pt0217

Domestic terrorism? How about trespassing?

When I saw them flip a coin I couldn't believe my eyes

She won by five votes? I thought she won by five coin tosses. She's obviously not a true liberal. If so she would have given 2 1/2 of those votes to Sanders.

Grazing fees? To who?

I'm confused. Are we debating whether or not the land grab by the federal Gov that the Bundies are protesting is unconstitutional or something else?

I realize that. The limits are in the word "needful". Examples of "needful" are stated. What difference does it make if it says anywhere the land must be ceded to the states, if the federal government is owning land that isn't "needful" for it to to do its job according to the constitution. This isn't that complicated. Read what you posted. It's in black and white. The constitution gives limited powers to the federal government, the right to control those limited powers and the right to own the land to perform those limited powers. I could write it in crayon if that would help.

It also gives them the authority to own land but it sets its own limits to "needful" and includes examples. It doesn't give any examples of what's going on in the western states. How would you explain the land grabs as "needful"

Wildcat, the provision gives authority to the federal government to use the militia and govern how it used for its needs at the time it needs it. Not to control the militia.

As a conservative it's easy for me to see that the liberal media is brainwashing their viewers to believe what they report. But I had an awakening watching FOX news clearly trying to destroy Donald Trumps bid to be the Republican nominee. Was it because he pulled out of the debate? They acted like a bunch of cry babies. Now after an expected second place finish in Iowa they smell blood in the water so every question asked of the pundits is. "Is It over for Trump"? As if to try to sway the public away from him to their obvious pick, Marco Rubio. The opinion shows are fine. However, I would like to see the news just report the news, unbiased, state the facts without the hidden agendas, get to the truth and let us make our own minds!

I watched your video. I now understand why you see it the way you do. I'm glad your done contributing to this discussion. Thanks for everything you brought to it.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/law-enforcement-accused-of-cover-up-in-shooting-of-oregon-occupier/ar-BBp2sDa?ocid=ansmsnnews11 This is off Aol. I don't believe they are a right wing news source. If there is better video and audio of the incident then why would authorities only release the helicopter video be released. It creates more questions then answers. Assuming they were justified in this shooting either release all of the video you can or you shouldn't have released any.

Wow Uptown! You like to use the word hatred! You have misrepresented many of the conservative positions speaking on this post. Just because we challenge our government doesn't make us haters. The founding fathers insisted that from us so that all of their sacrifices weren't for nothing.

It is Anti-federal government. You might not agree with that but that is the way this country was designed to be run. You obviously don't like that. Ok! There's millions like you in this country. That's why our country is a mess right now.

The Government in many cases is the problem. The Constitution itself is anti government

Expresso, If you can defend the actions of those in Ferguson and Baltimore and denounce the actions of the Oregon group you are clearly biased. The protest in Oregon was peaceful. The 1% rs the Baltimore rioters and Ferguson were largely made up of Anarchists who had no regards for others. They destroyed everything around them. The fact that the law sat back and allowed it was because their politician bosses told them to.

How do you know I'm white?

That would support the protestors position, asking the federal Government to turn the control of the land over to the state.

What I took from Wheeliman's post was the emphasis on "needful" and how that is interpreted. A strict constitutionalist would say since the founding fathers believed in a limited government than needful would be meant to be limited. However, more progressive minded people,who believe the constitution should be allowed to be interpreted for the needs of the period, would allow the word to be used for more broad control.

I read this and am having a difficult time understanding how it directly relates( I admit I'm a little slow to see things). I would guess it conflicts with what Wheeliman is saying. If so, is it an example of a court that had misinterpreted the constitution?

Thank you Wheeliman. Very informative.

Welcome.

Last one is funny!

I would love to know the facts and hope we will get them soon. Foiling the Police? You are smarter than that to think that would get you anything other than a target on your back. Is everyone that disagrees with you a blind follower or "zombie"? If so, what does that make the few that agree with you?

Thanks for not calling me zombie.

I don't have time. I'm too busy reading all of the angry crap that you write. Your second question is a great mystery. Why would anyone promote a liberal Agenda?