Comments on: Spoiling http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/11/08/spoiling/ The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State ... Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:26:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Arnie http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/11/08/spoiling/#comment-52791 Arnie Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:43:40 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=14129#comment-52791 Thanks, Diomed. Kits! Who'd have thought that? Sounds like a litter of cats. Thanks, Diomed. Kits! Who’d have thought that? Sounds like a litter of cats.

]]> By: Arnie http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/11/08/spoiling/#comment-52790 Arnie Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:42:46 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=14129#comment-52790 Thanks, Diomed. Kits! Who'd have thought that? Sounds like a litter a cats. Thanks, Diomed. Kits! Who’d have thought that? Sounds like a litter a cats.

]]> By: Diomed http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/11/08/spoiling/#comment-52758 Diomed Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:49:11 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=14129#comment-52758 Fox young are called kits, though apparently pup is also used. Fox young are called kits, though apparently pup is also used.

]]> By: Sebastian http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/11/08/spoiling/#comment-52743 Sebastian Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:48:55 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=14129#comment-52743 There are worse mistakes to make than the ones which few will see. I don't know the right terminology either, off the top of my head. There are worse mistakes to make than the ones which few will see. I don’t know the right terminology either, off the top of my head.

]]> By: Arnie http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/11/08/spoiling/#comment-52742 Arnie Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:46:00 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=14129#comment-52742 This is embarrassing, but: I said fox's cubs;I think I should have said puppies? Sorry. This is embarrassing, but: I said fox’s cubs;I think I should have said puppies? Sorry.

]]> By: Arnie http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/11/08/spoiling/#comment-52738 Arnie Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:54:00 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=14129#comment-52738 Does anyone know: do foxes have cubs, or puppies? Puppies sounds too tame, but I am now thinking cubs are for bears and Chicago fans only. Anyway, y,all know what I meant. Arnie Does anyone know: do foxes have cubs, or puppies? Puppies sounds too tame, but I am now thinking cubs are for bears and Chicago fans only. Anyway, y,all know what I meant.
Arnie

