly guilty conscience.
But to tell you the truth, and I may some day regret it, I can’t help but laugh when I hear that sheriff departments with their shot guns will turn away federal troops.
Also the man contradicts himself in his own explanation.
On the one hand he says that when the federal government comes to declare marshal law, that sheriff departments will defend us, he then goes on to say that no federal troops would ever participate in such acts. So who is it that the sheriffs will be defending us against, since he believes that out troops would not act on such orders? Just saying.
“He never said that Omaba (sic) would declare martial law. He only described, accurately, in my opinion, what would happen if he did.”
So his remark was similar to opining about aliens landing? Why would one hypothesize about an event unless they were envisioning that event? Finlay’s a nut job. All hat and no cattle. But hey, I give him credit for being able to sell that schtick to the rubes. Maybe it’s who buy it are the ignorant ones. Maybe both.
… and as per Rick above… . But the result will be the same- equality for all. Everyone will be equally miserable, equally oppressed, equally hopeless and equally broke. But that sounds exactly like things are today, unless of course you are lucky enough to be in the upper one percent….
The biggest problem I can see with your argument is that in the reality of today, after 14 years of Republican power, we are already exactly where you fear we would be if the left were to get back into power.
Since reality doesn’t seem to match your assumptions, perhaps you assumptions are then wrong?
The biggest problem I can see with your argument is that in the reality of today, after 14 years of Republican power, we are already exactly where you fear we would be if the left were to get back into power.
I don’t get your point. What “14 years of Republican power?”
Of course, the real problem is that the left controls the means of directing the culture; the media, Hollywood, the press, academia, “art” and so on. And, contrary to popular opinion, politics is ancillary
to culture.
Look at how the press has canonized Maya Angelou. She is a poet of gibberish, yet you’d think that she’s Poe or Longfellow. This is one extant example of the leftist control of the culture. Here is an example of Angelou’s brilliant gibberish;
“The eye follows, the land
Slips upward, creases down, forms
The gentle buttocks of a young
Giant. In the nestle,
Old adobe bricks, washed of
Whiteness, paled to umber,
Await another century.
Star Jasmine and old vines
Lay claim upon the ghosted land,
Then quiet pools whisper
Private childhood secrets.
Flush on inner cottage walls
Antiquitous faces,
Used to the gelid breath
Of old manors, glare disdainfully
Over breached time….”
Art reflects culture, and American art is incompetent, vulgar, nonsensical garbage.
Surely you don’t have a litmus test for art? What is gibberish to one person is beautiful poetry to another. I think NASCAR is pretty stupid and ballet absolutely boring. But don’t you have it in you to recognize that there differing opinions on what art is?
“Art reflects culture, and American art is incompetent, vulgar, nonsensical garbage.” My opinion is that your Duck Dynasty qualifies under that definition, but you will hardly find a single conservative whose eyes aren’t glued to the TV when it’s on.
Rick I have to say, I actually liked that poem. It was very descriptive. I could actually imagine the rolling hills and valley she was describing, and the building of some age gone by, I loved the part, “Flush on inner cottage walls
Antiquitous faces,
Used to the gelid breath
Of old manors, glare disdainfully
Over breached time….”
What a wonderful way of saying pictures of people from long ago hung on walls, looking out from those days gone by.
Oh! Wait, you didn’t get it did you. You see poetry is often about imagery, you have to read beyond the words on the page. I may not have liked Ms. Angelou’s politics, but her skills as a poet are beyond question.
Your problem is that you are, like so many of your fellow travelers, unable to separate yourself from your political self long enough to enjoy anything outside of politics.
… Some have at first for wits, then poets pass’d,
Turn’d critics next, and prov’d plain fools at last;
Some neither can for wits nor critics pass,
As heavy mules are neither horse nor ass.
Those half-learn’d witlings, num’rous in our isle
As half-form’d insects on the banks of Nile;
Unfinish’d things, one knows not what to call,
Their generation’s so equivocal:
To tell ’em, would a hundred tongues require,
Or one vain wit’s, that might a hundred tire….
But Rick, that is the point isn’t it. One man’s gibberish, “IS” another man’s poetry. And simply because one man finds it to be gibberish, does not mean it is not poetry to others.
Manny artist of any form of art are not considered great until after their passing.
Just because your taste may lean more towards “There was a man from Nantucket”, does not mean you are any less a poetry lover, you just have differing taste. Why is it in your view, even when it comes to poetry, there must be a right and a wrong? Art is not about right and wrong, it is about art for art’s sake.
Nwahahahahahahaah. Yup Sadly
What did the guy say that is so implausible? He never said that Omaba would declare martial law. He only described, accurately, in my opinion, what would happen if he did.
But this brings-up a topic that Frank is unable to comprehend- the issue of a limited government with only clearly defined powers- the powers expressed in Article I., Section 8., of the US Constitution, and explained by Madison in Federalist # 41. Today, thanks to the Socialist-Democrats and judicial activists, we have a government with unlimited power. And an unlimited debt to go with it.
How often have you heard the left and country-club Republicans cry about “gridlock,” or a “do-nothing Congress?” Well, under the original Constitution, the Founders intended That the Congress to do only what the Constitution prescribed, which wasn’t much- the rest was reserved to the states. The left and country-club Republicans always want to “get things done.” But what things? And when do we reach the point where we don’t need any more things to get done? At what point does the Congress say, “okay, we can stop expanding now?”
