Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21

Thread: It Is Not Senility —— It Is The XVII Amendment

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default It Is Not Senility —— It Is The XVII Amendment

    The Washington Post reports that the current U.S. Senate is the oldest in American history. Dianne Feinstein turns 88 this month. Charles Grassley turns 88 in September.

    Richard Shelby is 87. James Inhofe is 86. Patrick Leahy is 81. Twenty-three senators are in their 70s. The average age of senators at the beginning of this year was 64.3 years.

    It may be that being 88 now is like being, say, 78 a few decades ago. So despite being the oldest, this might not be the most age-impaired Senate in our history. Robert Caro’s book about the Lyndon Johnson-dominated Senate makes it clear that more than a few solons of the 1950s were rendered largely useless by age and/or drink.

    Dianne Feinstein and some of the other Senators cited in the Post’s article insist they are still as sharp as a tack. But there must be a few who are losing it. A local pharmacist said in 2017 that he routinely sends Alzheimer’s medication to Capitol Hill.

    In reality, it’s likely that most, if not all, of the Senators in their 80s and late 70s aren’t nearly as sharp as they used to be. To me, the interesting question is whether they realize this.

    Most people I know in their 70s are constantly on the lookout for signs of mental impairment. I’m 72 and freak out if I can’t remember the fifth starter for the Arizona Diamondbacks.

    Senators seem to be different. Maybe it’s because they are surrounded by staffers whose livelihoods, and in some cases mini-empires, depend on the boss believing he’s still fully fit to serve as senator. That’s one theory, anyway.

    It’s not optimal to have a Senate with age-impaired members. Such a Senate denies fully effective representation to certain states and may function less fluidly than a Senate with 100 competent members.

    The main effect, though, may be to give more power to leadership. That was the case with Lyndon Johnson’s Senate, although Johnson (who was then in his 40s) would have dominated the Senate in any event.

    Whether extra power in leadership is desirable depends on the identity of the leaders. Whether a fluidly functioning Senate is desirable depends on the leadership’s agenda.

    What should be done about Senate senility? The obvious answer is a constitutional amendment imposing term limits. But term limits are anti-democratic. They deprive voters of the ability to elect Senators of their choice. And I’d hate to see Tom Cotton limited by law to two terms, or even three, if it came to that.

    In the end, it’s up to the opponents of very old Senators to make the case that they are age-impaired, and up to voters to evaluate the evidence and decide whether such Senators should remain in office. If we end up with only 80 or so fit Senators, the Republic should still be okay.

    Or so it seems to me.

    Senate senility
    Paul Mirengoff in Senate
    Posted on June 4, 2021 Paul Mirengoff in Senate

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...e-senility.php

    I put together a bunch of things I have been saying for decades. Please read and consider repeal if you have the time:

    Repealing the XVII Amendment will get rid of long-serving senators. There is zero chance U.S. Senators will cut their own economic throats.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...37#post2756537


    Frankly, I never understood why the public allows long-serving senators to get away with the things the public fears in imperial presidents. As I said in 2009 “Obama’s Administration was a Senate Administration.” It was the media that guaranteed a sitting senator would become president in 2008. It mattered not which party he or she came from.
    XXXXX

    Media moguls are guilty of the evils done by long-serving senators. Media paymasters would fight to the death before they would allow the XVII Amendment to be repealed. It is cheaper to elect and control a majority of senators than it is buy the HOUSE every two years. In short: Senators are bought for six years. Representatives sign two year contracts with media mouths.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...34#post2766134


    Lawyers outnumber non-lawyers in the Senate. That makes me question how much the XVII Amendment contributed to infanticide. The late Ted Kennedy (1932 - 2009) was a long-serving senator who devoted his career to killing babies.

