If people rise up in arms . . .
 

or should I say, stoop to armed insurrection against the government (for passing a bill with the intention of providing medical care for more Americans), will the oathkeepers defend our democratic institutions. Oathkeepers have been mentioned on other threads here, but I couldn't find the main one. Here is a link to their site. http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

After reading the high-minded rhetoric propounded on the site, have a look here at some of the comments by people who identify themselves as oathkeepers. Keep in mind that the primary target of their venom is that left wing loonie, Bill O'Reilly.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/03/...-bill-oreilly/

They are saying, with the support of many Republicans, that the passage of the health reform bill was a violation of the Constitution. Of course, they have taken an oath to protect the constitution, at least as they interpret it.

With the bricks being thrown through the windows of elected representatives, and protesters promising an armed response to legislation, it is time to ask the question? If there is actually an armed insurrection against elected representatives, how many service members and police officers will abandon their posts at the behest of this organization? I do believe that they could rationalize siding with a gang of thugs as long as it's the federal government that the thugs are attacking, particularly when the head of the federal government is, you know, one of THEM. :(

I hope that I an just engaging in wild speculation. I really do. :eek:

Regards,

D-Ray

Well D, when you pass completely partisan bill that affects 1/6 of the US economy by using parliamentary maneuvering, you have to expect a certain amount of anger. I agree that "parts" of the bill are unconstitutional. There are a lot of people that think this bill is the beginning of the end for our already wounded economy. While a lot of folks like myself are content with waiting for elections to handle this, some are not.:(

I don't know, I think the real problem is that America no longer comes first to the GOP and this is being concealed to their members.

I think it goes beyond a Democrat vs. Republican thing...People are sick & tired of the arrogance, high-handedness, & condescending attitudes displayed by BOTH parties...Obama was gonna have the most "Open & Transparent" administration in history ...Pelosi was gonna "Drain the Swamp"...Yeah. Bush might have been bad, but he looks like a piker compared to this bunch, ESPECIALLY when it comes to spending Other People's Money...

I don't know about that Sandy. I disagree with you about Bush being better than this bunch. Also Bush spent less???????? How ya figure?

I realize that this defies the conventional wisdom currently displayed here, but there would be no TEA party if the Republicans weren't viewed by them as almost as despicable as the Democrats.

Say what you wish, but "business as usual" ain't their bag.

Chas

You may be right but they do vote republican and are sucked up to by the GOP.

Welcome to the Balkan States of America gentlemen and ladies.

I bet no insurrection, although there may be a lone nut or two. Besides, who said if the government fears the people there is freedom? Jefferson? Washington?

Obama and Co have already vastly outspend the Shub. Look up a deficit chart.

Pete

let me guess you charge Obie with the money he had to spend to save the economy that Bush destroyed

In terms of adding to the national debt, Shrub added $4.5 trillion. Thus far Obama has added $2.0 trillion, but he's still working on it.:rolleyes: In fairness, a good amount of deficit in Obama's first year were the economic band-aids aimed at fixing the damage done by Shrub (and introduced during the latter months of Shrub's administration).

Parsimony is not a trait of the American body politic.

You mean completely legal and ethical procedure that has been used by Republicans on multiple occasions?

A pet peeve of mine is this concept of constitutionality. If a protection is not specifically cited in an Amendment, or has not been judged by the SCOTUS as applied to a specific law, the threshold has not been met. (In fact, it hasn't even been tested.)

Something in this new LAW may be deemed irksome, bothersome, intellectually untoward, etc., but what it is not, is unconstitutional.

1. Those people are wrong.
2. In any case, elections ARE the way to go.
3. I wonder WHY the economy is "wounded?" Oh, yeah: "those people."

Here we go:

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/...ficit_2010.jpg

Don't forget that Bush and Co. kept all war spending off budget, so his numbers are cooked.

BTW who was the joker who gave my name to the NRA? I got a membership application in the mail today, sure thing, I am about to join. If I do grab your ice skates 'cause hell will have frozen over.

Rob, I am aware of this of course but where do these numbers show up? It's real money and allot of it. ??

Rest assured, it wasn't I. Don't know you well enough for a prank like that.

Besides, I would have donated ten bucks to the RNC in your name. Those bastards are like the herpes, they never go away.

Chas

If the balloon goes up, y'all come here...I gots enuff Loudenboomers & ammo to hold 'em off for awhile...Mbwahahahaha..

Good thing your about a tank of gas away from the family and I. We may just have to take you up on that some day :D

Aren't you the least bit worried that they will all be subject to seizure once a state of emergency is declared?

Chas

Naaaaaw...Funny how they ALL got Rurint 'n' Destroyed back in the summer when my Commodes backed up 'n' flooded EVVERTHAING...Hehehehehehe...

That's why he kept it off budget, they don't show up. Plus he also blew the surplus Bill left him, no sir Barack has a long way to go to outspend Dubya.:p

If you go back to the previous year chart at this site:

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/...t-in-pictures/

It says: "UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above."

You guys are blowing us out of the water spending wise.

Pete

Pete, not sure if you are not understanding or being a partizan's GOPer.
Although the war is included it does not show up in the chart because it was paid for with emergency monies. This means that the emergency monies are gone and need to be replaced!

The emergency monies were not accumulated under him!
So your graph although accurate is very misleading.

It's as if your parents saved their money and you inherit it. Now you go out and buy all kinds of stuff and say, well I only borrowed $500 (billion). Although it is true that you only borrowed $500 you still need to pay back $1,200 (billion) or screw your kids out of their inheritance.

Feeling "entitled" as you do (Bush, not you personally) you don't worry about it and screw your kid, (Obama).

(I had to throw in that last line about entitlement, just had to.:D)

Whoohoo, we're still screwing Obama :D

The CBO doesn't care what shinanigans the politicos do, it calculates money in and money out. For example, even though a 'surplus' was recorded in what 1999, 2000? the CBO shows our debt went UP. So yes indeed that spending is in there.

Pete

Pete, your chart only shows the deficit.


By the way, Bush left an ongoing expense without increasing his revenues literally guaranteeing his replacement would show bigger deficits than he had even if monies to save the country were not needed.

The bottom line is this entire Obama is creating giant deficits is completely disingenuous.

More money out than money in = deficit.

And dude, they immediately spent 870 Billion Dollars.

Pete

Pete I love ya but I debunked your chart and you keep coming back for more.

870 spend was necessitated by what?

come on say it, (and be honest):p

Will someone please stop in here and explain how this chart works? It is accurate , at least the non projection part, as accurate as this countries' got.

The porkulous? It was absolutely neccessary, because just the thought of a Democrat President sent the market into a tailspin :p

See, fair and balanced lol.

Pete