Amash denounces armed protests in Michigan

[Swordsmyth]

That sounds like a decent option if you are potentially willing to give up your freedom and live in prison. I salute you for it, but it's not for everyone.

The adults here are trying to make the rules better so you can do the same thing and not have to worry about going to prison.

It's almost like devil wants you to lose your freedom one way or another.

 

[devil21]

That sounds like a decent option if you are potentially willing to give up your freedom and live in prison. I salute you for it, but it's not for everyone.

The adults here are trying to make the rules better so you can do the same thing and not have to worry about going to prison.

Prison? Hahaha I've had police officers compliment me during encounters, not lock me up.

Why do you hate the Constitution? Maybe start thinking like TJ did and then maybe you can start living like TJ wished for us all.

Or you can go the other direction and enjoy the conveniences of exercising too little freedom instead of possible inconveniences of exercising too much. But I gotta say, I haven't encountered many inconveniences, even when the inconveniences (if what you say about freedom and prison and whatever is true) should have happened...

No, I received compliments and "have a nice day, sir" instead.

(Btw, both of your shill statuses are again confirmed when you quickly run to the "you'll go to prison!!" rhetoric instead of engaging in actual discussion of what I'm writing about. I'd think most liberty-loving folks would want instruction, not fear-mongering.)

 

[PAF]

Post after post, out of + Rep for [MENTION=2727]devil21[/MENTION]

 

[acptulsa]

"Please give up and pretend that is victory."

Got it.

It's almost like devil wants you to lose your freedom one way or another.

You say to use our freedom is to lose our freedom, yet accuse everyone else of saying, 'Give up.'

Who do you think you're fooling, establishment shyll?

 

[osan]

You take that away from this?



That part about Michigan caring about their liberty has yet to be proven. The rest seems to me to be part fact, and part not unreasonable opinion.

Armed protests may be just the sort of preaching the choir wants to hear. But it's an awfully easy thing for the bad guys to spin out of proportion, too. That sword does indeed have two edges.

OOOOoooo... it might be perceived as intimidation...

Well, it should be because that is precisely what it is. This isn't intimidation of legislators because they shrank the welfare check or decided to fly the chromosexual flag over the capitol. It is because those legislators and all the other vile pricks in the business of INTIMIDATING US, are doing just that, to the disparagement of our rights and the freedoms that go with them. The implication of Amash's statement is that Theye have the authority to diminish us. Newsflash Justin, Theye don't.

Are you one of these people that are in agreement of this abridgement of freedom for the horse shit reason of "the greater good"? Please say it ain't so - lie if you must.

 

[acptulsa]

The implication of Amash's statement is that Theye have the authority to diminish us.

It is? Which lines did you read between to glean that tidbit?

 

[osan]

If someone was completely clueless or had a twisted agenda I could see them thinking this.

We see it daily by so-called "progressives".

Or maybe people need to stop with their fake outrage while twisting Amashs meaning to fit their silly agenda.

Freedom is my agenda. Anyone gets in the way of that is filth so far as I am concerned. Amash is apparently a traitor to freedom, or some sort of candyass... "oooo... people will think you're intimidating legislators..." That is the point. When ANYONE, legislator or otherwise, fixes to abridge my rights, they become an enemy. I don't give a rat's patootie the intentions behind it. You endeavor to damage me, I am damned right going to intimidate the hell out of you.

The logic of the position would readily extend perfectly to the mugger in the process of mugging... well, you can't INTIMIDATE him... Legislators are muggers on the grandest scale of them all. You don't get all kissy-smoochy with a rabid dog; you put it down with rapid and non-equivocating dispatch.

It seems to me because he wants less government spending and wants to bring the troops doesn't make him the traitorous prick here. It does make others who don't support him look like lost sheep.

I don't know from Adam about those other issues. He is quoted as seen in the relevant post. I see no way that it could have been taken out of context, so unless the quote is itself incorrect, Amash has revealed himself a Weakman, all shivery in his boots because someone might be INTIMIDATING legislators. That drips cowardice and other corruptions. If the quote is wrong, I will amend my position. Until then, I stand firm in my opinion. Not intimidating legislators and other servants of the public trust is precisely how we became a candy-coated tyranny.

Had Americans slaughtered the regulars George Washington sent to enforce the whiskey tax and then tried and hung EVERYONE involved, Americans would have set the standard of the Freeman and the world would be a VERY different place. They didn't and here we stand, 240 years later with every asshole and their grannies ticketing, arresting, jailing, prohibiting, compelling, and issuing endless threats to free human beings who allow it.

So now you may explain to me how it is that the intimidation of such scurrilous subhuman vermin in defense of one's freedoms is wrong. I will remain open to persuasion, but your argument is going to have to strike like a sledge hammer if I am to alter my view.

Amash's statement is rotten with error and corruption. All else equal, he can go screw off.

 

[osan]

First off don't scare them off by storming the statehouses with long guns.

Why not? Those people NEED to be scared. Nothing else has worked, or it is your position that the past 20 years of ever growing opposition to the tyrant, having yielded no good result worth the mention, needs to be continued into the unknown future, lest we scare the legislators who pick your pockets and run roughshod over your rights?

But I don't see the harm in defending a business that has decided to open.

And how are these different?

It seems to me you are drawing distinctions with no differences. It's OK to defend a business in armed fashion, but not to defend your very rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness from the people most directly responsible for their diminution unto extinction?

Once again, my feeble and shriveled mind fails to see the reason here and stands in dire need of help in comprehending the correctitude of your position.

Maybe the average working people will get sick of it all.

Maybe they won't. My money's on the latter. Perhaps you need to turn your attention more closely to human history.

Anecdotal for sure but in the past few days I have seen about 25% of people in the local stores that are posted mandatory masks, not wearing them.

All well and good, but not nearly enough. Besides, what has that to do with storming the Bastille, armed? I salute them for the bold maneuver, the not-so-subtle threat there, and I am eminently pleased if Theye feel threatened. Theye need to know that beyond a point, their asses are going to get justly lynched.

 

[PAF]

Why not? Those people NEED to be scared. Nothing else has worked, or it is your position that the past 20 years of ever growing opposition to the tyrant, having yielded no good result worth the mention, needs to be continued into the unknown future, lest we scare the legislators who pick your pockets and run roughshod over your rights?




And how are these different?

It seems to me you are drawing distinctions with no differences. It's OK to defend a business in armed fashion, but not to defend your very rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness from the people most directly responsible for their diminution unto extinction?

Once again, my feeble and shriveled mind fails to see the reason here and stands in dire need of help in comprehending the correctitude of your position.



Maybe they won't. My money's on the latter. Perhaps you need to turn your attention more closely to human history.



All well and good, but not nearly enough. Besides, what has that to do with storming the Bastille, armed? I salute them for the bold maneuver, the not-so-subtle threat there, and the am eminently pleased if Theye feel threatened. The need to know that beyond a point, their asses are going to get justly lynched.

Wow. Words out my own mouth.

+ REP

 

[tebowlives]

We see it daily by so-called "progressives".

Freedom is my agenda. Anyone gets in the way of that is filth so far as I am concerned. Amash is apparently a traitor to freedom, or some sort of candyass... "oooo... people will think you're intimidating legislators..." That is the point. When ANYONE, legislator or otherwise, fixes to abridge my rights, they become an enemy. I don't give a rat's patootie the intentions behind it. You endeavor to damage me, I am damned right going to intimidate the hell out of you.

You're over reacting on this issue.

The logic of the position would readily extend perfectly to the mugger in the process of mugging... well, you can't INTIMIDATE him... Legislators are muggers on the grandest scale of them all. You don't get all kissy-smoochy with a rabid dog; you put it down with rapid and non-equivocating dispatch.

Logic says you're over reacting.

I don't know from Adam about those other issues. He is quoted as seen in the relevant post. I see no way that it could have been taken out of context, so unless the quote is itself incorrect, Amash has revealed himself a Weakman, all shivery in his boots because someone might be INTIMIDATING legislators. That drips cowardice and other corruptions. If the quote is wrong, I will amend my position. Until then, I stand firm in my opinion. Not intimidating legislators and other servants of the public trust is precisely how we became a candy-coated tyranny.

Had Americans slaughtered the regulars George Washington sent to enforce the whiskey tax and then tried and hung EVERYONE involved, Americans would have set the standard of the Freeman and the world would be a VERY different place. They didn't and here we stand, 240 years later with every $#@! and their grannies ticketing, arresting, jailing, prohibiting, compelling, and issuing endless threats to free human beings who allow it.

That you actually think this has anything to do with slaughtering regulars over a whiskey rebellion is made up drama.

So now you may explain to me how it is that the intimidation of such scurrilous subhuman vermin in defense of one's freedoms is wrong. I will remain open to persuasion, but your argument is going to have to strike like a sledge hammer if I am to alter my view.

Amash's statement is rotten with error and corruption. All else equal, he can go screw off.

Why don't you explain to me why you make long winded, overly dramatic posts?

Anyone who doesn't support a candidate with a very high conservative voting record can go screw off. Because you don't agree with him on a vote doesn't make him the sellout here.

 

[osan]

It is? Which lines did you read between to glean that tidbit?

I think it's a terrible idea to come in with weapons, as it might be perceived as intimidation of legislators.

The implication here is that in the given context, legislators et al are within their valid authorities as servants of the public trust; that they are authorized to shut down an entire economy and drive countless people into penury and restrict, disparage, and diminish their rights.

The implications are clear and unequivocal. Reading anything else from Amash's words reveals gross linguistic incompetence. If this is not what Amash meant, then I reiterate his dire need of remedial English class.

These are the facts: the legislators et al are doing wrong. Therefore, the people stand centrally within the circle of their rights and the concomitant authorities to act by "intimidating" the vermin and scum who threaten them.

This isn't rocket surgery.

 

[acptulsa]

The implication here is that in the given context, legislators et al are within their valid authorities as servants of the public trust; that they are authorized to shut down an entire economy and drive countless people into penury and restrict, disparage, and diminish their rights.

It is? How do you square that with his unequivocal affirmation of the right to protest?