    XXXXX

    Parenthetically, long-serving representatives are just as bad as long-serving senators. Nancy Pelosi has been in the House since 1987. She is one of the foulest woman that ever lived. People in her district elect her, and the media treats her like she is a decent human whose opinion is worthy of respect.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...26#post2786426


    H.L. Mencken’s observation became a universal truth when a bunch of brain dead halfwits did inestimable harm through their long-serving senators:

    Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. H. L. Mencken

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...00#post2800700


    Over the years I offered dozens of valid reasons for repealing the XVII Amendment. Long-serving Ted Kennedy (1932 - 2009) spent 47 years in US Senate (1962 - 2009). In all of the years Kennedy ‘served’ he never did one good thing for the American people or for the country. Now comes Mitt Romney who had to have his nose surgically removed from the Lion of Senate’s ass after the drunk died.
    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...55#post3075755


    The XVII Amendment is responsible for long-serving senators. Does anyone doubt that Joe Biden’s 36 years as a U.S. Senator was not a destructive unintended consequence?


    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?123120-Political-Triple-Dead-Heat&p=3168720#post3168720


    . . . repealing the XVII Amendment will end the reign of terror brought on by long-serving senators.

    XXXXX

    Clause 1 was a helluva lot better than long-serving senators:


    Clause 1: Composition; Election of Senators


    The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

    Senators were crooks and scoundrels before the XVII Amendment (1913) to be sure, but at least they were not traitors. It was long-serving senators —— DEMOCRATS & REPUBLICANS —— that turned the U.S. Senate into a nest of traitors.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...31#post3213331


    . . . the XVII Amendment did more for long-serving hags than it did for their male counterparts. That says a lot when you look at the worst of them —— Joe Biden (36 years), John Kerry (23 years), Patrick Leahy (45 years) and the late Ted Kennedy (46 years).

    XXXXX

    Long-serving Republicans were not much better than Democrats since they willing had a hand in everything Democrats did to this country.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...36#post3383636


    Calling FORMER LONG-SERVING Senator Joe Biden to testify is good for a few laughs. That is as far as it goes. Nobody really expects a nest of traitors to punish one of their own.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...95#post3437995


    On top of senators stealing tax dollars legally they enrich family members à la Joe Biden. Repealing the XVI Amendment is a tough go at this time, while repealing the XVII Amendment will at least put the breaks on the blood kin of long-serving parasites.
    XXXXX

    Most especially long-serving Democrat senators cannot live with the thought of losing control over earned incomes that built this country before 1917. I am talking abut the very wealthy, and average Americans, protecting their incomes from being confiscated by touchy-feely parasites.

    NOTE: The longer Democrats serve in the U.S. Senate the richer they become. The years of senators getting an envelope stuffed with money (BRIBES) under the table disappeared when Democrat parasites got the XVI and XVII Amendments.

    In short: Becoming very wealthy on tax dollars is contagious among Senate Democrats. Check the wealth top Senate Democrats accumulated if you doubt me. They all arrive in Washington wearing dirty underwear and leave with steamer trunks full of tax dollars.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...19#post3456019


    Considering the Democrats in Congress coupled with long-serving senators, I doubt if nine conservative justices could balance the scale.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...32#post3498032


    Biden’s bunghole buddy, Ted Kennedy (1932 - 2009), was more than enough reason to repeal the XVII Amendment —— stop long-serving senators from implementing their personal policies more effectively than presidents.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...26#post3533626


    Incidentally, the XVII Amendment is an important reason the country is being destroyed from within. Not only did that UNRATIFIED amendment curse the country with long-serving senators, it gave the worse scum the vote. Until recently, Democrat scum at least had to get off their asses and cast their ballots in person on ELECTION DAY.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...43#post3689443


    Every long-serving senator gets more of his personal agenda legislated than did every president after 1945. Ted Kennedy (1932 - 2009) sat in U.S. Senate for 47 years (1962 - 2009). The departed drunk will always be the gold standard for the XVII Amendment.

    XXXXX

    4. Long-serving senators would lose all influence over deciding who sits on the High Court.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...88#post3913388


    . . . Biden’s long-serving tenure in the Senate —— 36 years —— emphasizes the need to repeal the XVII Amendment. Ask yourself this question if you trust long-serving traitors: Do you really believe that a filthy piece of garbage like a former senator, a former vice president, and a wannabe president would be in bed with Communist China today without the XVII AMENDMENT?

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...36#post3949936
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Until recently, Democrat scum at least had to get off their asses and cast their ballots in person on ELECTION DAY.
    Those days are over.

