| Posted: 02 Oct 2009 17:20 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4
Join Date: Aug 2009
|
I came across a new organization called Oath Keepers, and the first thing that came to mind was, if Captain America was real, he would be a member of this group. (At least, his track record of going against the government if he believes it is violating fundamental human rights seems to support this.)
Quote:
Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with us, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution
Our motto is "Not on our watch!"
They have a list of Ten Orders We Will Not Obey and a very cool video set to the Last of the Mohicans soundtrack.
Political Disclaimer: I understand and accept that not everyone will agree with or even like this. But no matter which way you slice it, this group is made up of real American heroes.
___________
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. -John Stuart Mill
|
| Posted: 02 Oct 2009 21:22 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 457
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
So, where was this group eight years ago when the government was activly engaged in unreasonable search and seizure and detaining persons as enemy combatants?
If they were rallying in 2002, then I respect them, if they came into being in 2008 then I am suspect of their true motivations.
It is often the case that fascists claim that they are only defending us against a far worse enemy. Be that terrorists, or socialists, the treat of the state is the same, and if you didn't stand up when the patriot act was proposed then you likely aren't worth following today.
Likewise, it should be noted that Cap does tend to eshew organizations, but when the state did round up unregistered mutants, and then unregistered costumed individuals he did stand against the state. So you are right that he would likely agree with the tennants of the group. I agree with thier tennants, I just am suspect of their motivations.
Trust no one after all, especially those who claim to be on your side.
|
| Posted: 02 Oct 2009 22:51 |
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1989
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
They sound pretty cool to me. They need to add red light cameras to their list of stuff they are against.
__________________
|
| Posted: 04 Oct 2009 12:54 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 457
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
So Tim, it's your feeling that you should be able to break the law so long as no ones looking?
I guess a hit and run is o.k. to so long as you don't get caught. 
|
| Posted: 05 Oct 2009 20:30 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 457
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
Can't find a founding date for the organization, but their website is (C) 2009.
They also have no articles older than March 3rd of 2009 on their site.
Granted, the founder is critical of Bush's actions in his paper "solving the puzzle of enemy combatants" http://www.jpfo.org/pdf/sr-enemy.pdf
As it is everyone can make thier own choices, but I am cautious of organizations that spring up overnight seemingly for the purpose of exploiting fear.
|
| Posted: 06 Oct 2009 05:16 |
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 137
Join Date: Apr 2007
|
Matches, the patriot act did not impinge on rights of American citizens and did not violate the constitution. Wire tapping incoming messages from known terror states is not in violation of any of our rights. You should be cynical of anything the anti-Bush crowd says.
I'm not partisan to defend Bush in his failures, but I'm realistic to recognize that everyone makes mistakes. The question is the underlying train of thought and motivation. I believe Bush's train of thought and motivation in everything was what was best for the country. And for the most part, he was successful. We didn't experience another 9/11.
As for Cap joining this group, I think he would endorse their sentiment, but would not join. He stands alone and doesn't get claimed by others who would use him for purposes he might not ultimately approve of, despite their current well-meaning intentions.
__________________
|
| Posted: 06 Oct 2009 11:17 |
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 322
Join Date: Jun 2007
|
|
I'm not wanting to start an argument here. I do firmly believe in the bill of rights, the constitution and the declaration of independence. When asked at election time which party I'm a member of I always answer "Iam an American and vote for whichever party I feel will do the most good or sadly enough in recent times the least harm. I am somewhat disappointed with the current administration as all we heard during the campaign was "Hope" & " Change". I too wasn't a big fan of Bush but I do not appreciate a president who feels he has to apologize for this country when nothing has been wrongly done. The Health Care thing would be good if the would only use it for those less fortunate and not try to shove the pills down all the peoples throats.It's equally sad to say that in these times a lot of our elected officials have forgotten the bottom line which is that they were elected by, for and of the people..... public servants.Most people praise FDR for his Nothing to fear but fear itself speech as well they should. During those days he did give the people hope. We fought a war all over the globe from beginning to end in less than 5 years,over 60 years ago with what would be termed antiquated weapons for now. Here in this day and age, we've been over there for 8 years with no end in sight. What is wrong with this picture?
|
| Posted: 06 Oct 2009 16:41 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 457
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
Sigh...The Patriot act doesn't violate the constitution, but then again neither does supressing rouge states within the Union as Lincoln was forced to do.
If that is the attitude of the Oathkeepers (and I'm not saying it is) then they are at an imedeate contradiction.
If a state fails to recognize the authority of the Federal Government they are in violation of the Contstitution's supremecy and must be handled by what ever means necessary. No one wants a civil war, but understanding that if the union is to be preserved the Supremecy of the Federal Government over the states cannot be messed around with.
We are the United States of America, not the amalgamated or confederated States.
We are united in our central Federal authority and our rights stem from that body not our individual states.
Note that in some states, like California the constitution and thusly the rights of the people can be changed or altered by a simple majority vote.
However through our Federal Authority those rights are sacrosanct and nearly impossible to overturn by simple popular will.
As such, you can either believe in the constitution, or believe in the right of states to make their own rules in violation of that document. There isn't really a middle ground on that. And I do not think the Cap would side with a group that would wish to undermine our nation because of who happened to be elected president.
Oh and as far as appologizing goes, the mark of a mature person is recognition of wrongs past and current, and accepting that blame. I can only imagine that the same thesis would apply to a mature nation.
So's your old man wasn't a defense for Hitler, and it should never be a defense for the United States.
|
| Posted: 07 Oct 2009 01:22 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 137
Join Date: Apr 2007
|
Obama hasn't apologized for any real wrongs, just the perceived wrongs from leftists who want to make this country a Euro-socialist state. The end result of any political group that sponsors large National Government over a Federal Government is control over people.
I forget who said it, I think Matches, but either right or left wing parties can become dominant over people and freedom. Muselini was a Facist allied with Hitler, who was a Socialist.
We should all support State's rights over strong National power. If Cap were real, he would. Decentralized power is the best defense against tyranny.
As for Lincoln, he did take liberties in a time of crisis that, in retrospect, could be seen as an abuse of his Executive power. That's another debate.
__________________
|
| Posted: 07 Oct 2009 18:13 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 457
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
States rights is a fairly difficult thing however as although we may want our state to have it's own rights, we may find anothers states rights reprehensible.
Take for example the original states right problem, Slavery. Can you in your state really concience slavery in another state? Especially after something like Dredscott puts forth the idea that even if you are a free state, slavery is still a legal institution in your state.
Can someone's status change by crossing a border, can you be a fetus in new york, and child in Iowa? Can you be married in Arizona and not in Utah? These are very real issues that come into play on the States right question.
It's great to be for something like "states rights" wihtout actually taking into account the human costs of such decisions. The Federal Government's job is to serve as the uniter of this nation, to ensure that say, a state or protectorate (such as washington D.C.) doesn't take away your individual right to bear arms, or likewise, doesn't doesn't decide to impose limits on speach or religion that citizens moving to that state might find onerous.
The Rights of the Constituion are Federal rights and can only be protected by a central federal authority. Otherwise, we stop being the United States, and then what does Cap stand for anyway? Perhaps he'd have to change his name to Captain New York since that's where he lives and might not be welcome anymore in other parts of the country.
|
| Posted: 09 Oct 2009 06:45 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 137
Join Date: Apr 2007
|
State's Rights are difficult, but we need to err on the side of giving States the right to make rules. As for marriage, I don't think it would matter if Minnesota recognizes my marriage and Arizona doesn't. Unless I move there, it's not an issue. If I do move there, I'd need to file the appropriate paperwork.
There is at least one state that does not have compulsory auto insurance laws. Generally all states join in what is a good idea and beneficial to the Union.
But, you are right, it's a topic of endless discussion and I think the spirit of Captain America is with that debate, not imposing a strong National force that gives everyone marching orders.
__________________
|
| Posted: 09 Oct 2009 15:43 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 457
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
The problem is if you move there, and what if say, Georgia decides to not recognize your marriage because you are married to someone of a differnt race?
The problem is, you can always break authority into smaller and smaller groups, state rights, city rights, community rights, and as you do so each group tends to get more and more homogenous, which means they can pass rules that harm the minority, even making it difficult or impossible for the minority to function in that community.
I trust the federal government more than state governments myself, because the Federal Government has more people to answer to and as such it's power is more self limiting.
When you get to a sate with only a few hundred thousand people in it, you can easily imagine (and see) the possibility that state passing laws to enshrine their identity to the detriment of others. The Federal Government is the bulwark against that, and to act in situations where some states (again often the smaller ones) need assistance that in a more anti-federalist society they would not have.
There is no reason for New York and Californian Tax dollars to flow to Montanna and Wyoming, but they do because these states need these taxes to have the basic funding for their states.
That shared burden of taxation is the only way a country of our size can exist. Short of that, and we wind up looking like south america with a few relativly rich states, and a great deal of crushing poverty.
Instead because we share our burdens we are as a whole an incredibly rich and powerful nation.
|
| Posted: 09 Oct 2009 16:58 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1989
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
I don't trust the state or the federal government. I think the power should always remain with the people to vote in laws or not.
And isn't California going to need bailing out pretty soon? Should Tn or any other state be responsible for California's failed policies?
__________________
|
| Posted: 09 Oct 2009 19:42 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 457
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
Of course they need bailing out, all their tax dollars are going to Montana.
If you live in a big state you hear this regularly about how our federal taxes go to support these welfare states between the Mississippi and the Rockies.
The lower your population the lower your tax base, and the more you need feredal aid to support your basic services.
It's an irony that these states are always the first to complain about the federal government forgetting that without the federal government they wouldn't even be habitable for the most part, unless of course you are home schooling mountain folk living off the land. They have every right to complain about services they don't use.
|
|
|