]]> By: Arnie http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/11/08/spoiling/#comment-52731 Arnie Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:02:02 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=14129#comment-52731 Dear Sebastian, I understand the present reality and appreciate your infinite patience to work within the "system" to win the right while still keeping the peace. I pray fervently that your efforts succeed, I truly do. My understanding of history is that our Founders exhibited the same patience - "Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed (Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence).". Our Confederate cousins would have been wise to have patiently waited to see what Lincoln and his radical Republicans in Congress actually would have done before seceding; they may have found them amenable to a compromise that would have averted their war for independence while yet preserving State sovereignty, and allowed slavery to expire on its own due to economic forces and Christian conscience as both Lincoln and Lee had hoped. But as our Founders discovered, patience is not always rewarded, and it is always best to be prepared for the worst. Hence, they gave us the 2nd Amendment. As far as declaring a law to be unconstitutional, I am aware of the present convention that allows the Supreme Court to be the "final arbiter" of constitutionality, but that convention is itself unconstitutional and frankly, dangerous, as both Jefferson and Madison warned. I will right here pledge to give up all my militia arsenal to ANYONE who can quote Article, section, and paragraph where the Constitution of the United States ENUMERATES a power of the Supreme Court to declare a law of of Congress constitutional or unconstitutional! If anyone can, his reward will be quite substantial! If no one can, then the 10th Amendment places that power in the hands of the States and the people thereof. Both Jefferson and Madison (the Father of our Constitution) proclaimed that legal fact in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, as did Vice-President John C.Calhoun decades later during the Nullification Affair. John Taylor of Caroline proved (in my mind, at least) this legal theory in his book "New Views of the Constitution" written in 1823. Marbury vs Madison was a radical judicial aggrandizement that was repeated only once over the next sixty years. Even Lincoln ignored the Taney Court's declarations of his unconstitutional acts regarding habeus corpus, shutting down the press, and jailing editors and free speech advocates. Article 1, section 1, para.1, sentence one prohibits the Supreme Court from ever making ANY laws!!! So, ideally speaking, of course, why do we wait for a FEDERAL court to declare a FEDERAL law unconstitutional? That is akin to letting the fox's cubs determine when it's wrong for the fox to be in the hen house, or leaving it to King George III to determine if Parliament's tax laws had violated the Colonial Charters! It's utter madness! Look, I understand the political reality, and am willing to give time to our public SERVANTS to repent of their treason and start obeying their oaths to the Constitution (esp.the 10th Amendment). But we are fools if we do not prepare for the worst. Jefferson continued in the Declaration: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations (TARP, Bailouts, GM takeover, Health insurance takeover, Cap and (Tax) Trade, wealth redistribution and proposed AWB, etc. Etc.)...evinces a DESIGN to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to THROW OFF such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security (all caps mine)." Please tell me what DESIGN these actions of our recent government portend to you! I am no rebel - I do believe our government is. They have rebelled against the Constitution and betrayed their oath to the same. I may not have the credibility to convince our servants of the unconstitutionality of a law or to persuade them to desist. But I can sure as heck determine for myself (as can any who will read the precious document versus the blasted law in question - good heavens, they won't even read their own law!) what is unconstitutional and prepare my militia arms for what our Founding Fathers called "acquiescing in the Necessity, enemies in war, in peace, Friends." Is our government's "design" to be our SERVANT, or our MASTER? Like you, Sebastian, I lobby and pray for the former, but I PREPARE for the latter! I've said enough. With greatest respect, Arnie Dear Sebastian, I understand the present reality and appreciate your infinite patience to work within the “system” to win the right while still keeping the peace. I pray fervently that your efforts succeed, I truly do. My understanding of history is that our Founders exhibited the same patience – “Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed (Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence).”. Our Confederate cousins would have been wise to have patiently waited to see what Lincoln and his radical Republicans in Congress actually would have done before seceding; they may have found them amenable to a compromise that would have averted their war for independence while yet preserving State sovereignty, and allowed slavery to expire on its own due to economic forces and Christian conscience as both Lincoln and Lee had hoped. But as our Founders discovered, patience is not always rewarded, and it is always best to be prepared for the worst. Hence, they gave us the 2nd Amendment.
As far as declaring a law to be unconstitutional, I am aware of the present convention that allows the Supreme Court to be the “final arbiter” of constitutionality, but that convention is itself unconstitutional and frankly, dangerous, as both Jefferson and Madison warned. I will right here pledge to give up all my militia arsenal to ANYONE who can quote Article, section, and paragraph where the Constitution of the United States ENUMERATES a power of the Supreme Court to declare a law of of Congress constitutional or unconstitutional! If anyone can, his reward will be quite substantial! If no one can, then the 10th Amendment places that power in the hands of the States and the people thereof. Both Jefferson and Madison (the Father of our Constitution) proclaimed that legal fact in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, as did Vice-President John C.Calhoun decades later during the Nullification Affair. John Taylor of Caroline proved (in my mind, at least) this legal theory in his book “New Views of the Constitution” written in 1823. Marbury vs Madison was a radical judicial aggrandizement that was repeated only once over the next sixty years. Even Lincoln ignored the Taney Court’s declarations of his unconstitutional acts regarding habeus corpus, shutting down the press, and jailing editors and free speech advocates. Article 1, section 1, para.1, sentence one prohibits the Supreme Court from ever making ANY laws!!! So, ideally speaking, of course, why do we wait for a FEDERAL court to declare a FEDERAL law unconstitutional? That is akin to letting the fox’s cubs determine when it’s wrong for the fox to be in the hen house, or leaving it to King George III to determine if Parliament’s tax laws had violated the Colonial Charters!
It’s utter madness! Look, I understand the political reality, and am willing to give time to our public SERVANTS to repent of their treason and start obeying their oaths to the Constitution (esp.the 10th Amendment). But we are fools if we do not prepare for the worst. Jefferson continued in the Declaration: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations (TARP, Bailouts, GM takeover, Health insurance takeover, Cap and (Tax) Trade, wealth redistribution and proposed AWB, etc. Etc.)…evinces a DESIGN to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to THROW OFF such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security (all caps mine).” Please tell me what DESIGN these actions of our recent government portend to you!
I am no rebel – I do believe our government is. They have rebelled against the Constitution and betrayed their oath to the same. I may not have the credibility to convince our servants of the unconstitutionality of a law or to persuade them to desist. But I can sure as heck determine for myself (as can any who will read the precious document versus the blasted law in question – good heavens, they won’t even read their own law!) what is unconstitutional and prepare my militia arms for what our Founding Fathers called “acquiescing in the Necessity, enemies in war, in peace, Friends.” Is our government’s “design” to be our SERVANT, or our MASTER? Like you, Sebastian, I lobby and pray for the former, but I PREPARE for the latter!
I’ve said enough.
With greatest respect,
Arnie

]]> By: Jeff http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/11/08/spoiling/#comment-52719 Jeff Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:42:54 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=14129#comment-52719 The more we fight about this, the more the libs divide us. Had abortion funding remained in the bill, it would likely have still gone through, even if they had to wait a couple of weeks to redo stuff and vote. Anybody notice the Lisbon Treaty over in Europe? These government supremacists will continue to vote for this garbage over and over until it gets passed. The more we fight about this, the more the libs divide us.

Had abortion funding remained in the bill, it would likely have still gone through, even if they had to wait a couple of weeks to redo stuff and vote.

Anybody notice the Lisbon Treaty over in Europe? These government supremacists will continue to vote for this garbage over and over until it gets passed.

]]> By: Sebastian http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/11/08/spoiling/#comment-52715 Sebastian Mon, 09 Nov 2009 01:57:44 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=14129#comment-52715 He is. But there's some who believe the Republicans should have not voted on the amendment so the Democrats couldn't have cover when it comes to abortion, and thus the bill would have had less of a chance of passing. He is. But there’s some who believe the Republicans should have not voted on the amendment so the Democrats couldn’t have cover when it comes to abortion, and thus the bill would have had less of a chance of passing.

]]> By: Hank Archer http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/11/08/spoiling/#comment-52714 Hank Archer Mon, 09 Nov 2009 01:50:40 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=14129#comment-52714 Isn't Stupak a Democrat? How do the REpublican's get the blame for him offering an amendment? Isn’t Stupak a Democrat? How do the REpublican’s get the blame for him offering an amendment?

]]>