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    . . . Biden’s long-serving tenure in the Senate —— 36 years —— emphasizes the need to repeal the XVII Amendment. Ask yourself this question if you trust long-serving traitors: Do you really believe that a filthy piece of garbage like a former senator, a former vice president, and a wannabe president would be in bed with Communist China today without the XVII AMENDMENT?

    If you believe this you will believe everything swamp creatures tell you:


    Tensions between the U.S. and China are likely only to worsen under the Biden administration, according to Raymond James Managing Director Ed Mills.

    "This kind of relationship is going down a path of great confrontation," said Mills, who is also the financial services firm's Washington policy analyst. "I think we are going to see an increase in the conversation about the decoupling and more conversations about 'Are we going into another Cold War between these two economies?'"


    U.S.-China relationship 'going down a path of great confrontation,' analyst says
    Aarthi Swaminathan
    June 14, 2021, 3:14 PM

    https://www.aol.com/finance/u-china-...191424867.html

    Bottom line: Trying to make China Joe Biden look like a loyal American is the new game in town.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    11,468
    Thanks
    2,264
    Thanked 2,275 Times in 1,938 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 165 Times in 155 Posts

    Default

    The UK senate is called the house of lords and are selected for aligning themselves with the corporate agenda.
    Name one US senator who would dare to vote against their corporate overlords.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to goat For This Post:

    Matt Dillon (06-20-2021)

  6. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by goat View Post
    Name one US senator who would dare to vote against their corporate overlords.
    To goat: I cannot name one senator that would vote against their overlords —— THE UNITED NATIONS. The same is true of every high-ranking government official in every country.

    Note that even Senator Connally voted to ratify the U.N. Charter:


    Before the U.S. Senate became a full-blown nest of traitors Senator Tom Connally (D-Texas) (voted to ratify) insisted on putting these six words in the U.N. Charter:

    "AS DETERMINED BY THE UNITED STATES."

    Those six words are known as the "Connally Reservation" and are the only words that prevents the U.N.’s World Court from interfering in America’s internal affairs on the pretext that tariffs, immigration laws, school curriculums, etc., affect U.S. relations with other countries and are therefore "foreign" and not "domestic."

    U.S. sovereignty would be long gone were it not for the Connally Reservation. The battle over erasing those six words from the U.N. Charter has been ongoing since 1946 —— most of it below the public’s radar screen.

    Connally’s Amendment protected Americans from more than an average person like me could ever cover; not the least of those protections was shielding our Second Amendment from U.N. gun control advocates. Should Americans research it I think they will be disappointed in many of the people who supported repealing the Connally Reservation.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...69#post4340869
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Flanders For This Post:

    goat (06-15-2021)

  8. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Central New Jersey
    Posts
    23,253
    Thanks
    13,544
    Thanked 12,185 Times in 7,629 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,051 Times in 998 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    The Washington Post reports that the current U.S. Senate is the oldest in American history. Dianne Feinstein turns 88 this month. Charles Grassley turns 88 in September.

    Richard Shelby is 87. James Inhofe is 86. Patrick Leahy is 81. Twenty-three senators are in their 70s. The average age of senators at the beginning of this year was 64.3 years.

    It may be that being 88 now is like being, say, 78 a few decades ago. So despite being the oldest, this might not be the most age-impaired Senate in our history. Robert Caro’s book about the Lyndon Johnson-dominated Senate makes it clear that more than a few solons of the 1950s were rendered largely useless by age and/or drink.

    Dianne Feinstein and some of the other Senators cited in the Post’s article insist they are still as sharp as a tack. But there must be a few who are losing it. A local pharmacist said in 2017 that he routinely sends Alzheimer’s medication to Capitol Hill.

    In reality, it’s likely that most, if not all, of the Senators in their 80s and late 70s aren’t nearly as sharp as they used to be. To me, the interesting question is whether they realize this.

    Most people I know in their 70s are constantly on the lookout for signs of mental impairment. I’m 72 and freak out if I can’t remember the fifth starter for the Arizona Diamondbacks.

    Senators seem to be different. Maybe it’s because they are surrounded by staffers whose livelihoods, and in some cases mini-empires, depend on the boss believing he’s still fully fit to serve as senator. That’s one theory, anyway.

