[mdlug-discuss] [Fwd: [Offtopic] Obamanites get violent insupport of the agenda]

[Aaron Kulkis]

Robert Adkins II wrote:
>  
> 
> 		
> 
>> 	So Cardinal Stahl, is excommunication in my future if I mock the
> ponderously self-
>> parodying nature of Rob's self-serving assurances of evenhandedness? 
>> 	
>>
>> Allen
> 	
> 	Allen,
> 
> 	Please do so. I would seriously like to see the extreme left wing
> events that have had Democratic Members of Congress and other Democratic
> Party leaders speaking about being at war and making allusions to Republican
> Party members being "dead" if they do such a thing as vote for or against a
> given measure. Please provide some transcripts of Democratic Party members
> making allusions and illusionary threats on the floor of Congress as well.
> 
>  	I haven't seen any of that.
> 
> 	I heard there was a crazy wacko Left-Wing (And entirely
> Anti-Democracy) allegedly "anti-war" protest out in California a few weeks
> to a month back. It has been pointed at by some conservative speakers as a
> moral and functional equivalency to the Tea Party movement. Except for a few
> things, like there were less than 2,000 people at that single event, they
> were virtually all communists (which the majority of Democratic Party folks
> absolutely disagree with), 9/11 truthers and a variety of other nutjobs who
> were denouncing Democratic and Republican members of Congress as well as
> President Obama. There was also a distinct lack of Democratic Party Congress
> people and Democratic Party leaders present giving speaches, calling for the
> heads of Republicans, etc., etc., etc.  
> 
> 	Those people are lunatics and they are nowhere near representative
> of the ideals of the Democratic Party anymore than someone making the claim
> that Nazis are remotely representative of the ideals of the Republican
> Party.
> 
> 	Yet at the Right Wing Tea Party events, there's been significantly
> more than 2,000 people present at the many events across the entire nation
> and those people also have had the direct support (and speeches even) of
> prominent Republican Party members of Congress. In many of those speeches
> there's been some dangerously close to the edge remarks regarding the
> continued breathing of Democratic Party members. They have been alsmot
> exclusively focused on deriding Democratic Party members of Congress.
> 
> 	From everything that I have seen/read/heard, the moral and
> functional equivalency just isn't there. However, if you can find some
> equivalency to show us, I'll accept it and I will denounce the bad behavior
> of people claiming to be doing "good work" for the Democratic Party, because
> that behavior is nowhere near good or acceptable by anyone. 
> 
> 	At he same time, you might want to do some denouncing of your own
> (if you happen to align yourself with the current people in charge of the
> Republican Party) or you will come across looking like someone who agrees

I'm a libertarian.  I don't like the Republicans, either.  I just
note that they're not a giant criminal enterprise of intimidating
use of violence, wholesale theft under the color ?f law, and
corruption in the form of pay-offs, all masquerading as a political
party, which day in and day out demonstrates contempt for the
Constitution.

I have no respect for the Republican party, because they are
ideologically rudderless, and essentially adrift.

For that and other reasons, I have been registered with (and
usually vote for) the Libertarian Party and its candidates --
because they are the ONLY party which I'm aware of which
actually Respects the Constitution, not just in parts, or
phrases taken out of context, but the entire thing, from the
first word to the last.

You ought to try reading it sometime, and no, the "general
welfare" clause does not give Congress the right to pass
any law which (usually erroneously) they think will benefit
their constituents, or the population as a whole.  Madison
(who drafted the document) states this clearly a mere
decade after ratification when he wrote that the "general
welfare" clause in Article II, Section 8 refers specifically,
and is strictly limited to, the items listed in that section.
Madison states that his is how the convention delegates
understood the phrase to mean, and therefore, that is how
it should be interpreted.




> that political discourse includes death threats, property destruction and
> general miscreant antics. Personally, I'd like to believe that most of us
> are above such poor behavior.

How about all of the false claims of racial slurs, and spitting,
when there were dozens of news cameras on the scene, and not
a single camera captured any of such alleged behavior?

"A lie runs half way around the world before the truth gets
a chance to put on its shoes."  -- Winston Churchill.

Quit buying into these control-freaks' nonstop stream of lies,
which ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN, NYT, Washington Post, etc gleefully
amplify at every opportunity -- remember their open admiration
of Clinton's ability to lie, and their EAGER AND WILLING
PARTICIPATION IN SPREADING the lies he told.

Neutral press, my a**.