America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Doc and I were talking about this in another thread, he suggested I start another thread which I think is a good idea.

I think neither party is interested in saving our freedoms. They just chip away at them in different ways. It is up to us to defend our freedom. The constitution seems to have no meaning for politicians. They live and breathe for dark money and perceived power. I only see one viable option. Every election vote against the incumbent. I do not care if their ideology is the same as mine or not. Their agenda is not for America, this I do care about. If we do this long enough, they will remember they work for Americans, no one else. The problem comes when the incumbent is running against a previous incumbent. In this I am not talking about only Trump and Biden. In instances like this I will do a write in vote. My goal with all of this is to return America to the American public. I see no other viable way to do this. I no longer see Republican and Democrat politicians. I see elected officials following instructions American or worldwide Oligarchs.

I am interested in all of you presenting your thoughts/opinions. I am not interested in a skunk pissing contest.

So true.
Our Constitution and Freedom are under attack .Both parties undermind our rights by passing their Trojan Horse bills,
allow bureaucrats to install more unconstitutional regulations . Hell, even Presidents do it by Executive Orders (instant law not passed by Congress)

I agree with your vote them out concept.

You rang?

To a degree I agree that the train jumped the tracks especially as it relates to weaponizing certain agencies against political opponents. I could list many, many examples of ideas that at face value would be positive yet they are administered by appointees and/or bureaucrats who use them to further their own interests instead of what’s best for the country as a whole.


On the other hand a sound argument could be made that many examples of overreach discussed here are simply perfectly legal, yet imperfect, implementations of items enumerated in the Constitution. One example is the Fed. Though the Fed system does many jobs it influences interest rates.

From Article 2, section 8:
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

So in essence the value of money is regulated by the underlying interest rates. The Fed was created by a law passed through Congress.

There are many other examples. But that’s not really the point.

As far a governments are concerned the government of the USA is probably the oldest current one in existence. So if history is any prediction of the future change may very well be on the not so distant horizon.

And we want to be able to marry our cousins..!! Damnit..!!

As long as our gubment can be bought you will get the policies that those buyers are willing to pay for and nothing more.

I agree w/Doc and yes I know he’s not a doctor. The only thing I’m wishy-washy about is the 90 day emergency action. I think that can be scaled back and have some guardrails put in place to make it workable. Committing troops is out of the question. Dropping bombs is out of the question. I’m thinking more along the lines of moving naval assets as a show of force and giving the commanders loose weapons if they are fired upon.

Well, a sandwich just isn’t a sandwich without the tangy taste of Miraclewhip.

F that. Hellman's.

I just use that in humor Spey….totally not a shot at you. My Polish blood laughs at your name calling. Genius? Pffft.

I don’t mind getting called names, especially if I deserve it.

That’s why I took offense to genius.

Spey and Z, you two are good for nothing fender heads.

This is what I have to reply to when you do "that" way. Sucks...but...here I go.

1) We agree

2) We agree

3) Please expand on this reply. Not sure what you mean. I meant (perhaps I wasn't clear!) that if the President wants say to tell Americans to get a vaccine or you can't participate as a citizen! That's a bit fresh yeah? That happened. All because EO's. Then through the Executive Branch the overreach. That happened. I expect a more open dialog not just with the manner the Legislative Branch operates but with what they actually control. If you want a law. Get the law passed. That's on the Legislative Branch. Prez signs it into law. Presto chango. Seems like EO's do a Michael Jackson dancestep all over the Constitution and well, because. That's why you ninny. Did I get it wrong?

4) Meet me halfway. Where's the "middle"?

5) That's a better, more intended (but not followed) interpretation of how I read the law.

6) Eligible? Define. I know how I'm coming down on it. The laws are in place, and need to be defined.