Looks like an opinion about "optics" to me. And I passed my remedial reading class.

 

[osan]

You're over reacting on this issue.

You're welcome to hold that view, but I will point out that this is precisely the tepid attitude that has compromised away our rights over time.

For me, there is no such thing as over-reacting where trespass upon the rights of men are concerned.

L

ogic says you're over reacting.

You keep writing that, yet have offered no argument in support of the assertion. HMMM...

That you actually think this has anything to do with slaughtering regulars over a whiskey rebellion is made up drama.

That you presume to understand that which you clearly do not my virtue of your response is embraced ignorance.

Why don't you explain to me why you make long winded, overly dramatic posts?

Why do you make unsupported assertions?

Anyone who doesn't support a candidate with a very high conservative voting record can go screw off. Because you don't agree with him on a vote doesn't make him the sellout here.

It would seem we work from differing notions of "conservative". But do tell us how I am a "sellout". Please give the gory details.

 

[osan]

It is? How do you square that with his unequivocal affirmation of the right to protest?

Unequivocal? Are you high? It was decidedly NOT unequivocal. It was very much conditional... Protest, but do not intimidate legislators, the implication being that you don't do such things even if what they do merits such a response. We must always respect and leave feeling safe our sage and sacred legislators. Sheesh.

Looks like an opinion about "optics" to me. And I passed my remedial reading class.

Irrelevant. Appearances are equally important, something most of our contemporary politicians have disregarded for the inconveniences they present.

It seems you are on the side of the legislators. That's fine so long as you own it. I hold a decidedly different view.

 

[acptulsa]

For me, there is no such thing as over-reacting where trespass upon the rights of men are concerned.

That's as good an excuse as any for shooting the messengers, I guess.

It seems you are on the side of ...

That's a liberal trick designed to shut down debate. Why do you hate free speech?

 

[osan]

That's as good an excuse as any for shooting the messengers, I guess.

I've not shot anyone. I have called out a rat's ass. Prove me wrong and I will amend.

 

[Krugminator2]

Freedom is my agenda. Anyone gets in the way of that is filth so far as I am concerned. Amash is apparently a traitor to freedom, or some sort of candyass... "oooo... people will think you're intimidating legislators..." That is the point. When ANYONE, legislator or otherwise, fixes to abridge my rights, they become an enemy. I don't give a rat's patootie the intentions behind it. You endeavor to damage me, I am damned right going to intimidate the hell out of you.

The logic of the position would readily extend perfectly to the mugger in the process of mugging... well, you can't INTIMIDATE him... Legislators are muggers on the grandest scale of them all. You don't get all kissy-smoochy with a rabid dog; you put it down with rapid and non-equivocating dispatch.

This isn't a freedom issue at all.

Pandemic rules are similar to environmental rules. They can make sense because you can't easily punish people who inflict harm on others. Just like it can be hard to punish someone directly for pollution that results in cancer, you can't easily prove another gave you the Coronavirus. I was against the lockdown purely because I thought the cost outweighed the benefits.

If you are going to argue "muh freedom" then you have to have a way to convict someone of manslaughter or negligent homicide for giving someone else the virus. But given that it would be impossible to prove how someone got the Coronavirus then rules governed purely by cost benefit concerns are the only way to make decisions.

 

[acptulsa]

I've not shot anyone. I have called out a rat's ass. Prove me wrong and I will amend.

You don't think calling someone a rat's ass fits the colloquial definition of "taking a pot shot at" them?

How did you do in your remedial reading class?

 

[osan]

This isn't a freedom issue at all.

Pandemic rules are similar to environmental rules. They can make sense because you can't easily punish people who inflict harm on others. Just like it can be hard to punish someone directly for pollution that results in cancer, you can't easily prove another gave you the Coronavirus. I was against the lockdown purely because I thought the cost outweighed the benefits.

If you are going to argue "muh freedom" then you have to have a way to convict someone of manslaughter or negligent homicide for giving someone else the virus. But given that it would be impossible to prove how someone got the Coronavirus then rules governed purely by cost benefit concerns are the only way to make decisions.

Cost/benefit can be bullshitted every which way. Who determines the cost/benefit threshold? Who decides the costs and benefits? Who decides which costs and benefits are important and which are not? This is a weak-tea argument in favor of arbitrary tyranny just because what... you're afraid of getting sick?

Life is rotten with risk. Freemen accept the risks and act to mitigate them WITHOUT VIOLATING THEIR FELLOWS. If the physical approach of another leaves you terrified that you will become terminally ill with the boogeyman's curse, then either flee the area of slay him and take your chances with the courts. But it seems far too many want all the benefits of "freedom" without having to bear any of the burdens of having it.


My rights do not disappear magically because there is a plague afoot.

 

[osan]

You don't think calling someone a rat's ass fits the proverbial definition of "taking a pot shot at" them?

How did you do in your remedial reading class?

Pot shot; the very term implies something irrelevant, cheap, tawdry, invalid, untrue, or below the belt. I called Amash out for being just another low-rent politician. I also stated that I will amend my opinion when someone demonstrates that he has been misquoted.

'Nuff said. Good day.