    It’s not optimal to have a Senate with age-impaired members. Such a Senate denies fully effective representation to certain states and may function less fluidly than a Senate with 100 competent members.

    The main effect, though, may be to give more power to leadership. That was the case with Lyndon Johnson’s Senate, although Johnson (who was then in his 40s) would have dominated the Senate in any event.

    Whether extra power in leadership is desirable depends on the identity of the leaders. Whether a fluidly functioning Senate is desirable depends on the leadership’s agenda.

    What should be done about Senate senility? The obvious answer is a constitutional amendment imposing term limits. But term limits are anti-democratic. They deprive voters of the ability to elect Senators of their choice. And I’d hate to see Tom Cotton limited by law to two terms, or even three, if it came to that.

    In the end, it’s up to the opponents of very old Senators to make the case that they are age-impaired, and up to voters to evaluate the evidence and decide whether such Senators should remain in office. If we end up with only 80 or so fit Senators, the Republic should still be okay.

    Or so it seems to me.

    Senate senility
    Paul Mirengoff in Senate
    Posted on June 4, 2021 Paul Mirengoff in Senate

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...e-senility.php

    I put together a bunch of things I have been saying for decades. Please read and consider repeal if you have the time:

    Repealing the XVII Amendment will get rid of long-serving senators. There is zero chance U.S. Senators will cut their own economic throats.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...37#post2756537


    Frankly, I never understood why the public allows long-serving senators to get away with the things the public fears in imperial presidents. As I said in 2009 “Obama’s Administration was a Senate Administration.” It was the media that guaranteed a sitting senator would become president in 2008. It mattered not which party he or she came from.
    XXXXX

    Media moguls are guilty of the evils done by long-serving senators. Media paymasters would fight to the death before they would allow the XVII Amendment to be repealed. It is cheaper to elect and control a majority of senators than it is buy the HOUSE every two years. In short: Senators are bought for six years. Representatives sign two year contracts with media mouths.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...34#post2766134


    Lawyers outnumber non-lawyers in the Senate. That makes me question how much the XVII Amendment contributed to infanticide. The late Ted Kennedy (1932 - 2009) was a long-serving senator who devoted his career to killing babies.

    XXXXX

    Parenthetically, long-serving representatives are just as bad as long-serving senators. Nancy Pelosi has been in the House since 1987. She is one of the foulest woman that ever lived. People in her district elect her, and the media treats her like she is a decent human whose opinion is worthy of respect.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...26#post2786426


    H.L. Mencken’s observation became a universal truth when a bunch of brain dead halfwits did inestimable harm through their long-serving senators:

    Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. H. L. Mencken

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...00#post2800700


    Over the years I offered dozens of valid reasons for repealing the XVII Amendment. Long-serving Ted Kennedy (1932 - 2009) spent 47 years in US Senate (1962 - 2009). In all of the years Kennedy ‘served’ he never did one good thing for the American people or for the country. Now comes Mitt Romney who had to have his nose surgically removed from the Lion of Senate’s ass after the drunk died.
    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...55#post3075755


    The XVII Amendment is responsible for long-serving senators. Does anyone doubt that Joe Biden’s 36 years as a U.S. Senator was not a destructive unintended consequence?


    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?123120-Political-Triple-Dead-Heat&p=3168720#post3168720


    . . . repealing the XVII Amendment will end the reign of terror brought on by long-serving senators.

    XXXXX

    Clause 1 was a helluva lot better than long-serving senators:


    Clause 1: Composition; Election of Senators


    The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

    Senators were crooks and scoundrels before the XVII Amendment (1913) to be sure, but at least they were not traitors. It was long-serving senators —— DEMOCRATS & REPUBLICANS —— that turned the U.S. Senate into a nest of traitors.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...31#post3213331


    . . . the XVII Amendment did more for long-serving hags than it did for their male counterparts. That says a lot when you look at the worst of them —— Joe Biden (36 years), John Kerry (23 years), Patrick Leahy (45 years) and the late Ted Kennedy (46 years).

