Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

Post Reply
Lima Bravo
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 10:31 am

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#1

Post by Lima Bravo » Tue Dec 09, 2014 6:07 pm

Hey Gang!



Partially as a result of the expression of a few people that I should join here, such as Slim Incognito and Dolly (please do not blame them for anything that might result), and also my own questions about the Darash/Vidurek connection, I decided to join here.



Also I hope and pray that we might actually find some productive discussions, that may lead us all outside of our own preconceived paradigms, even when we fundamentally disagree at the outset. While I've no doubts that those fundamental disagreements do exist, I'm reasonably certain there is more shared common ground than we might imagine at the onset, but perhaps for different reasons.















So gatsby & SueDB's stellar detective work even managed to impress an OAS loon!



:wenotworthy:







Yep, honestly, even I'd wondered if he was a troll going for the long-con. Don't know why he's wasting his time.









No, I've not been playing any sort of long con. What I've written is not only thoroughly researched but also sincerely felt. As to my wasting my time, in some regards, I've no doubt of that. However many others are reading the discussions but not participating, so perhaps I made an impression there. Also I had an early peripheral involvement in OAS, not only from own personal interest, but also as a result of particular interests that wanted to monitor OAS to prohibit it from getting out of hand, and perhaps even adversely affecting the entire future of the country. Most recently, I was curious where OAS was going after these many months, and as is evident in my initial post there, I was disturbed by the Soverign Citizen nonsense that has taken root there (at least in so far as 3 or 4 people might have any roots), even perhaps resulting in one person spending the remainder of his life behind bars.













But what does he think are our own falsehoods?





Whatever disagrees with what he thinks.









Kate, I would have to say, from an objective perspective, that's not actually accurate, nor fair. What I am now quite certain of, was reached by a thorough evaluation of what was in confict with my previous thought. There was a time that I vehemently embraced some of the ideas commonly recognized as the Truth here on this forum. In fact, I was so startled by my own emotional response to those ideas being challenged, that I went and did the due diligence, and long historical research, to not just validate my own thoughts, but to find the correct and true answers. As a result I got a much deeper understanding of these (unspecified) issues, as well as recognized just how, and perhaps why, these concepts were so corrupted historically, and are so poorly understood now.



However some here might be surprised to find a shared perspective on some aspects of these issues, and yet may hear a totally new rationale for that common ground.







So gatsby & SueDB's stellar detective work even managed to impress an OAS loon!



:wenotworthy:







Hopefully many here will come to recognize that I am anything but a typical OAS loon, which certainly is supported by my long-tenuous association with that organization. That does not change the fact that I'm quite certain we are no longer operating under the Constitution, something which should alarm us all, and my desire to restore that document for our mutual protection.



However this does broach the issue of NLA and one John Darash,and the research undertaken here. Is it best to ask questions regaring that topic here, in this discussion, or back in the original thread specifically discussing that topic? I am guessing I'm not the only one interested in clarifying these considerations, and others might benefit reading them there at the source.



Regards,

LB



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#2

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Dec 09, 2014 6:12 pm

If you don't like it vote. And organize others to vote. Operation American Sedition is for seditionists.



User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 11941
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#3

Post by Plutodog » Tue Dec 09, 2014 6:21 pm

Cool, a new paradigum! ;)


The only good Bundy is an Al Bundy.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24427
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#4

Post by bob » Tue Dec 09, 2014 6:30 pm

That does not change the fact that I'm quite certain we are no longer operating under the Constitution, something which should alarm us all, and my desire to restore that document for our mutual protection.I would suggest that if you really want to discuss that topic, do so in its own thread.And be prepared for the response.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Lima Bravo
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 10:31 am

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#5

Post by Lima Bravo » Tue Dec 09, 2014 6:36 pm





If you don't like it vote. And organize others to vote. Operation American Sedition is for seditionists.









Could you please direct me to the portion of the Constitution that indicates our form of government, and terms of that government's legitimacy, might be altered by the outcome of a popular vote?



I've never run across such an idea anywhere in the Constitution itself, or in any of the writings about this country's principles, but perhaps I've missed it.



Given the recent win of the Republicans, and the removal of many longtime Democrats from the Senate, does this mean that your own rights are now set to be sacrificed on the chopping block? Perhaps you might want to reconsider this line of argument.



I'm quite certain that my own rights and freedoms are not subject to mass populist opinion, and in fact this country is founded on the thorough rejection of just such a Democratic tyranny. Voting is only how public offices are filled, and does not provide license for whatever ideology to direct the country by its own unfettered terms. Sedition itself is accurately only resistance to legitimate government, and is an invalid term when involving illegitimate government, otherwise our primary directive would be to "obey", and freedom would be nonexistent. Those are not the terms of this country.



We should all be grateful for that.



User avatar
Patagoniagirl
Posts: 3606
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:15 pm

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#6

Post by Patagoniagirl » Tue Dec 09, 2014 6:39 pm

Skeptical. But watching.



User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 11941
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#7

Post by Plutodog » Tue Dec 09, 2014 6:41 pm

Perhaps, Lima, you sgould be more specific about these supposed changes brought on by an election.


The only good Bundy is an Al Bundy.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#8

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Dec 09, 2014 6:42 pm

"Democratic tyranny."



Please. Your opinion of your opinions is a little much for me.



User avatar
tek
Posts: 2436
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Happy Valley, MA
Occupation: Damned if I know

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#9

Post by tek » Tue Dec 09, 2014 6:57 pm

OK, I'll play for a bit..



In the very short term, you are correct: who you vote for does not affect your rights and freedoms.



But in the fullness of time, the people who are voted in determine the makeup of the Judicial branch, and the Judicial branch is the defender of your rights and freedoms. It is exactly this Judicial oversight that makes your rights and freedoms not subject to mass populist opinion in the short term; how it plays out in the long term is the more important question.


Digging the snow and the rain and the bright sunshine.

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 17626
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#10

Post by Volkonski » Tue Dec 09, 2014 7:06 pm

As a practical matter the only rights anyone has are those that are recognized and defended by their government.


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

Lima Bravo
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 10:31 am

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#11

Post by Lima Bravo » Tue Dec 09, 2014 7:15 pm





"Democratic tyranny."



Please. Your opinion of your opinions is a little much for me.









It is not just my own opinion, but fanning the very fires that forged this country, and those fires are growing.



James Madison, Federalist #10



From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.



We have seen all too many of these "theoretic politicians", these elites who believe themselves intellectually superior, who imagine they have any authority at all to impose their schemes on society, and engage whatever social engineering dictate strikes their fancy, when no such authority to direct the lives of the citizens is anywhere provided the federal government, and no singular election, or series of elections, can ever provide such a license.



Madison goes on to recognize the ideology of these theoretic politicians to be incompatible with the liberty necessary for this country's very existence -- which would now be unquestionably recognized as a direct assault on our form of government, as well as our individual freedoms - Treason.



People are extremely upset, and if anyone imagines these to be only unhinged fringe kooks, and that the country is not on the brink absolute havoc, then they're in for a rude awakening and have spent all too much time cloistered in their own echo chambers.



ducktape
Posts: 5334
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:09 pm

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#12

Post by ducktape » Tue Dec 09, 2014 7:19 pm



Could you please direct me to the portion of the Constitution that indicates our form of government, and terms of that government's legitimacy, might be altered by the outcome of a popular vote?





Oh, is that what you're after?



No, not buying. You think some little collection of losers who "want their country back" and style themselves as "We the People" because a few dozen of them decide that they know better for a country of 330 million is worth spending your time with?



And you think we should care what they think? Personally, I don't. They are impotent, and if they weren't, they would be seditionists or likely domestic terrorists. I grew up with all the billboards around that said "Impeach Earl Warren." These guys are all like the people who put them up, except with LESS money and ability to execute.



User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#13

Post by BillTheCat » Tue Dec 09, 2014 7:26 pm

It is not just my own opinion, but fanning the very fires that forged this country, and those fires are growing







Hooooo, boy. :roll:


'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
-Lewis Carroll

User avatar
Family Liberty Patriot
Posts: 4486
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 1:23 pm
Location: Southern Orlystan
Occupation: Czar of All the Russias

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#14

Post by Family Liberty Patriot » Tue Dec 09, 2014 7:29 pm





We have seen all too many of these "theoretic politicians", these elites who believe themselves intellectually superior, who imagine they have any authority at all to impose their schemes on society, and engage whatever social engineering dictate strikes their fancy, when no such authority to direct the lives of the citizens is anywhere provided the federal government, and no singular election, or series of elections, can ever provide such a license.







OK, took a few overly-verbose posts, but we have ourselves a brand-new self-outed libertarian on-board, right down to the "I used to think like you, but I've studied this so much, you guys, and was amazed at what I've learned (and you haven't, because I am Very Smart.)"



Welcome to the Fogbow. For future reference, "I am not a loon" and "we are no longer operating under the Constitution" are incompatible statements. Yes, the system is broken, and yes, perhaps irretrievably so. But not in the ways you and yours have been claiming.



