If people rise up in arms . . .

[d-ray657]

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.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Twodogs]

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.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Twodogs

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.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Twodogs

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.

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

Originally Posted by Twodogs

I agree that "parts" of the bill are unconstitutional.

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.

Originally Posted by Twodogs

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.

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."

[piece-itpete]

Here we go:

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

[Sandy G]

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...

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Sandy G

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?

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Sandy G

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 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

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Charles

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.

[merrylander]

Welcome to the Balkan States of America gentlemen and ladies.