    XXXXX

    Long-serving Republicans were not much better than Democrats since they willing had a hand in everything Democrats did to this country.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...36#post3383636


    Calling FORMER LONG-SERVING Senator Joe Biden to testify is good for a few laughs. That is as far as it goes. Nobody really expects a nest of traitors to punish one of their own.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...95#post3437995


    On top of senators stealing tax dollars legally they enrich family members à la Joe Biden. Repealing the XVI Amendment is a tough go at this time, while repealing the XVII Amendment will at least put the breaks on the blood kin of long-serving parasites.
    XXXXX

    Most especially long-serving Democrat senators cannot live with the thought of losing control over earned incomes that built this country before 1917. I am talking abut the very wealthy, and average Americans, protecting their incomes from being confiscated by touchy-feely parasites.

    NOTE: The longer Democrats serve in the U.S. Senate the richer they become. The years of senators getting an envelope stuffed with money (BRIBES) under the table disappeared when Democrat parasites got the XVI and XVII Amendments.

    In short: Becoming very wealthy on tax dollars is contagious among Senate Democrats. Check the wealth top Senate Democrats accumulated if you doubt me. They all arrive in Washington wearing dirty underwear and leave with steamer trunks full of tax dollars.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...19#post3456019


    Considering the Democrats in Congress coupled with long-serving senators, I doubt if nine conservative justices could balance the scale.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...32#post3498032


    Biden’s bunghole buddy, Ted Kennedy (1932 - 2009), was more than enough reason to repeal the XVII Amendment —— stop long-serving senators from implementing their personal policies more effectively than presidents.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...26#post3533626


    Incidentally, the XVII Amendment is an important reason the country is being destroyed from within. Not only did that UNRATIFIED amendment curse the country with long-serving senators, it gave the worse scum the vote. Until recently, Democrat scum at least had to get off their asses and cast their ballots in person on ELECTION DAY.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...43#post3689443


    Every long-serving senator gets more of his personal agenda legislated than did every president after 1945. Ted Kennedy (1932 - 2009) sat in U.S. Senate for 47 years (1962 - 2009). The departed drunk will always be the gold standard for the XVII Amendment.

    XXXXX

    4. Long-serving senators would lose all influence over deciding who sits on the High Court.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...88#post3913388


    . . . Biden’s long-serving tenure in the Senate —— 36 years —— emphasizes the need to repeal the XVII Amendment. Ask yourself this question if you trust long-serving traitors: Do you really believe that a filthy piece of garbage like a former senator, a former vice president, and a wannabe president would be in bed with Communist China today without the XVII AMENDMENT?

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...36#post3949936

    ON HIS WORST DAY, JOE BIDEN IS A BETTER PRESIDENT THAN TRUMP WAS ON HIS BEST DAY!

  9. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    11,468
    Thanks
    2,264
    Thanked 2,275 Times in 1,938 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 165 Times in 155 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    To goat: I cannot name one senator that would vote against their overlords —— THE UNITED NATIONS. The same is true of every high-ranking government official in every country.

    Note that even Senator Connally voted to ratify the U.N. Charter:


    Before the U.S. Senate became a full-blown nest of traitors Senator Tom Connally (D-Texas) (voted to ratify) insisted on putting these six words in the U.N. Charter:

    "AS DETERMINED BY THE UNITED STATES."

    Those six words are known as the "Connally Reservation" and are the only words that prevents the U.N.’s World Court from interfering in America’s internal affairs on the pretext that tariffs, immigration laws, school curriculums, etc., affect U.S. relations with other countries and are therefore "foreign" and not "domestic."

    U.S. sovereignty would be long gone were it not for the Connally Reservation. The battle over erasing those six words from the U.N. Charter has been ongoing since 1946 —— most of it below the public’s radar screen.

    Connally’s Amendment protected Americans from more than an average person like me could ever cover; not the least of those protections was shielding our Second Amendment from U.N. gun control advocates. Should Americans research it I think they will be disappointed in many of the people who supported repealing the Connally Reservation.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...69#post4340869
    "The centre cannot hold" The world as we know it has to change or face anarchy.

  10. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by goat View Post
    "The centre cannot hold"
    To goat: I am not sure what you mean by “. . . centre . . .”.