Want to fix it? Here's a list of steps to take:



1. Get money out of politics.

2. End of list.



Enjoy your time here. And note that Stern is not the only one who noticed that you have a remarkably unwarranted high opinion of your own opinion.


"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

John Kenneth Galbraith (1908 - 2006)

Lima Bravo
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 10:31 am

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#15

Post by Lima Bravo » Tue Dec 09, 2014 7:32 pm





As a practical matter the only rights anyone has are those that are recognized and defended by their government.









Such a belief would thoroughly align you with medieval feudalistic Noblesse Oblige, and entirely at odds with every principal on which this country is based. Our freedoms do not exist by government's whim, but rather that government only exists by our allowance, and to protect of those rights:



"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,

deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,

it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, ..."



Declaration of Independence



Our government has not "recognized" or "defended" much of anything these days, but rather been a direct and deliberate threat to our every right.



Perhaps you believe the inclusion of that Bill of Rights in the Constitution serves as a "colorable pretext" to them being amended and annulled, yet the fact is those rights are nowhere grants from the government nor the Constitution itself, and are particularly recognized so as to entirely prohibit government from any action upon them.



Any idea that the federal government might itself legitimately police those rights, or use them as demand licenses of one citizen upon another, is a flagrant violation of the principles of this country, the very concept of rights themselves, and an illegitimate usurpation.



User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 4994
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#16

Post by Slim Cognito » Tue Dec 09, 2014 7:34 pm

Hi LB, I'm glad you came by. I'm no American History major so I won't join in regarding your constitutional issues but you'll get an intelligent, informed, adult discussion here, not the playground antics you ran into on the OAS forum. I'm not saying we'll end up singing Kumbaya, but I don't think you expected that. There are many different threads so browse around and see what's up. I always click on View New Content to see what's hot.


ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 4994
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#17

Post by Slim Cognito » Tue Dec 09, 2014 7:44 pm

Lima Bravo, since this is the OAS thread, I'd like to ask you, what did you expect to come of the shindig in DC last May? I understand people protesting, I'm cool with that concept, but what kind of numbers did you expect to show and did you expect anything to actually come of it? Did you work with Riley in any organizational capacity?


ImageImageImage x4

Lima Bravo
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 10:31 am

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#18

Post by Lima Bravo » Tue Dec 09, 2014 8:14 pm







We have seen all too many of these "theoretic politicians", these elites who believe themselves intellectually superior, who imagine they have any authority at all to impose their schemes on society, and engage whatever social engineering dictate strikes their fancy, when no such authority to direct the lives of the citizens is anywhere provided the federal government, and no singular election, or series of elections, can ever provide such a license.







OK, took a few overly-verbose posts, but we have ourselves a brand-new self-outed libertarian on-board, right down to the "I used to think like you, but I've studied this so much, you guys, and was amazed at what I've learned (and you haven't, because I am Very Smart.)"



Welcome to the Fogbow. For future reference, "I am not a loon" and "we are no longer operating under the Constitution" are incompatible statements. Yes, the system is broken, and yes, perhaps irretrievably so. But not in the ways you and yours have been claiming.



Want to fix it? Here's a list of steps to take:



1. Get money out of politics.

2. End of list.



Enjoy your time here. And note that Stern is not the only one who noticed that you have a remarkably unwarranted high opinion of your own opinion.







Eh, no, I am in no way any sort of Libertarian. In fact I entirely reject today's Libertarian ideology as being too libertine, and in no way reflecting this nation, nor its founding principles. I am a Constitutional Conservative.



I'm quite certain that if you believe we're in any way operating under the Constitution, that your list of fixes far exceeds the depth of your understanding of that Document, which you have no real regard for . Also my recognition that going repeatedly to the same "well" can only serve to validate the same conclusions, has nothing whatsoever to do with awarding myself any sort of brilliance.



Let me guess, your singular solution of "get the money out of politics" (itself an idealized socialism, but futile endeavor) stems in large part from frustrations with the Citizens United decision, and you really have not read that decision yourself.



The truth is that ability to corrupt our political system would be dramatically decreased, if not entirely removed, were the government actually held to its limited enumerated powers, and those "representatives" consistently held to the very same laws they themselves (more often illegitimately) write.



Contrary to your reliance on theoretical politics, the valid solutions were already provided us in the Constitution itself. We don't need to build a "braver new government", we just need to remove the corruptions to our current form.