Under socialism- and the US is now a socialist country- you never reach the point at which government need no longer expand. Under socialism, the “job” of government and the rush to “get things done” only ends when the government controls everything. Conciliatory appeasers like Frank, Mouse Castle and so forth simply don’t realize that they are unwittingly collaborators in the left’s plan for utter cultural and political hegemony. Instead of a leftist revolution, as occurred in Cuba or the USSR, here it is being done incrementally. But the result will be the same- equality for all. Everyone will be equally miserable, equally oppressed, equally hopeless and equally broke.
An unlimited government will never be limited until it is all-encompassing. Period.
There Is So Much More To Be Done
Rick, I simply asked a question. It would seem that you either read a lot into that question, or you actually realize how certain factions are perceived by the majority of Americans, and seem to have a slightly guilty conscience.
But to tell you the truth, and I may some day regret it, I can’t help but laugh when I hear that sheriff departments with their shot guns will turn away federal troops.
Also the man contradicts himself in his own explanation.
On the one hand he says that when the federal government comes to declare marshal law, that sheriff departments will defend us, he then goes on to say that no federal troops would ever participate in such acts. So who is it that the sheriffs will be defending us against, since he believes that out troops would not act on such orders? Just saying.
“He never said that Omaba (sic) would declare martial law. He only described, accurately, in my opinion, what would happen if he did.”
So his remark was similar to opining about aliens landing? Why would one hypothesize about an event unless they were envisioning that event? Finlay’s a nut job. All hat and no cattle. But hey, I give him credit for being able to sell that schtick to the rubes. Maybe it’s who buy it are the ignorant ones. Maybe both.
What a ridiculous little hat…. Perhaps this would be better and we might then take him seriously?
Never trust anyone with too small a hat.
… and as per Rick above… . But the result will be the same- equality for all. Everyone will be equally miserable, equally oppressed, equally hopeless and equally broke. But that sounds exactly like things are today, unless of course you are lucky enough to be in the upper one percent….
The biggest problem I can see with your argument is that in the reality of today, after 14 years of Republican power, we are already exactly where you fear we would be if the left were to get back into power.
Since reality doesn’t seem to match your assumptions, perhaps you assumptions are then wrong?
The biggest problem I can see with your argument is that in the reality of today, after 14 years of Republican power, we are already exactly where you fear we would be if the left were to get back into power.
I don’t get your point. What “14 years of Republican power?”
Of course, the real problem is that the left controls the means of directing the culture; the media, Hollywood, the press, academia, “art” and so on. And, contrary to popular opinion, politics is ancillary
to culture.
Look at how the press has canonized Maya Angelou. She is a poet of gibberish, yet you’d think that she’s Poe or Longfellow. This is one extant example of the leftist control of the culture. Here is an example of Angelou’s brilliant gibberish;
“The eye follows, the land
Slips upward, creases down, forms
The gentle buttocks of a young
Giant. In the nestle,
Old adobe bricks, washed of
Whiteness, paled to umber,
Await another century.
Star Jasmine and old vines
Lay claim upon the ghosted land,
Then quiet pools whisper
Private childhood secrets.
Flush on inner cottage walls
Antiquitous faces,
Used to the gelid breath
Of old manors, glare disdainfully
Over breached time….”
Art reflects culture, and American art is incompetent, vulgar, nonsensical garbage.
Surely you don’t have a litmus test for art? What is gibberish to one person is beautiful poetry to another. I think NASCAR is pretty stupid and ballet absolutely boring. But don’t you have it in you to recognize that there differing opinions on what art is?
“Art reflects culture, and American art is incompetent, vulgar, nonsensical garbage.” My opinion is that your Duck Dynasty qualifies under that definition, but you will hardly find a single conservative whose eyes aren’t glued to the TV when it’s on.
Rick I have to say, I actually liked that poem. It was very descriptive. I could actually imagine the rolling hills and valley she was describing, and the building of some age gone by, I loved the part, “Flush on inner cottage walls
Antiquitous faces,
Used to the gelid breath
Of old manors, glare disdainfully
Over breached time….”
What a wonderful way of saying pictures of people from long ago hung on walls, looking out from those days gone by.
Oh! Wait, you didn’t get it did you. You see poetry is often about imagery, you have to read beyond the words on the page. I may not have liked Ms. Angelou’s politics, but her skills as a poet are beyond question.
Your problem is that you are, like so many of your fellow travelers, unable to separate yourself from your political self long enough to enjoy anything outside of politics.
Don’t try to lecture me about poetry.
From Pope’s An Essay on Criticism;
… Some have at first for wits, then poets pass’d,
Turn’d critics next, and prov’d plain fools at last;
Some neither can for wits nor critics pass,
As heavy mules are neither horse nor ass.
Those half-learn’d witlings, num’rous in our isle
As half-form’d insects on the banks of Nile;
Unfinish’d things, one knows not what to call,
Their generation’s so equivocal:
To tell ’em, would a hundred tongues require,
Or one vain wit’s, that might a hundred tire….
I know gibberish when I see it.
But Rick, that is the point isn’t it. One man’s gibberish, “IS” another man’s poetry. And simply because one man finds it to be gibberish, does not mean it is not poetry to others.
Manny artist of any form of art are not considered great until after their passing.
Just because your taste may lean more towards “There was a man from Nantucket”, does not mean you are any less a poetry lover, you just have differing taste. Why is it in your view, even when it comes to poetry, there must be a right and a wrong? Art is not about right and wrong, it is about art for art’s sake.