ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, May 02, 2013

Fly the flag on Loyalty Day

"I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2013, as Loyalty Day. This Loyalty Day, I call upon all the people of the United States to join in support of this national observance, whether by displaying the flag of the United States or pledging allegiance to the Republic for which it stands."

At this point, it is those who want to burn the U.S. flag, which is now the symbol of those who are destroying the Constitution, who are the genuine patriots. There are only two flags that merit flying in America these days, the Gadsden Flag below is one of them. And the other one is not the Stars and Stripes.

Labels:

238 Comments:

1 – 200 of 238 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Josh May 02, 2013 8:04 AM  

As a Christian, I consider the pledge of allegiance idolatrous.

Anonymous Mr. Tzu May 02, 2013 8:08 AM  

The other being Sons of Liberty flag.

Blogger Nate May 02, 2013 8:10 AM  

The Pledge is flat out creepy.

Now... let's make a list of proper flags worth flying...

1) Gadsden Flag
2) Battle Flag
3) Confederate 3rd National
4) Any and all Pirate Flags

Anonymous Josh May 02, 2013 8:11 AM  

5) Bonnie blue flag

Anonymous Godfrey May 02, 2013 8:13 AM  

I think I fly a flag of the Sacred Heart of Vendee.

Anonymous Che Tee Shirt May 02, 2013 8:15 AM  

BAHAHAHAHAHA ....Barry picks a Commie holiday for his "Loyalty Day"... couldn't be any more perfect.

Anonymous paradox May 02, 2013 8:19 AM  

The Quantrill's raiders, no quarter flag.

Missouri's Confederate flag.

And of course The Stars and Bars

Anonymous Anonymous May 02, 2013 8:22 AM  

Don't forget the "come and take it" flag. My personal fave.

http://www.comeandtakeit.com/txhist.html

Anonymous Salt May 02, 2013 8:28 AM  

I've got a 3'x5' which I hoist up the mast. Of course, it's the naval variant.

Blogger James Dixon May 02, 2013 8:32 AM  

Well, being who I am and from where I am, I prefer the Culpepper flag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpeper_Minutemen), but the basic concept is the same.

Anonymous Spoos in August May 02, 2013 8:34 AM  

The Culpeper minutemen flag would also be appropriate.

A jack with your state flag and the Gadsden snake would work, too, I think.

Seriously, though, "Loyalty Day"? Stick a fork in the Republic, it's done.

Anonymous VryeDenker May 02, 2013 8:36 AM  

Why not display the hammer and sickle? It would make for a good photo op.

Anonymous Salt May 02, 2013 8:39 AM  

There is the American Flag of Peace, as described by Hawthorne, in The Scarlet Letter, and shown by a picture in my version flying above the Custom's House.

If Hawthorne's depiction is correct, what could the Stars and Stripes we see everywhere be but the Flag of War.

Anonymous Van May 02, 2013 8:42 AM  

May 1st is international communist day. Surely just a coincidence.

Blogger Nate May 02, 2013 8:43 AM  

I should just point out.. that while Georgia has had much controversy over displaying a the battle fag on part of its state flag... Alabama's state flag IS a battle flag.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein May 02, 2013 8:49 AM  

battle fag

Tad is on the Georgia flag?

Blogger Nate May 02, 2013 8:50 AM  

MOAR COFFEE!!!

Anonymous LES May 02, 2013 8:53 AM  

The Pledge was written by an avowed socialist, Francis Bellamy. Patrick Henry would never have pledged allegiance to the federal government.

How about the Betsy Ross flag with 13 stars which I have on my truck?

Anonymous RINO May 02, 2013 8:59 AM  

Is this for real? I'm too lazy to look it up.

Blogger Old Harry May 02, 2013 9:05 AM  

This is interesting when you consider that the East India Flag predated the Betsy Ross myth.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

Anonymous RINO May 02, 2013 9:09 AM  

Wow, I decided to look it up and it does appear to be real .. but it reads like parody. The dude who throws US interests under the bus in favor of globalization, invites illegals who have no loyalty and never will, and dismantles mechanisms of assimiliation has proclaimed a "Loyalty Day".

Anonymous Stingray May 02, 2013 9:10 AM  

According to Wikipedia is was established in 1921. I have no idea how reliable that is.

Blogger Shimshon May 02, 2013 9:12 AM  

I was also going to ask if this was real. But I see several others beat me to it. Wow.

Anonymous A. Canadian May 02, 2013 9:14 AM  

The Confederate flag, is of course, a joke. Let's celebrate a failed police state which lost a war, was centrally planned, issued fiat money, enslaved 30% of its population, had imperial ambitions to conquer Central America, suspended habeas corpus, had pro-Union newspapers destroyed, conscripted everyone from 15 to 55 into the military, and “the most successful demonstration of State Socialism to be found up to the time in modern civilization.” (Quoting Louise B. Hill, State Socialism in the Confederate States of America, 1936, p. 3)

Sorry Johnny Rebs. But I'd put a bullet in the skull of both Lincoln and Jeff Davis. And since I can't, I'll wipe my ass with the Stars and Bars.

Blogger El Borak May 02, 2013 9:17 AM  

Van: May 1st is international communist day. Surely just a coincidence.

Surely not. Still, it's not this President who declared it; he's just following "Public Law 85-529 as amended, [which] has designated May 1 of each year as 'Loyalty Day.'

Loyalty Day (f/k/a/ "Americanization Day") dates back to the 1920s' Red Scare. The date was chosen on purpose.

Anonymous Fisk Ellington Rutledge III May 02, 2013 9:25 AM  

That affirmative-action parasite currently defiling the White House, like all Leftist criminals and tyrants, equates our incompetent, malignant, destructive government with the country itself. That is a typically moronic mistake made by too many. It's similar to the idiotic notion that the office of the presidency somehow deserves respect even if the office-holder is the devoted and open enemy of his own country like Obonzo. Obonzo is one of those sad little homos who yearns to be the idol in a cult of personality, but most emphatically has no personality to idolize. Like everything else Obonzo has, adulation has been given to him by cowardly Whites without Obonzo actually having to do anything to deserve it. Obonzo is just another third-world savage on the make.

Anonymous Anonymous May 02, 2013 9:27 AM  

I like the White Flag

Nate may have issue with the "we're laying down our weapons now" part.

Anonymous Josh May 02, 2013 9:27 AM  

The Confederate flag, is of course, a joke. Let's celebrate a failed police state which lost a war, was centrally planned, issued fiat money, enslaved 30% of its population, had imperial ambitions to conquer Central America, suspended habeas corpus, had pro-Union newspapers destroyed, conscripted everyone from 15 to 55 into the military, and “the most successful demonstration of State Socialism to be found up to the time in modern civilization.” (Quoting Louise B. Hill, State Socialism in the Confederate States of America, 1936, p. 3)

Look mate...no one is saying the CSA were perfect...we're saying the South has the right to determine our own destiny...imperfect as it may be...

Anonymous Karsten May 02, 2013 9:28 AM  

By far the best proposal I ever heard for May 1st was to make it an official Victims of Communism Day:

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1178052456.shtml

Blogger Nate May 02, 2013 9:28 AM  

"Sorry Johnny Rebs. But I'd put a bullet in the skull of both Lincoln and Jeff Davis. And since I can't, I'll wipe my ass with the Stars and Bars."

Wow. We're very impressed. You read a book by an idiot yankee with slightly less credibility than Dread.

Anonymous Catan May 02, 2013 9:29 AM  

Maybe the leftist filibustering stooges from the last few days can hop in and explain to us that Obongo chose May Day purely by coincidence. It couldn't be that he's wanted the US to celebrate it and now he's got his wish. I mean he named it Loyalty Day, not Commie Appreciation Day, so you got no proof, RSHDs!

After all, there is no peer reviewed study published in Nature Magazine proving that's why he picked May Day, so not only did it not happen, it could not possibly have happened that way.

It's just coincidence #37586018375. Enjoy the decline!

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if he made Red October his next holiday. Maybe he can call it "Government is he only thing we all belong to" Day, and the rabbits can explain to us how that doesn't mean anything either.

Blogger Nate May 02, 2013 9:32 AM  

Ok seriously we've seen this moronic old claim about the south taking over central america trotted out several times in the last few weeks... like something written in a book published in 1926 is somehow new relevant information.

Kids... this is a crackpot line of BS that has been thoroughly debunked 100 times.

So the question is... what yankee apologist website stumbled on it and tried to resurrect it? Where did you all see it? I mean obviously you think its new information and very damning otherwise you wouldn't be trotting it out. So where did you come across it?

I'd just as soon know so I can humiliate the moron myself.

Anonymous A. Canadian May 02, 2013 9:34 AM  

"no one is saying the CSA were perfect"

Fuck the state.

Anonymous A. Canadian May 02, 2013 9:36 AM  

Nate: Go march around waving your flag, like a good little statist.

Anonymous DT May 02, 2013 9:40 AM  

"I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America,

Stopped reading right there.

Blogger Nate May 02, 2013 9:40 AM  

"Nate: Go march around waving your flag, like a good little statist."

The Battle Flag isn't a state flag. It doesn't represent any state. Its a flag that represents the fight against oppression. Its been flown over battles on every continent. Hell the canadian military has even flown it.

Here's some advice... when you stumble across an article and everything in it traces back to the exact same place... its probably bullshit.

Anonymous Catan May 02, 2013 9:47 AM  

"Fuck the state."

Look buddy, I'm mostly a libertarian, but I think you need to share with us some proof of a single anarchy that has remained viable for any significant period of time without devolving into gang warfare and sectarian violence.

I'm no fan of the state, but fuck anarchy too. Nature abhors a vacuum, so all anarchy is, is a vacuum in which states can pop up spontaneously. That is not preferable to a state that is specifically designed to split power up as much as possible.

Blogger Nate May 02, 2013 9:47 AM  

It pains me to have to educate you people about this... But listen carefully...

William Walker acted alone. He raised his own armies. He lead the military expeditions himself. He was not aided by the CSA. In fact, they very much would've preferred to have his men and his guns at home... helping them fight off the yankee invasion.

What this idiot historian is calling "socialism" is actually the libertarian ideal for military organization. Private army... doing Private Army stuff.

Forrest also raised his own private military units... and funded them himself... three times!

Yep! That's real socialism right there.

morons.

Anonymous RINO May 02, 2013 9:48 AM  

like something written in a book published in 1926 is somehow new relevant information.

If the truth is the truth then who cares how old it is? No one said it was new information. The truth is slavery politics required an aggressive foreign policy and southerners literally went and conquered parts of south america.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Walker_(filibuster)

"Walker now conceived the idea of conquering vast regions of Latin America, where he would create new slave states to join the federal union.[citation needed] These campaigns were known as filibustering or freebooting."

"He began recruiting from amongst American supporters of slavery and the Manifest Destiny Doctrine, mostly inhabitants of Kentucky and Tennessee."

Anonymous RINO May 02, 2013 9:49 AM  

I see Nate predicted that line of thought ... but it doesn't really matter that he wasn't aided by the CSA.

Blogger Nate May 02, 2013 9:51 AM  

"I see Nate predicted that line of thought ... but it doesn't really matter that he wasn't aided by the CSA."

He died in 1860.

The CSA didn't exist.

Anonymous Catan May 02, 2013 9:52 AM  

If someone wants to bring up the idea of voluntary police forces, that's already been tried.

Study the history of Sicily. I'm not saying the idea is completely unworkable. But to say fuck the state as if anarchist police forces are above the use of force and can do no wrong is just ridiculous.

A State is just what ever group happens to have the overwhelming monopoly of power in a particular district at a particular time. Anarchy is a myth, it doesn't exist.

Saying "fuck the state" is the exact same as saying "fuck force". I sympathize with the sentiment, but you might as well try to live without breathing.

Anonymous A. Canadian May 02, 2013 9:54 AM  

"I'm no fan of the state, but fuck anarchy too"

Educate yourself. Read Albert J. Nock, for example. There is a difference between government, a State and anarchy.

Blogger Markku May 02, 2013 9:55 AM  

Obvious screen name is obvious.

Delete?

Anonymous RINO May 02, 2013 9:55 AM  

He died in 1860.

The CSA didn't exist.


And it still doesn't matter. An aggressive foreign policy was inherent in that economic and political system. If he hadn't died in 1860 and made a colony in support of slavery after the CSA formed are you saying the CSA wouldn't have happily accomodated that? (Also assuming that the North had let them leave without war)

Blogger Nate May 02, 2013 9:57 AM  

"If the truth is the truth then who cares how old it is? No one said it was new information. The truth is slavery politics required an aggressive foreign policy and southerners literally went and conquered parts of south america."

No. That's not the truth you moron. The truth is this idiocy was rejected by even yankee historians because it is easily proven false. Hell anyone with a moderate amount of knowledge about the history of the 1860s knows its false at first glance.

This isn't actually the worst claim the moronic author makes though... the worst claim is later on, when he claims that the conferates "colonized" brazil.

Brazil's government at the time wanted to expand its agricultural base. They reached out to the farmers of the american south and passed a bill that gave massive tax breaks and other benefits to any of them that would establish plantations there. Slavery was legal in Brazil and they were even assured it would remain so.

Many southrons did move to brazil after the war. There is a town there to this day named "Americano". However, when they built their new plantations... they did not take slaves with them.

Because they knew slave labor didn't make economic sense. It didn't work. It was more profitable to organize the plantations with employees.

Anonymous Josh May 02, 2013 9:57 AM  

So RINO, if a bunch of private citizens become mercenaries and conquer Nicaragua, that's the "aggressive foreign policy" of the confederacy, but when the united states invades the confederacy (an invasion many orders of magnitude larger than William Walker's), it's suddenly a good thing?

Anonymous Loki of Asgard May 02, 2013 9:59 AM  

Anarchy is a brilliant idea. It makes it easier for more organised forces to do as should be done to self-obsessed savages.

Anonymous A. Canadian May 02, 2013 10:00 AM  

Nate:

You can ask some of your Southern nationalist buddies about "The Golden Circle":

http://southernnationalist.com/blog/2012/12/12/what-might-have-been-the-golden-circle-in-1904/

http://www.confederaterenaissance.com/2012/12/12/caribbean-projectthe-golden-circle/

But of course, you'll belabor this point... because you know you have no chance arguing against the other crimes of CSA ... fiat money, conscription, authoritarianism, etc.

I just ordered a Confederate flag on Amazon.com, so I can wipe my butt with it then burn it.

Anonymous Josh May 02, 2013 10:00 AM  

As early as 1862 the confederacy started considering emancipation.

The union didn't emancipate the slaves in the north until after the war.

Blogger Nate May 02, 2013 10:05 AM  

"And it still doesn't matter. An aggressive foreign policy was inherent in that economic and political system. If he hadn't died in 1860 and made a colony in support of slavery after the CSA formed are you saying the CSA wouldn't have happily accomodated that? (Also assuming that the North had let them leave without war)"

The stupid is giant.

The confederacy traded with everyone. Modern talking heads like to prattle on about the "new" global economy. The fact is the economy has been global for 300 years...probably more.

The south's whole economy was virtually based in international trade. That's why excise taxes and tarrifs were so brutal to those state. They didn't sell cotton to Ohio and New York. They sold cotton to England.

So you use the weasel word "accommodate" because you don't want to use precise language. You know you can say well... by trading with the colonies they are accommodating them!

As for the CSA's foreign policy... it was this and only this: Survival. They dumped all of their resources into trying to get england and france to help them. Both talked a good game... and both ultimately refused to live up to the promises they made.

Blogger Nate May 02, 2013 10:09 AM  

"But of course, you'll belabor this point... because you know you have no chance arguing against the other crimes of CSA ... fiat money, conscription, authoritarianism, etc. "

It was an invasion you blithering idiot.

Blogger Anglican May 02, 2013 10:09 AM  

I flew this one.

http://www.zazzle.com/imperial_german_flag_poster_print-228994551527048132

Anonymous Alexander May 02, 2013 10:10 AM  

And yet again some people want to use hypothetical futures to determine whether the CSA should have existed.

Very well. RINO, Canadian, et al. I see your 'The CSA was bad because it might have made an Empire in South America' (never mind how it would have done so with the USA along its western and northern borders and an enormous interest in preventing such a thing) and raise you "Abraham Lincoln and the forced reunion of the states were necessary condition for the rise of Adolph Hitler."

Yes, let's keep judging real historical events by imaginary scenarios.

Anonymous Curlytop May 02, 2013 10:10 AM  

If the screen name is appropriate, then the comedy of him lecturing Nate on Statism is pretty damn amusing.

Anonymous Curlytop May 02, 2013 10:14 AM  

"Yes, let's keep judging real historical events by imaginary scenarios."


Biologists and Climatologists do it, so why not? ;-)

Anonymous Alexander May 02, 2013 10:16 AM  

If Canadian and RINO wish to place themselves in the camp with Biologists and Climatologists then by all means, I shall stand aside and allow them to do so.

Anonymous Josh May 02, 2013 10:16 AM  

RINO and A. Canadian support events that led to Hitler. Real anarchist of them.

Anonymous MrGreenMan May 02, 2013 10:19 AM  

When outnumbered and under threat of being wiped out, Nehemiah had every man able to bear arms defend Jerusalem, to the point that each man fixing the wall used his tools with one hand and his sword always at the ready in the other. Conscription is always bad, right? Better to be wiped from the face of the earth?

The federal government has done nothing to endear love and loyalty; it just buys people off. The South was outnumbered by a huge margin, and the political games played with the railroad lines had ensured that the North was better able to field the weapons of war. When you're facing extinction, it is every man to the gates to defend the city.

(And, for the record, MrGreenMan's relatives volunteered in Lansing to fight for the North, so I'm not trying to refight some lost war.)

Anonymous Vidad May 02, 2013 10:22 AM  

@Josh

YOU BROUGHT UP HITLER - THREAD IS OVER

Anonymous Alexander May 02, 2013 10:22 AM  

Josh - it's terrible, isn't it? I can acknowledge that the CSA wasn't perfect, but I just can't bring myself to support the chain of events leading to the rise of the Nazi party. And if that makes me a bad libertarianarchist... I'll just have to try and live with myself.

Anonymous Vidad May 02, 2013 10:25 AM  

I think this flag is cool as heck:

http://www.best-buy-flags.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/2/image/1000x1000/13eae912a425a5c3fbfb8c8a25342d3e/4/4/italy-republic-of-venice-697-1797-flag-3-x-5-ft-90-x-150-cm.gif

I'd fly the flag, buy a nice square-rigger and salute the Doge if I could. Too bad about the unification of Italy...

Anonymous Severen May 02, 2013 10:27 AM  

"Look buddy, I'm mostly a libertarian, but I think you need to share with us some proof of a single anarchy that has remained viable for any significant period of time without devolving into gang warfare and sectarian violence."

http://foranemergentgovernance.tumblr.com/post/1517302968/iceland

http://foranemergentgovernance.tumblr.com/post/1517339178/ireland

http://foranemergentgovernance.tumblr.com/post/1517195683/the-mild-west

Not "anarchism", but stateless societies that were around for a while. They certainly didn't have to worry about the democratic mob voting to steal their resources, having their children taken away by the state, funding and dying in some foreign war, etc.

Anonymous cheddarman May 02, 2013 10:28 AM  

I would gladly fly a Confederate battle flag, and I'm from Ohio.

sincerely

Cheddarman

Anonymous vales3 May 02, 2013 10:30 AM  

Loyalty Day. I thought it was a joke. No matter who squats in the White House, this "Pledge" makes me rage. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. Oh wait, never mind, it dropped quite some time ago.

Anonymous Outlaw X May 02, 2013 10:33 AM  

I haven't read all the comments, nor did I know May 1st was declared as commie day once again. I spend most of my time in bed these days. But there is a secret behind what they do. They always give it away to their minions and know that the American public is a bunch of dumb asses, and laugh at them.

Well they got their Iphones and 2000 channels of bullshit on the TV.

Anonymous Hyperphrenius May 02, 2013 10:34 AM  

@A. Canadian

enslaved 30% of its population

The CSA did not enslave anyone. Those people were already slaves. Moreover, they were of a nation of savages. Slavery was to their benefit. The forced ending of slavery was perhaps the greatest of the crimes the North perpetrated on the South, whether white or black. It was the Union that sought to steal the property of the southern landowners, launching an aggressive war to unlawfully deprive them of their slaves. And many slaves turned destitute, and often turned to crime, and today we see the latter-day products of their emancipation rotting in the crackhouses and ghettos, and prisons of our glorious, free nation.

The Confederacy fought to defend the rights of slave owners because they realized a nation full of free Negroes would turn out like all the other nations full of free Negroes had turned out in the past. Now thanks to segregation, that disaster was postponed for some time. Until the Union again decided to meddle with the South, and undid that as well. We've gone free negro now. But the people of the Old South knew, you never go free negro.

Anonymous Josh May 02, 2013 10:37 AM  

Hyperphrenius, you're not helping

Anonymous zen0 May 02, 2013 10:39 AM  

A. Canadian doesn't sound like any Canadian I ever met. Arabid anti-statist with a government health care card that does not say "eh?" seems like a false flag operator to me.

Anonymous zen0 May 02, 2013 10:40 AM  

"Arabid"? Heh. I invented a new word.

Anonymous Herman the German May 02, 2013 10:47 AM  

@ Magister Wood:

Good choice of Flag. I fly the exact same one, right underneath my Gadsden.

Anonymous Renovator in Charge May 02, 2013 10:56 AM  

"At this point, it is those who want to burn the U.S. flag, which is now the symbol of those who are destroying the Constitution, who are the genuine patriots."

People shouldn't comment on the U.S. Constitution if they don't understand it. Case in point: see above.

Anonymous Sigyn May 02, 2013 11:00 AM  

Ireland? Really? The island that was divided up into at least four kingdoms and was constantly plagued with hot and cold clan wars and grudges?

Sounds like an anarchist paradise to me.

Anonymous Sigyn May 02, 2013 11:03 AM  

People shouldn't comment on the U.S. Constitution if they don't understand it. Case in point: see above.

This sounds like Tad.

Anonymous sprach von Teufelhunden May 02, 2013 11:16 AM  

I'll stick with the Lone Star. (If I need any flag at all). We need flags, like we need stinkin badges...

Oh, and Nate, I do bow down to your superior intellect. Especially on Freemasonry. [rolls eyes]

My credibility is backed up via superior minds, none of which exists here. Oh, it WAS a nuke! (It's science)

ηδεως γαρ ανεχεσθε των αφρονων φρονιμοι οντες ...

Anonymous DrW May 02, 2013 11:16 AM  

Or fly the Nyberg Battle Flag!

Anonymous Telluride May 02, 2013 11:21 AM  

I flew the American Flag (the starts and stripes) because the meaning of "patriot" is one that defends their nation and, in the case of the U.S., defends and celebrates the most successful governing document ever created.

The Constitution is alive and well, despite the attempts by right wing, conservative activists and to turn its meaning over to corporate America and to destroy the country.

Anonymous Mudz May 02, 2013 11:25 AM  

ηδεως γαρ ανεχεσθε των αφρονων φρονιμοι οντες

Your English is terrible.

Anonymous Sigyn May 02, 2013 11:29 AM  

The Constitution is alive and well, despite the attempts by right wing, conservative activists and to turn its meaning over to corporate America and to destroy the country.

The reason behind your insistence that everything we discuss is "moot" and we should just lie down and give up is crystal clear.

Anonymous Josh May 02, 2013 11:30 AM  

The Constitution is alive and well, despite the attempts by right wing, conservative activists and to turn its meaning over to corporate America and to destroy the country.

Wait, what? Please explain.

Anonymous CunningDove May 02, 2013 11:31 AM  

If I had know about that silly declaration from the President, I would have flown my Scottish Cross of St. Andrew...

Anonymous Telluride May 02, 2013 11:35 AM  

"Wait, what? Please explain."

@Josh Explain What?

Anonymous Lysander Spooner May 02, 2013 11:36 AM  

"proof of a single anarchy that has remained viable for any significant period of time without devolving into gang warfare and sectarian violence."


9000 Years of Irish Anarchy:

http://markstoval.wordpress.com/

Anonymous Telluride May 02, 2013 11:37 AM  

"The reason behind your insistence that everything we discuss is "moot" and we should just lie down and give up is crystal clear."

@Sigyn Not everything. Just Arranged Marriages.

Anonymous Noah B. May 02, 2013 11:38 AM  

"The Constitution is alive and well, despite the attempts by right wing, conservative activists and to turn its meaning over to corporate America and to destroy the country."

Sadly, she's probably not just trolling.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard May 02, 2013 11:38 AM  

The reason behind your insistence that everything we discuss is "moot" and we should just lie down and give up is crystal clear.

Now, now, Pet. I want more men like this. They are more readily controlled by whoever sits the throne, and in fact will plead to be controlled, whereas those who embrace personal responsibility and autonomy must be bargained with or coerced at greater cost.

Blogger Nate May 02, 2013 11:41 AM  

"Oh, and Nate, I do bow down to your superior intellect. Especially on Freemasonry. [rolls eyes]"

Hey Dread... Bernake get arrested yet? No?

Anonymous Telluride May 02, 2013 11:41 AM  

"Now, now, Pet. I want more men like this. They are more readily controlled by whoever sits the throne, and in fact will plead to be controlled, whereas those who embrace personal responsibility and autonomy must be bargained with or coerced at greater cost."

Another babbling stiff.

Anonymous Mudz May 02, 2013 11:42 AM  

Why do all these guys sound the same?

A. Man
A. Canadian
Telluride
Different T

I can't fathom the connection.

Anonymous Josh May 02, 2013 11:42 AM  

Explain What?

How conservatives are turning the constitution over to corporate interests.

Anonymous jay c May 02, 2013 11:51 AM  

They are more readily controlled by whoever sits the throne...

Whomever, not whoever. Danged ferners!

Blogger Nate May 02, 2013 11:53 AM  

Oh... and Dread....

But, take heed of the false prophets, who come unto you in sheep's clothing, and inwardly are ravening wolves.

Anonymous Jack Amok May 02, 2013 11:54 AM  

I fly a Betsy Ross on these occasions.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard May 02, 2013 12:04 PM  

Another babbling stiff.

The aspirant to serfdom speaks, and with what eloquence! Tell me, does your deftness of tongue arise from its use to "please" your would-be masters?

Blogger Nate May 02, 2013 12:13 PM  

" Tell me, does your deftness of tongue arise from its use to "please" your would-be masters?"

So you're suggesting he may have a tongue piercing eh?

Anonymous Telluride May 02, 2013 12:14 PM  

"How conservatives are turning the constitution over to corporate interests"

Citizens United is the best most recent example.

Anonymous Telluride May 02, 2013 12:15 PM  

"The aspirant to serfdom speaks, and with what eloquence! Tell me, does your deftness of tongue arise from its use to "please" your would-be masters?"

And not just a babbling stiff, but one that can't even keep his babblings straight. Go on, do entertain us more Mr. Jester.

Anonymous Outlaw X May 02, 2013 12:15 PM  

How conservatives are turning the constitution over to corporate interests.

Bullshit, Josh. Conservatives is just another lie like liberals. Money changers son. That is what it is it is neither conservative or liberal. The only difference between a conservative and a liberal is abortion, gun control, gay marriage, Christian pretend values, Immigration, and social things. Trying to call one a conservative or a liberal has nothing to do with liberty. Liberty is the key. Tags are bullshit. If anyone thinks Rush Limbaugh is a conservative, they are full of shit. What is he trying to conserve? Nothing, is the answer.

There are no conservatives or liberals, there is only liberty and slavery. The true liberal is for liberty, but neither conservatives or liberals recognize it.

All politics are monetary now and none touch on liberty. It is a foolish lot of people with monetary agendas instead of liberty agendas. So the course has been set whether Left or Right. And the course is enslavement and the deprecation of mankind.

Fools follow the wind and the wind blows against freedom as it always has.

Take down your sails.

Blogger Nate May 02, 2013 12:15 PM  

republican /= conservative

Blogger Nate May 02, 2013 12:17 PM  

"And not just a babbling stiff, but one that can't even keep his babblings straight. Go on, do entertain us more Mr. Jester."

Its never good when you're to dumb to realize how the insult hurled at you works.

Anonymous Josh May 02, 2013 12:17 PM  

Wow, you're a moron. Any restrictions on political speech violates the first amendment. Anyone should be able to give unlimited money to any political candidate or political cause. Why do you oppose democracy?

Anonymous RINO May 02, 2013 12:21 PM  

And yet again some people want to use hypothetical futures to determine whether the CSA should have existed.

Uhm .. yes, that's what this is about. We have to try to deduce what their foreign policy would have been if they were allowed to leave based on their words and their actions. We can't just go by the 4 years it existed because it spent that entire time fighting a massive war.

The South had many pro-slavery and Manifest Destiny ideologues. They were willing to act on it. I don't care if the CSA would have specifically funded the expansion or if they would have let private expeditions do their dirty work.

So you use the weasel word "accommodate" because you don't want to use precise language. You know you can say well... by trading with the colonies they are accommodating them!

Ok, I will change the wording, if Walker had created his central american colony after the CSA was formed it would have eventually been annexed by the CSA.

Anonymous El Pollo Loco May 02, 2013 12:21 PM  

Telluride has the IQ of a donut.

Anonymous Josh May 02, 2013 12:25 PM  

Donuts provide far more marginal utility than Telluride does.

Anonymous So there! May 02, 2013 12:25 PM  

"True Patriotism" is NOT displaying the flag, but being true to your ideals.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21138728/ns/politics-decision_08/t/obama-stops-wearing-american-flag-pin/

updated 10/4/2007 6:22:11 PM ET

WATERLOO, Iowa — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, D-Ill., said he will no longer wear an American flag lapel pin because it has become a substitute for “true patriotism” since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

He commented on the pin in a television interview Wednesday and then again on Thursday at a campaign appearance in Independence, Iowa.

“My attitude is that I’m less concerned about what you’re wearing on your lapel than what’s in your heart," he told the campaign crowd Thursday. "You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve. You show your patriotism by being true to our values and ideals. That’s what we have to lead with is our values and our ideals.”

He had been asked about the pin Wednesday in an interview with KCRG-TV in Cedar Rapids.

“The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin,” Obama said. “Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security.”

Obama was campaigning Thursday on the third day of a four-day trip to the early voting state.

Blogger RobertT May 02, 2013 12:25 PM  

@Josh
"As a Christian, I consider the pledge of allegiance idolatrous."

Allegiance - duty of fidelity
Pledge - a solemn promise

So what do you think of marriage?

Anonymous DonReynolds May 02, 2013 12:30 PM  

May Day is the international communist holiday (check out Red Square on May 1st). The labor unions have wanted it as their holiday for over a century. It is not shocking that Obamba has decided to make May 1st LOYALTY DAY in America. No doubt when he read this speech, he winked at all his fellow travelers out there in the audience. We are being had without the benefit of anything but the entertainment value.

OT-- I am surprised at you, Vox. That you did not notice the Defense Department announcement that they would now prosecute (fine and imprison) Christians who share their faith while serving in the US military......even one-on-one between friends! Check out Mr. Mikey Weinstein, the radical anti-Christian Obamba put in charge of imprementing that policy.

Anonymous Telluride May 02, 2013 12:31 PM  

"Any restrictions on political speech violates the first amendment."

I agree.


"Anyone should be able to give unlimited money to any political candidate or political cause. Why do you oppose democracy?"

For the same reason you keep beating your wife.

If you don't understand the absolute corrupting influence that unlimited corporate and union campaign contributions create, then you have no business discussing this issue.

Anonymous Josh May 02, 2013 12:34 PM  

Allegiance - duty of fidelity
Pledge - a solemn promise

So what do you think of marriage?


Category error. I'm happily married.

You don't think pledging fealty to an inanimate object like a flag clashes with that "graven image" bit?

Also, the pledge was written by a socialist.

And furthermore, asking a Southron to pledge allegiance to the flag of oppression and pillage is like asking a Jew to pledge allegiance to a swastika.

Anonymous Noah B. May 02, 2013 12:36 PM  

Talk about incoherent babbling -- Telluride, you attack those who you believe have undermined the Constitution one minute and then, without hesitation, support undermining the first amendment. You're an imbecile.

Anonymous Josh May 02, 2013 12:37 PM  

If you don't understand the absolute corrupting influence that unlimited corporate and union campaign contributions create, then you have no business discussing this issue.

They could already donate unlimited amounts to political parties. So it's bad for rich person A to give millions to candidate X, but it's ok for them to give millions to party Y?

Not to mention that most of the millions spent on political races is ultimately ineffective. Ask Meg Whitman or that Jewish casino cat.

Anonymous Noah B. May 02, 2013 12:38 PM  

"They could already donate unlimited amounts to political parties. So it's bad for rich person A to give millions to candidate X, but it's ok for them to give millions to party Y?"

Yep. McCain-Feingold was nothing more than a protection racket for the two-party system.

Anonymous Josh May 02, 2013 12:42 PM  

Yep. McCain-Feingold was nothing more than a protection racket for the two-party system.

Absolutely.

Anonymous Athor Pel May 02, 2013 12:45 PM  


"Catan May 02, 2013 9:47 AM

Look buddy, I'm mostly a libertarian, but I think you need to share with us some proof of a single anarchy that has remained viable for any significant period of time without devolving into gang warfare and sectarian violence.

I'm no fan of the state, but fuck anarchy too. Nature abhors a vacuum, so all anarchy is, is a vacuum in which states can pop up spontaneously. That is not preferable to a state that is specifically designed to split power up as much as possible."




http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard81.html

As is seen in this small window into America's past, states do not pop up spontaneously, it takes real effort to impose one on the unwilling.

But you gotta be mindful of one thing. Not all people are capable of being self governing. Some are so degenerate that a strong hand is required on them at all times in order for that society to function at all.

There is only one type of man capable of earthly self government, those that fear God. Yes, all men are sinners but once enough men in a place fear God then that society will be self ordering for no other reason than they want to be left alone and leaving their neighbor alone turns out to be the best way to achieve that. What that percentage is I do not presume to guess.

Anonymous Telluride May 02, 2013 12:45 PM  

"Talk about incoherent babbling -- Telluride, you attack those who you believe have undermined the Constitution one minute and then, without hesitation, support undermining the first amendment. You're an imbecile."

We inhibit speech regularly when certain types pose a danger to society. That's not controversial.

The connection between "speech" an campaign financing is tenuous, something thought up by corporations and unions. Nonetheless it's now quite clear by any measure that corporate and union campaign contributions inhibit political speech, hurt real people, and corrupt the legitimate political process. There are numerous ways to ensure everyone has the opportunity to support campaigns through contributions without providing the richest among us an outsized advantage.

The idea that corporations and unions are "people" is even hinted at in the constitution. It's a made up principle.

Blogger El Borak May 02, 2013 12:47 PM  

It is not shocking that Obamba has decided to make May 1st LOYALTY DAY in America.

He didn't:

Loyalty Day was first observed in 1921 as "Americanization Day" to counterbalance Labour Day on May Day (May 1), celebrated in other parts of the world. On May 1, 1930, about 10,000 Veterans of Foreign War members staged a rally at New York's Union Square to promote patriotism. Through a resolution adopted in 1949, May 1 evolved into Loyalty Day. Observances began on April 28, 1950, and climaxed on May 1 when more than five million people across the nation held rallies. In New York City, more than 100,000 people rallied for America.

On July 18, 1958, the Congress designated May 1 of each year as Loyalty Day to foster loyalty and love of the country. According to the Legal Information Institute, the President is requested to issue a proclamation, calling on United States government officials to display the flag of the United States on all government buildings on Loyalty Day, and inviting the people of the United States to observe Loyalty Day with appropriate ceremonies in schools and other suitable places.

Anonymous Josh May 02, 2013 12:48 PM  

Nonetheless it's now quite clear by any measure that corporate and union campaign contributions inhibit political speech, hurt real people, and corrupt the legitimate political process. There are numerous ways to ensure everyone has the opportunity to support campaigns through contributions without providing the richest among us an outsized advantage.

Okay, give me at least three measures that show this corruption. Since you said, "by any measure" it shouldn't be hard.

Anonymous Mudz May 02, 2013 12:49 PM  

There is only one type of man capable of earthly self government, those that fear God. Yes, all men are sinners but once enough men in a place fear God then that society will be self ordering for no other reason than they want to be left alone and leaving their neighbor alone turns out to be the best way to achieve that. What that percentage is I do not presume to guess.

Proverbs 8.

Blogger Nate May 02, 2013 12:58 PM  

RINO

We get it. You're a dumbass yankee bigot that believes everything he reads so long as it says something bad about the South. We're all very impressed.

Anonymous LaughterIs May 02, 2013 12:58 PM  

"There is only one type of man capable of earthly self government, those that fear God."

Hogwash

Blogger David May 02, 2013 1:05 PM  

This is encouraging news:

29% of American voters believe an armed revolt may necessary in the next few years to protect liberties?

Dear God, that number is huge. I seem to remember a statistic that said like 10-15% of Americans during the Revolutionary War actually supported it. If so, then it's no wonder DHS is panic-buying all those billions of rounds.

Interesting times ahead.

Blogger David May 02, 2013 1:06 PM  

The link mysteriously vanished:

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/poll-29-registered-voters-believe-armed-revolution-might-be-necessary

Anonymous Outlaw X May 02, 2013 1:07 PM  

There is only one type of man capable of earthly self government, those that fear God. Yes, all men are sinners but once enough men in a place fear God then that society will be self ordering for no other reason than they want to be left alone and leaving their neighbor alone turns out to be the best way to achieve that. What that percentage is I do not presume to guess.

Once a man realizes how transient life is, he becomes humble. He no longer reaches for the stars but stares at the ground in which he stands. Realizing only then that soon he shall be buried in that which is under foot.

That is when a man becomes a man, not at a certain age, but at a sentiment. And he makes a leader out of himself, yet refuses to lead.

Anonymous Hyperphrenius May 02, 2013 1:10 PM  

LaughterIs May 02, 2013 12:58 PM

"There is only one type of man capable of earthly self government, those that fear God."

Hogwash


Your argument is not very persuasive. Tell me, when you say Hogwash, are you referring to something used to wash a hog? Or the act of washing a hog? Or, is hogwash the water left over after the washing of the hog?

I do notice that instead of disproving what Athor said you instead reply with some cliched interjection that is supposed to mean, what, exactly? That what he's said is false? Why not say, "This is false." Better yet, demonstrate that it's false, tell us what's false about it. Explain, give examples, tie it to some reality observable by the senses. Anyone can say "Hogwash! Hogwash!" at any statement. Show us you have the ability to actually argue for your positions.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard May 02, 2013 1:10 PM  

Its never good when you're to dumb to realize how the insult hurled at you works.

Yes, and it is a pity. There is little satisfaction in outwitting the village idiot.

He does remind me, somewhat, of that one fellow who insisted everyone else was babbling.

Anonymous GreyS May 02, 2013 1:10 PM  

"There are only two flags that merit flying in America these days, the Gadsden Flag below is one of them. And the other one is not the Stars and Stripes."

Ah, to see the beautiful pink and purple of the McRapey gently flapping in the breeze!

Anonymous Gen. Kong May 02, 2013 1:13 PM  

Yep. McCain-Feingold was nothing more than a protection racket for the two-party system.

Funny thing is that it's now getting to the point that the oligarchy isn't even trying very hard to conceal the bogus nature of the so-called opposition party. They must be confident in the obvious success of the publick edumacation racket and Ministry of Truth in producing legions of brainless idiots that they'll soon drop the pretense altogether and have big brother simply issue the decrees.

Anonymous Sigyn May 02, 2013 1:16 PM  

@ Gen. Kong:

Oh, yeah, speaking of which: Paul "Math!" Ryan just recently came out--ooh, bad choice of words there--in favor of gay adoption.

Wasn't he held up as some kind of conservative icon?

Anonymous Severen May 02, 2013 1:18 PM  

"If you don't understand the absolute corrupting influence that unlimited corporate and union campaign contributions create, then you have no business discussing this issue."

Money doesn't buy elections. I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to, but a lot of people think that.

Source: This Book Will Be Lied About by Ryan Faulk

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?lj5ks531az24vov

His sources here: http://www.mediafire.com/view/?h1bh0fotqta6r8r

(don't know if those links will show up)

Blogger James Dixon May 02, 2013 1:29 PM  

> The connection between "speech" an campaign financing is tenuous...

Not to most people.

> The idea that corporations and unions are "people" is even hinted at in the constitution. It's a made up principle.

Well, duh. I doubt you'll get much argument about that here.

Anonymous Porky May 02, 2013 1:33 PM  

Look buddy, I'm mostly a libertarian, but I think you need to share with us some proof of a single anarchy that has remained viable for any significant period of time without devolving into gang warfare and sectarian violence.

Brief fits of tribal warfare are vastly preferable to a boot stomping on a human face forever.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard May 02, 2013 1:39 PM  

Brief fits of tribal warfare are vastly preferable to a boot stomping on a human face forever.

Are those slain by their neighbours any less dead?

Anonymous Athor Pel May 02, 2013 1:41 PM  

"Outlaw X May 02, 2013 12:15 PM

How conservatives are turning the constitution over to corporate interests.

Bullshit, Josh. Conservatives is just another lie like liberals. Money changers son. That is what it is it is neither conservative or liberal. The only difference between a conservative and a liberal is abortion, gun control, gay marriage, Christian pretend values, Immigration, and social things. Trying to call one a conservative or a liberal has nothing to do with liberty. Liberty is the key. Tags are bullshit. If anyone thinks Rush Limbaugh is a conservative, they are full of shit. What is he trying to conserve? Nothing, is the answer.

There are no conservatives or liberals, there is only liberty and slavery. The true liberal is for liberty, but neither conservatives or liberals recognize it.

All politics are monetary now and none touch on liberty. It is a foolish lot of people with monetary agendas instead of liberty agendas. So the course has been set whether Left or Right. And the course is enslavement and the deprecation of mankind.

Fools follow the wind and the wind blows against freedom as it always has.

Take down your sails."





What Outlaw is saying here is that much of the reality that you think of as real isn't really all that real. It's made up. Many of the conflicts that define politics in this world are manufactured. They are used to keep the vast majority of the population occupied while those that presume to govern this planet go about their business. It is much easier to guide an angry man to the next scapegoat than one that harbors no ill will towards anyone much less the man willing to die for his fellow man.

Anonymous Marellus May 02, 2013 2:00 PM  

An actor walks upon the floodlit stage of life
wearing a mask of an angel beneath a demon's gown.
Pretence smiles upon the crowded hall of life
holding out hope as bright as it is false.

Son of a woman in whose veins flows the blood
of ancient Ireland and dark Africa's plains.
You are Obama, nick-named the standing king
You are Barack, oh, son born to deceive
The suffering hoards of Africa look up to you,
See a black saviour where nought but a Judas strides.

An entrapper of nations, bringer of dismal war
Behind the robes and the nylon wings of hope
Oh, may those who look upon you, see you as you are.

May those who hope in you behold you as you be
A prince deceitful to bring down Africa's shrines
A siren who leads Africa's ships onto rocks of obliteration.

Your rule my lord will not be one of peace
Your reign my king will not be one of smiles
Even as we speak in caves both dark and dank
Enraged fanatics plot your dark demise
They will put around your head a bloodwet martyr's crown.

Oh black Kennedy following the one before
May God forgive thee and thy fiery spouse
As you walk in silence from the stage of life
Barack Obama, blessed son, Oh standing king.

- Credo Mutwa


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWLngu4AQGE

Anonymous Noah B. May 02, 2013 2:00 PM  

"We inhibit speech regularly when certain types pose a danger to society. That's not controversial."

Yeah -- it is. That means all that has to be done to restrict speech is to claim it's a danger. Obama, for example, is quite fond of labeling opposition to his policies as dangerous. Like I said, you're an idiot.

Anonymous Porky May 02, 2013 2:01 PM  

Are those slain by their neighbours any less dead?

There are things worse than death.

Anonymous Noah B. May 02, 2013 2:03 PM  

"Brief fits of tribal warfare are vastly preferable to a boot stomping on a human face forever."

Wow, Porky, it's as though you completely overlooked the fact that the tribes that win enough wars (or gain control of the monetary system) eventually become governments.

Anonymous Porky May 02, 2013 2:06 PM  

BTW, today California became first state in nation to authorize funding for gun confiscation. They're broke, but Governor Moonbeam somehow managed to find $24,000,000 in the budget to confiscate guns that were purchased legally.

In the words of Perry Farrell: "Heeere weeeee GO!"

Anonymous Porky May 02, 2013 2:10 PM  

Wow, Porky, it's as though you completely overlooked the fact that the tribes that win enough wars (or gain control of the monetary system) eventually become governments.

You obviously have no clue about horticulture. Specifically, the watering regimen for lignum libertas.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard May 02, 2013 2:18 PM  

There are things worse than death.

In the end, your home is lost to you, your possessions divided among your killers, your daughters made concubines if they are lucky, your wife violated and slain before your eyes, your sons taken for slaves, and you are cut into pieces slowly to make an example for your surviving tribesmen.

Think you tribal warfare is somehow less uncivilised than the systematic cruelties of bureaucrats?

Or have you forgotten that there are options between anarchy and the boot?

Anonymous beerme May 02, 2013 2:22 PM  

I should just point out.. that while Georgia has had much controversy over displaying a the battle fag on part of its state flag... Alabama's state flag IS a battle flag.

Nate, I want to point out that Georgia's current flag is the Stars and Bars with the addition of our state coat of arms.

Anonymous Porky May 02, 2013 2:23 PM  

@loki

You truly have no idea what "Give me liberty of give me death" means, do you?

Hint: it doesn't mean anything remotely close to "ok take my liberty but just please don't hurt us".





Blogger RobertT May 02, 2013 2:45 PM  

I grew up in Telluride so I may have soft spot here, but this guy's not all wrong ... This us a great statement. As well as the statement about the link between "free speech" and political contributions.

@Telluride
"If you don't understand the absolute corrupting influence that unlimited corporate and union campaign contributions create, then you have no business discussing this issue."

Nothing wrong with that. Outlawing both of those would go a long way to fixing things around here.

Anonymous Clay May 02, 2013 2:46 PM  

Mississippi has the only decent state flag left.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard May 02, 2013 2:52 PM  

@ porky:

You truly have no idea what "fallacy of the excluded middle" means, have you?

Anonymous Noah B. May 02, 2013 2:59 PM  

@RobertT, the Citizens United decision struck down restrictions on political advocacy by corporations. It did not affect restrictions on direct campaign contributions. Telluride's quip was just a strawman.

Anonymous Hunsdon May 02, 2013 3:20 PM  

Thank you, El Borak!

Hi, new kid here. Long time reader, etc. (Wait, that makes me sound like a sock puppet.)

I like the commentary here, but this article seemed to cause an outbreak of the dumbs. As El Borak had to point out repeatedly, OBAMA DIDN'T MAKE UP LOYALTY DAY. He's flogging it, all right, but he didn't make it up. When you see something like this, please, take the five seconds necessary to do some quick research.

If you don't, do you know who you look like? Liberals. or if not liberals, then FoxNews conservatives.

C'mon, y'all. The Ilk is better than this.

Anonymous Porky May 02, 2013 3:24 PM  

@loki

Yeah, that excluded middle has worked so great every time it's been tried. Not.

It took all of 8 generations to go from "don't tread on me" to legalized infanticide. Just under 10 generations to go from "don't tread on me" to "we're confiscating your weapons". Best government ever. Wow. So impressed.

You just keep on experimenting and social engineering and trying to come up with newer and better ways to subjugate people. I'll be getting ready for you.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard May 02, 2013 3:43 PM  

It took all of 8 generations to go from "don't tread on me" to legalized infanticide. Just under 10 generations to go from "don't tread on me" to "we're confiscating your weapons".

And just under that many to a fool insisting that he could stand alone against the might of nations.

I'll be getting ready for you.

And what, pray, makes you think your "tribe" (of how many? One man?) would be strong enough to repel a more organised and motivated army, I must ask, much less strong enough that your neighbouring tribes would not slay you or enslave you?

Anonymous Telluride May 02, 2013 3:52 PM  

"Yeah -- it is. That means all that has to be done to restrict speech is to claim it's a danger. Obama, for example, is quite fond of labeling opposition to his policies as dangerous. Like I said, you're an idiot."

Ridiculous. While we occasionally restrict speech, it is fairly rare and usually only when it posses a significant disturbance or is meant to cause harm (the movie theater thing is a classic example). The fact is you just can't label something as dangerous and expect to be able to restrict it. You have to demonstrate a compelling reason for to consider it dangerous and this is a very high wall to scale.

Anonymous Telluride May 02, 2013 3:54 PM  

"@Telluride
"If you don't understand the absolute corrupting influence that unlimited corporate and union campaign contributions create, then you have no business discussing this issue."

Nothing wrong with that. Outlawing both of those would go a long way to fixing things around here."

Of course there's nothing wrong with this.

The key to making political campaigns competitive and to giving third and fourth parties a chance is to limit contributions $3000 +/- per person (or even per company or pac) per campaign. Additionally, full disclosure of who is giving to who is necessary. Shed light!

Blogger James Dixon May 02, 2013 4:06 PM  

> While we occasionally restrict speech, it is fairly rare and usually only when it posses a significant disturbance or is meant to cause harm...

You mean like campaign ads within 60 days of an election? That type of harm or disturbance?

Anonymous Noah B. May 02, 2013 4:10 PM  

"The key to making political campaigns competitive and to giving third and fourth parties a chance is to limit contributions $3000 +/- per person (or even per company or pac) per campaign. Additionally, full disclosure of who is giving to who is necessary. Shed light!"

This, essentially, is already law. Citizens United had no impact on that whatsoever. However, when politicians like Obama brazenly violate campaign finance laws, and Congress, the courts, and the bureaucracy all refuse to intercede, it no longer matters what the law is

Anonymous Noah B. May 02, 2013 4:18 PM  

So how does this work for you -- do you just hear some leftist complaining about Citizens United and involuntarily commit to memory something to the effect of, "Citizens United is bad," while having no fundamental understanding whatsoever of what the decision actually was?

Blogger Bullitt315 May 02, 2013 4:27 PM  

Don't Canadians spell it "Canadien" with an E or is that just the hockey team?

Anonymous Porky May 02, 2013 4:45 PM  

LokiAnd just under that many to a fool insisting that he could stand alone against the might of nations.

Yeah it's crazy to think that a bunch of militiamen farmers and shopkeeps could muster the resources to fight a big powerful army.

And what, pray, makes you think your "tribe" (of how many? One man?) would be strong enough to repel a more organised and motivated army, I must ask, much less strong enough that your neighbouring tribes would not slay you or enslave you?

What makes you tyrants think you can enslave an armed populace and bend them to your depraved will with only a bunch of paid mercenaries and lukewarm conscripts?

Bring it on muthafuka.


Anonymous Sigyn May 02, 2013 4:45 PM  

While we occasionally restrict speech, it is fairly rare and usually only when it posses a significant disturbance or is meant to cause harm (the movie theater thing is a classic example).

Like that harmful, disturbance-causing situation of military chaplains talking about Jesus.

Get past the puffery and alarmism in the article to this quote: "The Pentagon confirmed to Fox News that Christian evangelism is against regulations.

“Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense,” LCDR Nate Christensen said in a written statement. He declined to say if any chaplains or service members had been prosecuted for such an offense.

“Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis and it would be inappropriate to speculate on the outcome in specific cases,” he said."

His Lordship intends to write about this tomorrow at his Domain, by the way. It'll almost certainly be more clear-headed than the article I linked.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard May 02, 2013 4:54 PM  

Bring it on muthafuka.

Oh, if not I, then someone else. Unless your "tribe" is stronger and better stationed than the others, you will be as dead or enslaved as you would have been with your face under a boot.

You see, this is because it will not be one tribe of lawless peasants against one other. It will be federations of tribes, which eventually become nations.

And I shall rule them, in the end.

Anonymous Porky May 02, 2013 5:06 PM  

@loki

I'm not against temporary government. But permanent governments are simply corruption magnets.

They should be built for a specific purpose. Then dissolved immediately once that purpose is met.

you will be as dead or enslaved as you would have been with your face under a boot.

Again, you really don't understand the phrase "give me liberty or give me death". It seems a foreign concept to you. Sad.

And I shall rule them, in the end.

So said George III. Next time your head goes a pike, Georgie.

Blogger El Borak May 02, 2013 5:17 PM  

Hunsdon: My pleasure.

Anonymous Beau May 02, 2013 5:34 PM  

May 1st was Loyalty Day; it should have been Constitution Day. Be that as it may, today, May 2nd, we in Roswell are observing the National Day of Prayer with a real recognition that our nation is broken and needs to be broken before God in repentance.

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. Now mine eyes shall be open, and mine ears attent unto the prayer that is made in this place. For now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that my name may be there for ever: and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually.

2 Chronicles 7:14-16


Anonymous Beau May 02, 2013 5:50 PM  

Smooth as honey on the lips, a soothing lie,

While we occasionally restrict speech, it is fairly rare and usually only when it posses a significant disturbance or is meant to cause harm (the movie theater thing is a classic example).

The government is doing in real-time exactly what Telluride tells us not to be alarmed over, radical eradication of free speech; for example, this very week, “Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense." Telluride is a brazen liar.

Anonymous Noah B. May 02, 2013 5:58 PM  

"The fact is you just can't label something as dangerous and expect to be able to restrict it."

That's exactly what gun control is, nitwit.

Anonymous Mr. Pea May 02, 2013 6:41 PM  

"The fact is you just can't label something as dangerous and expect to be able to restrict it."

It is called malum prohibitum.

Latin meaning "wrong due to being prohibited," which refers to crimes made so by statute, compared to crimes based on English Common Law and obvious violations of society's standards which are defined as "malum in se."

An offence malum prohibitum, on the contrary, is not naturally an evil, but becomes so in consequence of its being forbidden; as playing at games, which being innocent before, have become unlawful in consequence of being forbidden. Vide Bac. Ab. Assumpsit, A, note; 2 Rolle's Ab. 355.

malum in se:

Latin referring to an act that is "wrong in itself," in its very nature being illegal because it violates the natural, moral or public principles of a civilized society. In criminal law it is one of the collection of crimes which are traditional and not just created by statute, which are "malum prohibitum."

An offence malum in se is one which is naturally evil, as murder, theft, and the like; offences at common law are generally mala in sese.

Most of our "laws" today are malum prohibitum.

Anonymous Noah B. May 02, 2013 6:45 PM  

Latin referring to an act that is "wrong in itself," in its very nature being illegal because it violates the natural, moral or public principles of a civilized society.

You have to keep in mind your audience. These people have no principles. This entire distinction is therefore completely lost on them, no matter how much they claim otherwise.

Anonymous wcu May 02, 2013 6:56 PM  

Lots of talk about the south and the north; great stuff! I remember when I met my southern wife's family for the first time. They were very southern: polite, friendly, lots of sweet tea, etc...then all of a sudden they began almost apologizing for the civil war, johnny reb and slavery after we got home from their methodist church...I asked my then fiance if her family ever talked about this kind of thing growing up; she just started laughing and said, "it must because you are a yankee or something sweetheart, we nevedr talked about this stuff!" Love this country.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard May 02, 2013 7:47 PM  

Again, you really don't understand the phrase "give me liberty or give me death".

I do. In fact, when you insist upon absolute liberty, you will also meet death--at the hands of another who will take liberties.

And for what? Because some fellow of your "tribe" did something the other tribesmen did not like, of course. Such are clan wars; everyone suffers for the acts or omissions of one, for what justice can they otherwise seek? Or perhaps simply because he can, justification enough for your pathetic human nature.

But in the end, at least you will have your "liberty" to comfort you as your daughters are shared among your conquerors. Perhaps the burning shell of your home will warm your carcass as it is torn apart and tossed, piecemeal, into a ditch for dogs to feast.

At least it is only a tribal war, and the anguish of your dearest loved ones will be a small price to pay for that brief, illusory taste of "liberty". It might have been worse; you might have had to obey some law or other. Perish the thought.

You will kneel, or you will be ground into the dust you are. There are no other options, if you insist that there be no options save anarchy or absolute despotism.

If you again miss my point, you deserve your fate. It may even come at the hands of my devoted servants.

Anonymous Porky May 02, 2013 8:52 PM  

@loki

Dude, you don't get. Probably never will.

My kind don't become slaves. We either live free or we die. And if we die, we do so with a song in our hearts. We rejoice in dark prisons and welcome the happy day of death.

You will kneel, or you will be ground into the dust you are. There are no other options.

No. We will live free and someday return to dust. Whether it's at the hand of a despot or a disease does not matter. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

There are no other options, if you insist that there be no options save anarchy or absolute despotism.

Do tell us about this fantastic government that you've invented. You know, the one that does not eventually lead to tyranny and serfdom? It must be a wonderful magical place. My guess is it's about as real as your scepter-wielding Marvel Comic namesake.

Bunch of authoritarian assholes the lot of you. Go do your stupid social experiments on yourself.

Anonymous SHUT UP NOAH B. May 02, 2013 9:07 PM  

"So how does this work for you -- do you just hear some leftist complaining about Citizens United and involuntarily commit to memory something to the effect of, "Citizens United is bad," while having no fundamental understanding whatsoever of what the decision actually was?"


Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) served as a foundational piece for Citizens United. In Santa Clara, the Supreme Court determined that public corporations, like private citizens, have due process and equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment.

Now preceding every Supreme Court case entry is a headnote, or summary. The court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, a former railroad executive, stated, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids the State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.”

The question of whether corporations were persons within the context of the 14th Amendment, however, was NOT explicitly decided. The Supreme Court NEVER ruled whether corporations were “citizens” and afforded certain inalienable rights. Since 1886, the Supreme Court has reiterated this assumption that corporations are entitled to constitutional protections.

As a result, Congress distinctly defined speech as being political and economic. In general, corporations may invoke rights that individuals possess, such as the right to petition, to speech, to enter into contracts and to hold property, to sue and to be sued, only relating to ECONOMIC/COMMERCIAL matters. When it came to corporations in POLITICAL matters like hosting rallies and campaign contributions, Congress and state governments had enacted several laws banning company involvement in the political arena, citing past corruptive practices.

Supreme Court decisions regarding corporate personhood had focused on businesses being held liable for their production of goods and being able to "voice" their concerns in a court of law when they felt government attempted to strictly regulate their practices. When it came to influencing government policies through political speech, the Supreme Court, Congress, and state legislatures made it a general policy for decades those rights squarely belonged to living things, not artificially created entities. Decisions in the late 1970's and 1980's, however, slowly eroded that distinction and paved the way for Citizens United to become the law of the land.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a conservative, mentioned the dubious headnote in the Santa Clara case when he wrote a compelling dissent in a 1978 Supreme Court case that expanded corporate personhood. Rehnquist reiterated Chief Justice John Marshall's views in Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) a corporation was an ARTIFICIAL BEING possessing the properties which the charter of creation confers upon it--meaning a government granted a business with the ECONOMIC right--not POLITICAL rights--to operate within its borders. Moreover, Rehnquist warned treating corporate spending as the First Amendment equivalent of individual free speech was to "confuse metaphor with reality".

So how should the Supreme Court treat newspapers, magazines, and television networks which report the news? The Court in media cases has tailored its rulings under the "Freedom Of The Press" clause and in citizen cases has tailored its rulings under the "Freedom Of Speech" clause. That is, it renders an opinion based on previous cases and past precedents in the appropriate area.

Anonymous SHUT UP NOAH B. May 02, 2013 9:07 PM  

We know that exceptions exist to free speech (e.g. sedition, slander) for both media companies and citizens. Media companies, however, are unique in its role regarding free speech compared to other businesses. If a reporter engaged in slander, they would be sued under their occupation as a writer employed by their company. If a business owner engaged in slander, they would be sued as a private citizen. In either situation, the courts would determine whether or not the accusation had merit and make a decision in that specific context.

In Citizens United, three issues were addressed: 1) is a company, as an "artificial entity" (that is, deriving its legitimacy by a legislature) whose function is ECONOMIC in nature, entitled to the POLITICAL rights as "natural persons" (that is, citizens of a nation as specified by the criteria of a legislature) under the Constitution; 2) is "free speech" simply "free speech" or is it delineated as "political free speech" and "economic/commercial free speech" -and- 3) does “free speech” protections for companies override the historical impact of corporate monied interests in politics. The decision centered on the POLITICAL content of their good (i.e. film) in relation to the McCain-Feingold Act, not the ECONOMIC right of Citizens United (a non-profit corporation) to produce a good.

Critics of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who helped to craft the majority opinion, emphatically stated during his confirmation that the Court should refrain from overturning precedent. He presented himself as an incrementalist, a justice opposed to big changes in direction. One can argue whether Roberts has actually lived up to his judicial-restraint packaging. A New York Times editorial urging a narrow ruling, an op-ed by Jeffrey Rosen, opined that how Roberts handled this case would determine if he was the next Earl Warren, the 1950’s/1960’s liberal Chief Justice whom some conservatives demonize for “legislating from the bench” and “judicial overreach”.

Overturning a century of precedent, however, may not be contrary to his self-declared judicial philosophy. "Originalism"--justices who claim it is not Supreme Court precedent that governs, but rather the intentions and understanding of those who drafted the Constitution (and its amendments)--lends itself to the possibility that the precedent was inherently flawed and therefore required judicial intervention.

Anonymous Fight, Fight, A N--- And A White May 02, 2013 9:10 PM  

Loki and Porky should get in the squared circle. VD can serve as the referee. 2 out of 3 falls. The spilling of blood is preferable.

Anonymous wcu May 02, 2013 9:23 PM  

A false norse god vs a succulant, tender, delicious warners bro god?

Blogger Nate May 02, 2013 9:36 PM  

"
And what, pray, makes you think your "tribe" (of how many? One man?) would be strong enough to repel a more organised and motivated army, I must ask, much less strong enough that your neighbouring tribes would not slay you or enslave you?"

Well... for one... My tribe is fighting on its home turf. Which, with your age you are well aware is a considerable advantage. My tribe has a ton more to lose than your organized army. Which is a considerable advantage.

Logistics is a great deal simpler for me. Its a problem for you.

And of course...

My tribe is better armed, more skilled, and more motivated than your army.

Then there is the ultimate weapon: time.

You can occupy our land for decades... but in the end... you will lose.

This is the lesson the afghans have taught us... and we have learned it well. You never loose unless you stop fighting.

Anonymous TheExpat May 02, 2013 10:46 PM  

Then there is the ultimate weapon: time.
You can occupy our land for decades... but in the end... you will lose.
This is the lesson the afghans have taught us... and we have learned it well. You never loose unless you stop fighting.


This is only true under the condition that the invading/conquering/occupying force is reasonably civilized and not willing to commit genocide (ethnic cleansing). So, what happens when that is not the case and a powerful aggressor is willing to wage Total War?

Carthage, meet Rome.
13th century Europe, meet the Mongol hordes.
Shenandoah Valley, meet General Sheridan.
Georgia, meet General Sherman

etc.

Blogger Nate May 02, 2013 11:55 PM  

"This is only true under the condition that the invading/conquering/occupying force is reasonably civilized and not willing to commit genocide (ethnic cleansing). So, what happens when that is not the case and a powerful aggressor is willing to wage Total War?"

That tactic is not sustainable over long distance or long time frames. Its fine if you're going after a single city. It fails if you're trying to defeat a whole nation. You simply cannot burn and destroy everything... because if you do you can't feed your own army.

Logistics is a bitch.

The reason the south fell to that son-of-a-bitch was because the south believed it would be treated fairly if it surrendered.

If they had known what reconstruction would mean.. ever last man woman and child would've fought and they would've kept fighting... and they would've eventually won. Just like the afghans.

4G warfare is a real bitch.

Anonymous Noah B. May 03, 2013 12:33 AM  

"Media companies, however, are unique in its role regarding free speech compared to other businesses."

Maybe in lefty tard fantasy land. Clearly, granting the media special privileges was part of the hidden intent that drove McCain-Feingold, which proves that McCain is a treacherous bastard. Luckily the court saw through this sham.

And the claim that a century of precedent was overturned is a lie. The case overturned was a 1990 case, Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

Anyway, hope you didn't drool on yourself too much while you were cutting and pasting all that.

Anonymous Athor Pel May 03, 2013 9:21 AM  

"Hunsdon May 02, 2013 3:20 PM
...
As El Borak had to point out repeatedly, OBAMA DIDN'T MAKE UP LOYALTY DAY. He's flogging it, all right, but he didn't make it up. When you see something like this, please, take the five seconds necessary to do some quick research.

If you don't, do you know who you look like? Liberals. or if not liberals, then FoxNews conservatives.

C'mon, y'all. The Ilk is better than this."




The intent behind the establishment of the day is the same as the current publication of it. Created by progressives for progressives.

Even if the original intent differed from the modern, pointing out the actual date of establishment does not negate the modern intent.

Anonymous Nah May 03, 2013 12:21 PM  

That tactic is not sustainable over long distance or long time frames. Its fine if you're going after a single city. It fails if you're trying to defeat a whole nation. You simply cannot burn and destroy everything... because if you do you can't feed your own army.

Sure it is. The Soviets did it to the Ukrainians -- twice!

Anonymous Yawn May 03, 2013 12:25 PM  

Oh how droll, Loki still thinks his lame "you will kneel" shtick is clever and funny.

Anonymous Stilicho May 03, 2013 12:52 PM  


The reason behind your insistence that everything we discuss is "moot" and we should just lie down and give up is crystal clear.


Just lie back and think of...Asgard darlin'

Anonymous SHUT UP NOAH B. May 03, 2013 7:59 PM  

“Clearly, granting the media special privileges was part of the hidden intent that drove McCain-Feingold, which proves that McCain is a treacherous bastard. Luckily the court saw through this sham.”

Dildo, what planet are you from? The ruling, as well as previous cases, acknowledges the “special privileges” of the media based on the freedom of the press clause of the 1st Amendment. Since you can’t read, I’ll repeat...”The Court in media cases has tailored its rulings under the "Freedom Of The Press" clause and in citizen cases has tailored its rulings under the "Freedom Of Speech" clause.” There is no sham, no hidden intent. And the ruling in Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce was overturned by Citizens United. Besides, the comment I made about “overturning a century of precedent” was in reference to Robert’s contention that judicial restraint may entail overruling a precedent because that precedent is based on flawed legal logic. Therefore, while it appears that the ruling is “activist” in nature, it actually is an appropriate correction, i.e. a decision that renders null and void another decision that should never happened in the first place.

Finally, the Supreme Court has NEVER officially ruled whether corporation = citizen. That is the REAL SHAM!

Anonymous Noah B. May 03, 2013 8:29 PM  

You are one sorry, lying sack of shit. There was no century-old precedent overturned, which is why you can't name the century-old case law that Citizens struck down. It doesn't exist. Taking one of Roberts' comments out of context does not equal a court verdict that actually overturned a century-old case.

Not that there would necessarily be anything wrong with overturning century-old precedent, assuming the court adhered to the Constitution and rejected bad case law.

You're also a complete dumbass. The first amendment recognizes a RIGHT held by all. It does not confer a "special privilege." Freedom of the press means that EVERYONE has the right to publish the material they see fit. It doesn't mean the big media corporations spewing collectivist propaganda get to do whatever they want, but the government can silence anyone else any time it sees fit. That was the situation that McCain-Feingold created. That was the sham that the courts rejected. It was a blatant attempt to silence political opposition and nothing more.

And your repeated blabbering about "corporation = citizen" is just a strawman.

Anonymous SHUT UP NOAH B. May 03, 2013 10:55 PM  

“Anyway, hope you didn't drool on yourself too much while you were cutting and pasting all that.”


It’s called analysis, gamma, and it took 10 minutes to write it from scratch when I originally posted it two years ago on another blog.


"There was no century-old precedent overturned..."

Fuckface, the precedent allegedly established in the Santa Clara case (1886) was that corporation = citizen. That is, a corporation has the same POLITICAL rights as a citizen. In reality, the Court NEVER made that distinction. Corporate personhood is legal fiction--the Supreme Court in subsequent cases reiterated this assumption that corporations are afforded the same rights as people.

One more time...the Constitution, when it comes to political rights, is exclusively reserved for natural persons, not artificial entities. Economic rights are conferred to companies by the state through charters.

Citizens United, of course, did NOT remove a 100 years of case law, but the precedent corporations = citizens was never directly decided in the first place by the Court in 1886. A goddamn clerk put his opinion in the footnotes, which is not part of the official decision!
Please show me where in the Constitution it states explicitly that corporations are granted the same legal rights as citizens.

So, the quote I referred to, if you could properly read, indicates Roberts and his cohorts, through their judicial philosophy, COULD overturn a century-old precedent (corporations = citizens) if precedent was rendered improperly by the court.


"The first amendment recognizes a RIGHT held by all."

By citizens! Again, the Supreme Court has historically specifically addressed freedom of speech and freedom of the press SEPARATELY for the purpose of judicial review. As I stated earlier, the Supreme Court in media cases tailors its rulings under the "Freedom Of The Press" clause and in citizen cases tailors its rulings under the "Freedom Of Speech" clause.


"Freedom of the press means that EVERYONE has the right to publish the material they see fit."

No, not everyone. Freedom of the press is under the domain of the media. Interestingly, the majority decision never focused on the issue of corporate personhood, never specified that because corporations are persons, they must be treated like individuals when it comes to the First Amendment. Rather, the five justices framed the issue around the type of speech, not whether that speech is afforded to a particular speaker.

The majority in Citizens United failed to addressed the nature of the speaker; instead, they framed the issue around the type of speech. Note that regulating speech based on the identity of the speaker is permitted in other contexts--high schoolers, government officials, members of the armed forces. These groups are HUMAN BEINGS, not ARTIFICIAL ENTITIES. Companies have no consciences, no beliefs, no impulses; they simply organize and implement a person's agenda. Corporations are NOT themselves under the purview of "We the People", by whom and for whom our Constitution was created.


"And your repeated blabbering about "corporation = citizen" is just a strawman."

Do you even know what this logical fallacy means? A straw man argument occurs in the context of a debate when one side attacks a position not held by the other side, then acts as though the other side's position has been refuted.

So, in your feeble mind, I stated "corporation = citizen" as YOUR position and then proceeded to disprove it??? Dipshit, I made the argument, I did not attribute the argument to you. I have no idea if you believe corporations ought to be afforded the same rights as a citizen.


You're absolutely embarrassing yourself. Keep it up, rabbit.

Anonymous aero May 04, 2013 9:04 AM  

If you or they have no respect for the current rag we fly What makes you think they will respect a new rag?

Anonymous Noah B. May 04, 2013 6:07 PM  

So, in your feeble mind, I stated "corporation = citizen" as YOUR position and then proceeded to disprove it???

It is obvious that you have put most of your "effort" into arguing against a position that no one here has actually taken in an inept attempt to prove some kind of point. Yes, simple one, this is a form of the strawman.

Note that regulating speech based on the identity of the speaker is permitted in other contexts--high schoolers, government officials, members of the armed forces.

The mask comes off, and the despicable ugliness of the leftist is fully revealed. In other words, because government has infringed on some freedom, it can infringe on all freedom. You're an idiotic, suicidal abomination, Tad.

Anonymous SHUT UP NOAH B. May 04, 2013 9:20 PM  

The point I am making is that a Supreme Court ruling regarding corporate personhood in reality was nunquam fieret (that's "never took place" for the dipshit), and subsequent decisions conferring political rights to companies are based on fraud. Apparently, your inbreeding prevents you from comprehending this fundamental concept.


"It is obvious that you have put most of your "effort" into arguing against a position that no one here has actually taken in an inept attempt to prove some kind of point."

It is clear on your part, rabbit, you do have a position on this matter; otherwise, why would you acting like a lesbian darkie? At least some of the posters here would make an attempt to debate. All you are doing is being a gamma. Refute the analysis, or shut the fuck up.


"The mask comes off, and the despicable ugliness of the leftist is fully revealed."

Only in your homoerotic fantasies am I a lefty or Tad. Freedom of speech can be regulated, and it most certainly is regulated for American citizens, who are natural people, as opposed to corporations, which are artificial entities. The Constitution, and the political rights therein, is meant for individuals, not companies.

Methinks you are an aspie.

Anonymous Noah B. May 05, 2013 1:45 PM  

Freedom of speech can be regulated, and it most certainly is regulated for American citizens, who are natural people, as opposed to corporations, which are artificial entities.

And in your disease-infested brain, one infringement on freedom justifies another.

The point I am making is that a Supreme Court ruling regarding corporate personhood in reality was nunquam fieret (that's "never took place" for the dipshit)...

And for about the fifth time, no one here claimed the Supreme Court did this, yet you keep bringing up this point as though it is somehow relevant. It isn't. Stevens ranted about this in his dissent, but it's clear that he either did not understand the majority's reasoning or simply lied about it.

The majority opinion in Citizens was broadly supportive of free speech and written by those who could actually read and understand the First and Fourteenth Amendments. This opinion was not reached based on the assumption or belief that corporations necessarily enjoy the rights of individual citizens, so once again, your main line of argument here is simply misdirection. In fact, the continuing ban on direct contributions to federal candidates by corporations, while individuals are allowed to make direct contributions up to certain limits, reflects the differential treatment between corporations and individuals under the law. This differential treatment, of course, has been fully sanctioned by the courts.

Corporations are NOT themselves under the purview of "We the People", by whom and for whom our Constitution was created.

But they are certainly under the purview of "Congress shall make no law..."

The majority in Citizens United failed to addressed the nature of the speaker; instead, they framed the issue around the type of speech.

A lie. The majority explicitly relied on precedent from Bellotti.

No, not everyone. Freedom of the press is under the domain of the media.

Another lie, not to mention a collectivist's wet dream. As noted in the majority opinion, there is no precedent to allow Congress or the courts to distinguish between media and non-media corporations. The attempt by McCain-Feingold to give the media special status was a treacherous betrayal of long-held principles of freedom of speech and press.

Methinks you are an aspie.

No thanks to idiots like you, Americans are still entitled to express their own opinion without fear of criminal sanctions, for the most part. And as it happens, I think you're an ignorant, lying cocksucker.

Anonymous SHUT UP NOAH B. May 05, 2013 8:56 PM  

"And in your disease-infested brain, one infringement on freedom justifies another."

Fuckface, you do realize there are exceptions to free speech, which have been created over time and under different contexts by conservative and liberal jurists working in concert (that's together, you jag)--slander, sedition, incitement, child pornography, fighting words?


"And for about the fifth time, no one here claimed the Supreme Court did this, yet you keep bringing up this point as though it is somehow relevant. It isn't."

Listen, you dolt, it has been established that the Supreme Court NEVER ruled on corporate personhood. This concept does NOT exist in our Constitution. Rights are conferred to natural people, not artificial entities. Please show me exactly where in the Constitution that companies = people. Citizens United and its antecedents rest on a god damn lie!


"The attempt by McCain-Feingold to give the media special status..."

The media was already given special status, moron. Twenty-two cases since 1936 actually stand for an entirely different principle in that for-profit corporations DO NOT enjoy the same First Amendment rights as individuals; rather they extended only to those INDIVIDUALS WHO WORK FOR COMPANIES that are vehicles for producing and distributing free speech, such as books, newspapers, journals, films and other artistic and educational entities. That is, writers--actual fucking people--who WORK for a media company are subject to the freedom of the press provision of the First Amendment.


The Alpha Male--"The majority in Citizens United failed to addressed the nature of the speaker; instead, they framed the issue around the type of speech.

The Gamma--"A lie. The majority explicitly relied on precedent from Bellotti."

The Alpha Male--Which was what I fucking implied, the majority justices framed the issue around the type of speech (Belloti case), not the nature of the speaker.


"Americans are still entitled to express their own opinion without fear of criminal sanctions, for the most part."

Exactly, because freedom of speech may be limited in certain cases, ATM lover.

Anonymous Noah B. May 06, 2013 12:31 PM  

"Fuckface, you do realize there are exceptions to free speech, which have been created over time and under different contexts by conservative and liberal jurists working in concert (that's together, you jag)--slander, sedition, incitement, child pornography, fighting words?"

Yes, I get it, you're a freedom-hating statist who equates political speech from a corporation to child porn. You've made it abundantly clear where you stand. You want media corporations to be able to broadcast propaganda 24-7 and use the force of law to restrain anyone else from presenting an alternative viewpoint.

"The media was already given special status, moron."

Yet another lie. The fact that corporations do not have the full rights of natural citizens is not the logical equivalent of the media having special privileges that other corporations or individuals do not have. You are really a special kind of stupid.

"Rights are conferred to natural people, not artificial entities. Please show me exactly where in the Constitution that companies = people. Citizens United and its antecedents rest on a god damn lie!"

And wrong again. While the Constitution does not mention corporations, many corporate rights have been recognized by legislatures and courts since the country's founding. Santa Clara was not the first. Although I certainly don't expect a mind as feeble as yours to follow it, the reasoning is simple: corporations are simply groups of people, and the act recognizing that corporations have some rights serves to protect the underlying individual rights. And before you go full retard, this is not the logical equivalent of deciding that corporations are citizens for any and all purposes.

And if we follow your proposed logic that rights do not exist unless they are specifically recognized in the Constitution, then there is clearly no right to an abortion.

"The Alpha Male--Which was what I fucking implied, the majority justices framed the issue around the type of speech (Belloti case), not the nature of the speaker."

Dumbass, the "nature of the speaker" -- i.e., the fact that it was a corporation -- was the heart of Bellotti and Citizens United! The majority didn't "frame" anything. Both cases involved legislative attempts to restrict the ability of corporations to engage in political speech. The "nature of the speaker" was, in fact, the whole reason for both cases.

Anonymous SHUT UP NOAH B. May 06, 2013 10:30 PM  

"You want media corporations to be able to broadcast propaganda 24-7 and use the force of law to restrain anyone else from presenting an alternative viewpoint."

Building a house of straw, huh!


"The fact that corporations do not have the full rights of natural citizens*** is not the logical equivalent of the media having special privileges that other corporations or individuals do not have.****"

***So, you admit that corporations are NOT people and are NOT afforded political rights, which includes political free speech, as opposed to economic free speech. Finally, some progress, although it's probably short lived, all of the hash you've been smoking clouds your feeble mind.

****Hello, anyone home? Individuals who work for media companies only and are subject to court cases fall under freedom of the press. The point has already been established, you're too dense to comprehend.


"many corporate rights have been recognized by legislatures and courts since the country's founding..."

Yes, ECONOMIC rights, not POLITICAL rights. POLITICAL rights are under the exclusive domain for natural people, not artificial entities. Congress distinctly defined speech as being political and economic. In general, corporations may invoke rights that individuals possess, such as the right to petition, to speech, to enter into contracts and to hold property, to sue and to be sued, only relating to ECONOMIC/COMMERCIAL matters.


"Dumbass, the "nature of the speaker" -- i.e., the fact that it was a corporation -- was the heart of Bellotti and Citizens United! The majority didn't "frame" anything."

Directly from the horses mouth...Justice Scalia, concurring--The Amendment is written in terms of speech, not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker. We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is "speech" covered by the First Amendment.

Like I said, gamma, the majority justices framed the issue around the type of speech, not the nature of the speaker. It's clear as fucking day.


You are one dumb fuck!

Anonymous Noah B. May 06, 2013 11:57 PM  

So, you admit that corporations are NOT people...

Regardless of your repeated attempts to turn this into an issue, there was never a question about this.

...and are NOT afforded political rights...

And wrong. No attempt has been made, in the US, to DENY corporations the right to engage in political speech until relatively recently -- possibly because prohibiting political speech is a brazen violation of the First Amendment. Bans of direct corporate campaign contributions have existed for over a century and have been generally upheld, but attempts to ban corporate political speech are much newer and have now failed.

Individuals who work for media companies only and are subject to court cases fall under freedom of the press.

Very good, Sally. In other words, they're treated exactly like everyone else, just like I said. If you're still confused about this, refer to your own Scalia quote, and keep re-reading until you understand it.

POLITICAL rights are under the exclusive domain for natural people, not artificial entities.

That was the theory that McCain-Feingold rested on. The Supreme Court didn't buy it. There's this whole thing about the First Amendment being written broadly, which we'll get to shortly.