Incidentally, I'm not operating under any belief that my time here will be of any duration, because I'm nowhere certain that people here are any more open-minded, or tolerant of ideas contrary to their own, than those on OAS, but I remain optimistic and hopeful that they may be. I certainly did not come here for any sort of personal validation; how about you? . While I will not beg permission to civilly express my perspective, neither do I except anyone salute it.



I do appreciate the irony of the heavy weight you award your own opinion while addressing my opinion. But perhaps you might consider less personalization, and actually providing facts next time. Or have you somehow idolized the approach exclusively used by Grayghost, Rechy and Regan?



User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20586
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#19

Post by TollandRCR » Tue Dec 09, 2014 8:30 pm

I would welcome a conservative to this conversation, just as I would welcome the return of conservatives to Congress. I'm not so sure that I know what a "Constitutional Conservative" is, but I'm willing to learn if the possibility of a "Constitutional Liberal" is on the table.


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#20

Post by SueDB » Tue Dec 09, 2014 8:30 pm

I'm as open minded as the next person, but I'm allergic to bullshit.


“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

TexasFilly
Posts: 17887
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#21

Post by TexasFilly » Tue Dec 09, 2014 8:33 pm

We're talking about principals now? Is this an education policy thread?


I love the poorly educated!!!

I believe Anita Hill!

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#22

Post by esseff44 » Tue Dec 09, 2014 8:36 pm





We're talking about principals now? Is this an education policy thread?





I want to know more about those naughty libertarians who are libertines. :lol:



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#23

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Dec 09, 2014 8:36 pm

It's another "constitutional conservative" who believes that the feudal (remember -- slavery) agrarian society of the early 1800s is the goal.



This is a debate I have no interest in.



User avatar
jengel55
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 7:06 pm

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#24

Post by jengel55 » Tue Dec 09, 2014 8:42 pm

I remember, back in the early days of OAS, there was a character named TJ or Trip who claimed to have been enlisted by OAS to write some dogma. Well, TJ and the powers that be had a falling out and TJ went on to badmouth OAS wherever he could. But he seemed to bit of a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde in that he could be mean as a hungry snake at times. He was quite well spoken, knew the difference between their and there and was a self-annointed constitutional expert. Here's a little sample of his writing skills: "How can a movement allegedly based on the restoration of government to the terms of the U.S. Constitution, not only avoid every reference to that Constitution, but also promote the removal of individuals and subjecting them to trial by “tribunal” of hand-selected judges, when this is nowhere in line with the Constitution, and represents that Constitution’s overthrow?"

Just sayin'.



Lima Bravo
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 10:31 am

Lima Bravo and the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule

#25

Post by Lima Bravo » Tue Dec 09, 2014 8:46 pm





Lima Bravo, since this is the OAS thread, I'd like to ask you, what did you expect to come of the shindig in DC last May? I understand people protesting, I'm cool with that concept, but what kind of numbers did you expect to show and did you expect anything to actually come of it? Did you work with Riley in any organizational capacity?









Hey, Slim, pleasure to finally talk to you.



As with many witnessing OAS, I didn't know what to expect, and was leery of what was going on, and who was actually driving the movement, and by what philosophy.



I had no official capacity in OAS, and wanted none. However I managed to attract the attention of many there, both positive and negative, given my arguments and perspective. I hoped to provide OAS with a more productive direction.



Did I work with Riley in any organizational capacity? No, and I had only superficial interaction with him.



I watched as the possible turnout in D.C. was repeatedly diminished by a long series of extremely poor choices, and couching the movement in the most narrow, limited terms with the least possible appeal. Afterwards, I even asked people who were in leadership and had left, what they thought was the cause of OAS's failure, just to see if their opinions were in any way aligned with my own.



The resulting answers invariably involved 3 things:



1) Constant drumbeat reference to the movement in self-righteous extremist Evangelical Christian terms, (i.e. "bathed in prayer"), with the effect of this perspective often resulting in arguments among members over who was the more valid Christian... and ostracizing anyone questioning methods as a heretic.



2) The framing of the movement and its activities in continually militaristic terms. Americans just are not going to be comfortable with a military-centered, or militarist, action, to force change and restoration of legitimate government.



3) The lack of any actual applied reference to the Constitution, along with the lack of any specific reference to its violation, while advocating methods to restore that Constitution that are entirely in conflict with that document itself, did have the majority avoiding OAS at all costs, when the otherwise would have been tremendously involved. Riley himself has an appalling understanding of the Constitution, and he showed this repeatedly.





These three things killed OAS, and given OAS 3-phase plan, many were relieved there was not a greater turnout. Too few realize what would have very likely transpired had significant numbers actually shown up on the Mall in May.



Post Reply

Return to “FEMA Camp 7½”