    Chiefly British
    variant of center


    Totalitarian government is one extreme. Anarchy is the other extreme. Limited government is the permanent center; it never moves.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...79#post4337879

    Quote Originally Posted by goat View Post
    The world as we know it has to change or face anarchy.
    To goat: I cannot see anarchy in the cards.

    Withdrawing from International forums and the United Nations MIGHT trigger a short-lived violent conflict between government forces and Americans. I say short-lived because two hundred million Freedom-loving Americans are well-armed.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  11. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    two hundred million Freedom-loving Americans are well-armed.
    Not as well armed as the forces that the DEMOCRATS now command, and no private citizens will be armed soon if they have their way.

  12. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    23,520
    Thanks
    3,064
    Thanked 9,762 Times in 7,265 Posts
    Groans
    49
    Groaned 1,060 Times in 1,005 Posts

    Default

    Elections are the only means necessary for limiting terms.

    I don't believe that any public office, including POTUS, should be term limited.

    I can't remember how many times that I voted for Edward M. Kennedy in senate races,
    but if he were alive, I'd still most likely be doing it. [Although I'm not sure that I could vote against Liz Warren.]

    Why? Because I liked his votes on the senate floor.
    They were public record. I knew exactly what I was voting for,
    and I didn't need somebody to tell me when to stop doing it.

    Personalities don't count for shit.
    It's the work, and as long as they can do it, they should be allowed to run.
    Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Samuel Johnson, 1775
    Religion....is the opiate of the people. Karl Marx, 1848
    Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose. Kris Kristofferson, 1969

  13. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Withdrawing from International forums and the United Nations MIGHT trigger a short-lived violent conflict between government forces and Americans. I say short-lived because two hundred million Freedom-loving Americans are well-armed.
    If you start the clock in the year 1900 it took Socialists/Communists 121 years and a whole lot of oppressive laws and Executive Orders to enslave the American people incrementally. It only took 35 years to undue big government’s advantage:


    Don Surber posted an amazing pair of maps yesterday, showing the way that federalism is working to enable citizens to defend themselves with firearms. While the federal Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, states regulate firearms licensing, and in the past 35 years, a landslide of states has recognized the right to carry a firearm. Check out the night and day contrast between 1986 and 2021:



    June 19, 2021
    Two maps that will infuriate progs and demonstrate the foundational wisdom of federalism
    By Thomas Lifson

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ederalism.html

    Finally, carrying-and-using is the cornerstone of the Second Amendment:


    The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Thomas Jefferson

    XXXXX

    What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

    XXXXX

    Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can. Samuel Adams

    XXXXX

    Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense. John Adams

    XXXXX

    It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government. Thomas Paine
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  14. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Federal Way, WA
    Posts
    68,352
    Thanks
    18,375
    Thanked 18,674 Times in 14,047 Posts
    Groans
    628
    Groaned 1,136 Times in 1,080 Posts

  15. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    32,827
    Thanks
    19,711
    Thanked 9,447 Times in 7,737 Posts
    Groans
    835
    Groaned 509 Times in 502 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by goat View Post
    The UK senate is called the house of lords and are selected for aligning themselves with the corporate agenda.
    Name one US senator who would dare to vote against their corporate overlords.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Matt Dillon For This Post:

    goat (06-20-2021)

  17. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Olympia, Wa
    Posts
    70,468
    Thanks
    3,125
    Thanked 15,029 Times in 12,559 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 1,401 Times in 1,345 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Dillon View Post
    Fuck You
    This illegal illegitimate regime that runs America is at fault...not me.... they do not represent me and I have long objected to their crimes against humanity.

  18. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    32,827
    Thanks
    19,711
    Thanked 9,447 Times in 7,737 Posts
    Groans
    835
    Groaned 509 Times in 502 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye10 View Post
    Fuck You

Similar Threads

  1. Senility in the news
    By Legion in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-07-2020, 08:07 AM
  2. Senility in the news
    By The Anonymous in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 04-10-2020, 07:02 AM
  3. Aristotle Would Repeal The XVII Amendment
    By Flanders in forum Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-28-2019, 02:39 AM
  4. Official declaration of Glorious Watermark XVII
    By FUCK THE POLICE in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-09-2011, 01:47 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •