Going Way Too Far, Ok Tea Party Wants Own Militia

If you engage people in conversation in the places where they gather, you will find that the majority including those of ALL political persuasions hold those beliefs you describe today. The harder the administration tries to force their swill on the American people the more resistant the people become.

It definitely helps the Tea Party movement.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Ah, its a lovely time for a spot of tea!

The people's first duty is to wait and see how the courts adjudicate the issue. The Supreme Court is the final say about the constitutionalty of a law. Let the prcess work before you get all fired up about forming militias.

South Carolina actually fired on Fort Sumter before the new administration had a chance to do anything. They had been told that Lincoln would do this and do that, but we'll never know for sure because SC jumped the gun. Actions taken in haste can not be recalled. Our first duty is to wait for all the facts to develop before a decision is made, unless of course, you want a blood bath.

I don't want a link to everything, I want so called facts substantiated. If someone says X% of this group of people think this, or the majority of Americans believe that I just want to know according to whom....what source? Its NOT my responsibility to trudge across the internet in search of verification of someone else's statement. If you post an argument or take a position and attempt to substantiate it with facts, then for those facts to be considered valid one must know their source. Its the poster's responsibility to list that source, not ask their readers to wander cyberspace in search of verification of a poster's sources. If you read a book making claims, is it your responsibility to compose a bibliography stating the sources of their information, or is it the author's? If you're a scientist doing a study, is it your responsibility to list how the study was done for the purposes of peer review or is it the responsibility of others to guess?

Carolina Scotsman: Thank you sir for your excellent posts on this thread. Stoirmeil too.

Patch: Scotsman is asking for your opinion here, where you stand on a specific issue. What kind of research techniques would you have him adopt aside from asking you a direct question? Here it is again:

"I would still like an answer to my question, do you disavow the people contemplating an armed resistance to the federal government or do you in fact support them and the idea of armed insurection?"

If you'd really like to help him like you've said, wouldn't the easiest way to be to answer him?

Oh, hey. I have been teaching that for the last couple of weeks in my Writing for the Sciences class -- at that level, the person publishing his or her findings is supposed to be so transparent about not only the results themselves, but also the methods used to derive the results, that a well-versed colleague could replicate the experiment himself, as a pure "I ain't taking your word for it" peer review option. Standard practice. The cost of fudging is so high, it can take down a distinguished career into irreparable shards in one shot, and has done so.

Nobody here holds to that degree of accountability, or is really expected to in support of a personal viewpoint. But I do think it's a courtesy to keep it as a somewhat distant but still visible gold standard, especially when hard and presumably documented facts and statistics are offered as "proof" of an opinion.

The first sentence I agree with completely. The second sentence is true, but I know the SC can "vote" on vary narrow margins, which tells me that often nearly half see an issue one way and half the other. More directly, I think the SC perfectly capable of finding constitutionality in a law when it is viewed just the opposite by a vast majority of Americans. Lastly, I'm not fired up about militias (the word "you" was probably meant generally, yes?), but at the same time, the simple formation of a militia is not an act of aggression i.m.o., so I see nothing at all wrong with it. Preparedness is the mantra of our US armed forces, why not for a state?

Preparedness of either the US armed forces OR the population in general against the nation itself is not a mantra for any part of this government. Do you think -- since we seem to have a wide tolerance about the aptness of analogies -- that allowing or even encouraging your kids to defend themselves, with physical force if necessary, extends to when they don't care for their father's house rules or limitations on their activities?

I know no one holds anyone to that degree of accountability, it was only an example. Trouble is the opposite extreme is normative here, no one holds anyone to any accountability and we're expected to grant authority to figures just because they're posted. This wasn't the first time I've been chastised for suggesting the posting of sources and not the first time I've been told rather emphatically to authenticate other's figures myself as if the hubris and audacity of assumed infallibility weren't silly enough.

I know. And I did try to separate out posting personal opinion simply as such from bringing statistical or other evidence in support of opinion, that CAN be provided as a courtesy for other readers. And maybe I wasn't clear.

To extend this analogy, the "father" was elected by the "children" who can unelect him at will and by majority agreement alone. As Scotsman has said several times, given this circumstance, constitutionally mandated, what would be the need of state or citizen militia insurrection? Preparedness? For what? Your use of the Obama statements (rhetoric is not action) to surmise the nation's military's invasion of states is far fetched. His statements are general, he has not said why he doesn't think we can rely solely on the military or what those national security objectives are or why they'd require a "national civilian security force". Maybe he's thinking of a national neighborhood watch, you don't know. At any rate the militias I think we're talking about are not state militias but citizens who arm themselves, call themselves militias and entertain assorted assumptions about impending government takeovers because legislation they disapprove of has been legitimately passed.

...and for good reason. How many average Americans are well versed in law in general not to mention constitutional law and precedent? The constitutionality of a law is not subjected to popular vote or consensus.

Now how are you determining how the vast majority of Americans view the constitutionality of something? I'm not saying their opinion is worthless or should not be considered, but I'm asking what is the value of an opinion sourced in knowledge as opposed to one that isn't? Do you ask a plumber to perform heart bypass surgery because, although he doesn't deal directly with arteries, he works with pipes? Why do you think SC nominees are scrutinized so heavily? Yes, its partly political, but like any job interview, its also to determine the degree of expertise and qualification. Who would want a SC judge who knows only what the average American knows about law?

Actually there are malitias in every state in the US. A lot of them! There probably have been since this country was founded. I am not aware that any attempted to overthrow the govt was ever attempted. Again, if that should happen here it is likely to happen in the same manner that happened in South America when a leader attempted to do away with the country's constitution. They (the military) removed him and the people then elected someone who preserved their constitution. The communist countries, some socialist countries and obama were opposed to the military action but it stood.

I listened to some tapes on TV re: the Hutare malitia that was supposedly planning attacks on police. The tapes released by the FBI so far were not in any way threatening. I would assume and, since these people have been arrested, hope there are more recorded conversations to back the govt up.

Obama's words and deeds have caused a great majority of those who voted in the last election to loose trust in him. That is why we have so many D's supporting the Tea Party movement and also, a majority of all Americans, including those who did not vote in the last election, do not trust him or his policies either.

November looks brighter every day.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

"Obama's words and deeds have caused a great majority of those who voted in the last election to loose trust in him. That is why we have so many D's supporting the Tea Party movement and also, a majority of all Americans, including those who did not vote in the last election, do not trust him or his policies either."

....according to Patch The Omniscient, peace be upon him, who has intimate knowledge of what the majority of Americans think about everything and what their level of trust is. C'mon big guy, do something usefull with that psychic ability, gives us the winning lottery numbers! Tell us the secrets of the Mayan 2012 predictions! How many more kids will Brangelina adopt? Channel me some spirit guides! Hey, hold on....Oprah's calling......

Odd you should be thinking in that direction. I've just finished watching a documentary on Allende's overthrow, participation in which was one of America's lowest and most shameful hours on record. It can't be that one that you're referring to, though -- Obama was a twelve-year-old kid at the time, and it hardly describes Pinochet and his regime of terror. So which recent military overthrow and subsequent fair, non-junta-driven non-dictatorship in Latin America were you thinking of? Sounds like a sheer wish to me, that anybody's military should take out a leader and then sit back, relinquish power (or is it, keep only just enough power to prevent looting, riots and outright cannibalism?) and then smile benevolently on a fair populist election. Not even here, man.

But enlighten me.