Directly from the horses mouth...Justice Scalia, concurring--The Amendment is written in terms of speech, not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker. We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is "speech" covered by the First Amendment.

Scalia noting that the First Amendment is written broadly and without regard to the nature of the speaker is not the logical equivalent of your claim that "the majority in Citizens United failed to addressed (sic) the nature of the speaker." I know this may seem complicated, but please do try to follow this closely: the majority considered the nature of the speaker... took into account the fact that they were a corporation... and decided it didn't matter! See, it's back to that part about Congress shall make no law... It sounds simple enough, doesn't it -- don't make a law that does "x." But what did those dumbfucks in Congress do? They made a law that did "x," led by McCain. I bet that little rat still reports to his handlers in Hanoi at least once a year.

I'm really glad you saved your old blog post for two whole years just so I could tear it to pieces and show you that you're not nearly as clever as you think you are. Despite all the insults and all the bullshit, I can tell that you're at least intelligent enough to understand that your position has been obliterated. If you really want to be smart, embrace liberty and show some respect for the founding principles of this country. Or if you want to double down on stupid, I'm happy to keep mindfucking you.

Anonymous SHUT UP NOAH B. May 08, 2013 12:11 AM  

Listen, dumb fuck, corporate personhood is a sham. Get it through your thick skull. Every single court case that has lent credence to this concept is a lie.

There is nothing in the Constitution stating that corporations are citizens, that corporations are guaranteed political rights.

The Santa Clara case (1886) simply assumed corporate personhood without any explanation why. The only explanation provided was the court recorder's reference, which essentially says, 'that's just our opinion' without providing legal argument.

There was no Supreme Court decision to the effect that corporations are equal to natural persons. A corporation has no political rights except those given it by law by the state, which are solely economic in nature.


“No attempt has been made, in the US, to DENY corporations the right to engage in political speech until relatively recently -- possibly because prohibiting political speech is a brazen violation of the First Amendment.”

And why is that exactly? Because of conservative judicial activism. Douchebag, there is nothing in the Constitution specifically equating political rights to corporations. Even you admitted that fact. Political speech is reserved for citizens. Citizens are people. Corporations are not people; thus, they are NOT subject to political rights. Period.

Under the law, a corporation is an artificial person; its personhood status is a legal fiction we employ as a convenience to facilitate commerce. Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward: “A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it."

By calling the corporation a person, the law grants it the capacity for legal relations of all kinds, which was NOT the intent of the framers of the Constitution.

Moreover, the text of the Fourteenth Amendment does NOT include corporations, and there was nothing in the legislative history of the amendment to indicate corporations were intended to be beneficiaries of its protections, especially political rights.

The Supreme Court recently has interjected itself into election financing by overturning a century of long-standing congressional and state law, inventing the concept that money = speech.


“Scalia noting that the First Amendment is written broadly and without regard to the nature of the speaker is not the logical equivalent of your claim that "the majority in Citizens United failed to addressed (sic) the nature of the speaker."

You’re fucking being deliberately obtuse. The specific question before the court was whether money equated to speech, regardless if it was a person or corporation; ergo, the issue is about the type of speech.


You’ve been intellectually ass-raped repeatedly and do not know whether you are coming or going.

Anonymous Noah B. May 08, 2013 12:31 PM  

There was no Supreme Court decision to the effect that corporations are equal to natural persons.

Still completely irrelevant.

And why is that exactly? Because of conservative judicial activism.

Since corporations have not historically been denied the right to engage in political speech, you are implying that the judiciary has engaged in conservative activism throughout its entire history. I suppose that any rulings supporting limited government and the rule of law must seem like conservative activism to a rabid collectivist.

Douchebag, there is nothing in the Constitution specifically equating political rights to corporations.

There is nothing in the Constitution specifically recognizing the right to an abortion, either. Do you admit then that there is no right to an abortion? Or, are there rights that exist that the Constitution does not specifically enumerate? (Hint: it comes right after the 8th Amendment.)

Political speech is reserved for citizens.

That's not what the Constitution says. It says Congress shall make now law... The prohibition against restrictions on speech is quite far-reaching. Even the rights of non-citizens to engage in political speech are protected.

Cue ranting about child porn and terrorism...

By calling the corporation a person, the law grants it the capacity for legal relations of all kinds, which was NOT the intent of the framers of the Constitution.

Neither is treatment of a corporation as an artificial person for limited purposes contrary to the original intent of the Framers. The Constitution is silent with regard to corporations.

The Supreme Court recently has interjected itself into election financing by overturning a century of long-standing congressional and state law...

So we're back to this lie. What century old law do you claim the Supreme Court overturned in Citizens United? And I note that you're now attempting to move the goalpost, referring to a century of law rather than a century of precedent.

...inventing the concept that money = speech.

Quote the section of the majority opinion that you believe equates money to speech.

The specific question before the court was whether money equated to speech, regardless if it was a person or corporation; ergo, the issue is about the type of speech.

A non sequitur. Even if one assumes that money equates to speech, it does not follow that issue was limited to the type of speech. The corporate status of Citizens United lay at the heart of the case.

Anonymous SHUT UP NOAH B. May 08, 2013 11:53 PM  

The Hero--There was no Supreme Court decision to the effect that corporations are equal to natural persons.

The Zero--

Still completely irrelevant.



In your feeble mind, yes. For the adults in the room, it is of paramount importance. The Supreme Court in 1886 never officially ruled on a corporate personhood. Fact. The Supreme Court in related decisions based everything on a lie, an assumption, base all other similar cases on that non-decision. Again, fact. Therefore, Citizens United is rooted on something that officially was never declared legal.


“Since corporations have not historically been denied the right to engage in political speech, you are implying that the judiciary has engaged in conservative activism throughout its entire history.”

Strawman--YOU made this statement. The legal thinking that corporations = people started with a case in the 1970’s and culminated with Citizens United (2009) equating money to free speech.


“There is nothing in the Constitution specifically recognizing the right to an abortion, either.”


I can hear you making this statement in a little black lesbian’s voice.

If you oppose abortion because it’s not specifically in the Constitution, yet support POLITICAL free speech rights for corporations, even though it is not stated explicitly in that document, then, Houston, we have hypocrisy (which characterizes your entire life).


“That's not what the Constitution says. It says Congress shall make now law...The prohibition against restrictions on speech is quite far-reaching.* Even the rights of non-citizens to engage in political speech are protected.”**


You don't have a prohibition against restrictions, either you bar something or you limit something.* Non-citizens, who are they?** If you mean corporations, they are artificial beings, created by Congress through a charter, whose ECONOMIC rights are protected, not political rights. We’ve covered this ground before. I know, I know, you’re slow.


“Neither is treatment of a corporation as an artificial person for limited purposes contrary to the original intent of the Framers. The Constitution is silent with regard to corporations.”

And there’s a reason for that silence. The framers of the United States Constitution did not have corporations in mind when they accorded Americans the right of free speech; otherwise, they would have included them specifically. Again, dipshit, corporations are not even mentioned in the Constitution.

Moreover, recall that conservatives such as Justice Scalia claim, as a matter of principle, that "founder's intent" (original meaning theory) ought to guide the high court. That is, originalism presumes that courts should exercise judicial restraint unless the “original meaning” of the text as specified by the framers clearly mandates a more activist approach.

No mention of corporation...citizen means natural person....corporations are artificial entities...”We the People” from the Preamble means exactly what it states as written by the Founders...GAME OVER.

Not convinced? Stupid on your part. The Founding Fathers clearly understood the power that corporations possessed, as evident by the shenanigans of the East India Trading Company. Trade-dominance by that corporation aroused the gravest of concerns by the Founding Fathers, and as a result, the framers took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare by the government, that their rights would be conferred through charters and acts of Congress.


Anonymous SHUT UP NOAH B. May 08, 2013 11:53 PM  

"Quote the section of the majority opinion that you believe equates money to speech."

Antonin Scalia, July 18, 2012, Piers Morgan Tonight--”I think Thomas Jefferson would have said, ‘The more speech, the better.’ That’s what the First Amendment is all about, so long as the people know where the speech is coming from. You can’t separate the speech from the money that facilities the speech.” [To separate speech and money, he said, was] “utterly impossible.” 

If you want a specific passage from the majority decision, look it up, you’re a supposed intellectual! And quite interesting how Scalia ignored his original meaning theory when helping to craft the legal rationale!

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/magazine/books-and-arts/106441/scalia-garner-reading-the-law-textual-originalism#


“What century old law do you claim the Supreme Court overturned in Citizens United? And I note that you're now attempting to move the goalpost, referring to a century of law rather than a century of precedent.




It’s official, you can’t read. Congress and state legislatures passed laws in the 1900's specifying that corporations did not have political rights. This is the century of law I am referring to. The Supreme Court honored those laws, i.e. observing a century of precedent, until the 1970's, when it invalidated them through conservative judicial activism.


You are getting zombie stomped!

Anonymous Noah B. May 09, 2013 9:42 AM  

Antonin Scalia, July 18, 2012, Piers Morgan Tonight

That's not part of the majority opinion, as I'm sure you're well aware, and for all practical purposes what Scalia said on Piers Morgan is meaningless. Also, "inseparable" is not a synonym for "equal." Complete logic failure on your part, again.

It’s official, you can’t read. Congress and state legislatures passed laws in the 1900's specifying that corporations did not have political rights. This is the century of law I am referring to. The Supreme Court honored those laws, i.e. observing a century of precedent, until the 1970's, when it invalidated them through conservative judicial activism.

You're changing your story yet again. Now you're claiming that laws passed in the 1900's and overturned in the 1970's amounts to the court overturning a century of precedent. You are observably incapable of basic math, and your position is now completely incoherent.

Anonymous SHUT UP NOAH B. May 09, 2013 9:11 PM  

“That's not part of the majority opinion, as I'm sure you're well aware, and for all practical purposes what Scalia said on Piers Morgan is meaningless.”

First, it is extremely rare for a sitting Supreme Court justice to appear on TV and offer their explanation of their legal rationale behind a case. Second, the quotation I provided was proof positive that the case was about the type of speech, not the nature of the speaker. It’s not surprising that you are trying to downplay his words. Third, one can reasonably infer from his statement what will be the main focus of their written decision; evidently, you cannot make that connection.


“Also, "inseparable" is not a synonym for "equal." Complete logic failure on your part, again.”

Shit for brains, the quotation is NOT mine, it's from Scalia. 

And you're taking it completely out of context, per usual.





“You're changing your story yet again. Now you're claiming that laws passed in the 1900's and overturned in the 1970's amounts to the court overturning a century of precedent. You are observably incapable of basic math, and your position is now completely incoherent.”

You have achieved status as a bumbling, babbling buffoon, Noah Be-otch. Congratulations!

Anonymous Noah B. May 09, 2013 11:07 PM  

You're a snake, Tad, pure and simple. All you have left are lies.

Anonymous SHUT UP NOAH B. May 10, 2013 12:13 AM  

(In the voice of Yoda)...Flaccid are Noah Bitch's comments, aren't they?


You. Got. Crushed. by someone not named Tad, you whiny fuck.

Anonymous Noah B. May 10, 2013 1:50 PM  

Let's rehash... you're unable to name the "century old" laws that were supposedly overturned in Citizens United. You're unable to perform basic mathematical operations. Instead of citing case law, you're reduced to providing a Piers Morgan transcript. Your arguments largely consist of the misdirection of repeating that "corporations aren't people!" You are unable to comprehend that a Supreme Court case involving a corporation engaging in political speech took into consideration that a corporation was doing the speaking. One of your attempts at logic consisted of an attempt to connect unrelated statements with "ergo." And you seem to have abandoned your claim that the media enjoys some type of special legal status or privilege.

These are the facts.

1 – 200 of 238 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts