|
This page contains all of the posts and discussion on MemeStreams referencing the following web page: One man, one problem.. You can find discussions on MemeStreams as you surf the web, even if you aren't a MemeStreams member, using the Threads Bookmarklet.
|
One man, one problem. by Rattle at 12:15 pm EDT, Apr 9, 2005 |
] Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" ] for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph ] Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for ] him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no ] problem,' " Vieira said. Unbelievable! In very unmistakable terms, this guy advocated the assassination of federal judges. There is a certain disconnection from ethics and reality here that is truly terrifying. Now, let me go out on a limb here.. After reading this, I feel pretty damn safe saying a radical thing or two. Hell, I feel driven to balance it out. Madness does beget madness.. You'd think that in comparison, it would be pretty hard to breech some line missed by Edwin Vieira. Google this guy and scan over a few items. In short, he is very unhappy with "the Establishment", and thinks that the dollar and the federal reserve system is a bad idea. So, In a world where someone making purchases with two-dollar bills can be arrested on terrorism suspicions, are fools invoking Stalin and talking about "fixing" the judiciary the answer? I don't think so, and I'm pretty sure Jefferson would agree with me. Would it be acceptable for me to say that people like this should be rounded up and send to "education camps"? Shit, maybe that is the plan. After all this guy does have several college degrees, including a doctorate and a law degree, from Harvard no less. On one page it said he argued the "last" case involving money the Supreme Court heard, quite awhile ago. I didn't look that hard for any information involving his cases before the court, but I get this image in my head of this guy arguing before the justices and thinking about how he wants to kill them.. This guy needs to get hip to the Conspiracy. Its much more fun than the Establishment. You can't prove it exists, but you can take part! If you build your delusions on something solid, like the Conspiracy, it offers much more personal freedom. Rather then fight the Establishment, join the Conspiracy! Start conspiring! That's how we made the dollar! ho ho ho.. We are all about the principles of the founding fathers in the Conspiracy. Edwin would like that. However, we are not about whacking judges or using Stalin as a role model. Edwin's world view is broken. |
|
RE: One man, one problem. by Decius at 12:23 pm EDT, Apr 10, 2005 |
Rattle wrote: ] Unbelievable! In very unmistakable terms, this guy advocated ] the assassination of federal judges. There is a certain ] disconnection from ethics and reality here that is truly ] terrifying. While calls to impeach judges by radical nutjobs is newsworthy, these nutjobs seem to have missed the fact that they are unlikely to get support from 2/3rds of the Senate, and even if they could, they'd need a constitutional amendment to include "having opinions we disagree with" as an impeachable offense. Did Edwin Vieira advocate killing judges, or is he just spinning a phrase? Who cares!? Who the fuck is Edwin Vieira? Apparently he is also opposed to the federal reserve bank. He is too nuts to be important. Whats newsworthy in all of this is John Cornyn. Recent murders in Atlanta and Chicago have about as much to do with right wing politics as mustard has to do with bicycles. Was his comment a warning or a threat? I do care about the answer to that question, as he is a United States Senator and he was speaking in an official capacity at the time. I imagine it was an attempt to reach for a boogyman. And he is foolish for being confused about why he got nailed on it. It was a stupid comment. He should acknowledge it as such and move on. I said this before the election. I'll say it again. The focal point of the American people before the election was Al'Q, but I do not seriously beleive that a choice between Republicans and Democrats was a winning or loosing choice vs. Al'Q. There were strategic differences on the plate, but not of that scope. What was also on the plate was the independence of the federal judiciary. Something is going to happen, and this is a long term survival problem for the republic. All of this positioning is prologue. It will continue for some time. The right will wait until the 3rd year of the presidential cycle to proceed, as that is when actions have their greatest political value. They think they can continue to control these radicals. I think they're jugggling fire, and they've already dropped the baton several times. |
|
|
RE: One man, one problem. by k at 10:58 am EDT, Apr 11, 2005 |
Rattle wrote: ] Unbelievable! In very unmistakable terms, this guy advocated ] the assassination of federal judges. There is a certain ] disconnection from ethics and reality here that is truly ] terrifying. While calls to impeach judges by radical nutjobs is newsworthy, these nutjobs seem to have missed the fact that they are unlikely to get support from 2/3rds of the Senate, and even if they could, they'd need a constitutional amendment to include "having opinions we disagree with" as an impeachable offense. Did Edwin Vieira advocate killing judges, or is he just spinning a phrase? Who cares!? Who the fuck is Edwin Vieira? Apparently he is also opposed to the federal reserve bank. He is too nuts to be important. Whats newsworthy in all of this is John Cornyn. Recent murders in Atlanta and Chicago have about as much to do with right wing politics as mustard has to do with bicycles. Was his comment a warning or a threat? I do care about the answer to that question, as he is a United States Senator and he was speaking in an official capacity at the time. I imagine it was an attempt to reach for a boogyman. And he is foolish for being confused about why he got nailed on it. It was a stupid comment. He should acknowledge it as such and move on. I said this before the election. I'll say it again. The focal point of the American people before the election was Al'Q, but I do not seriously beleive that a choice between Republicans and Democrats was a winning or loosing choice vs. Al'Q. There were strategic differences on the plate, but not of that scope. What was also on the plate was the independence of the federal judiciary. Something is going to happen, and this is a long term survival problem for the republic. All of this positioning is prologue. It will continue for some time. The right will wait until the 3rd year of the presidential cycle to proceed, as that is when actions have their greatest political value. They think they can continue to control these radicals. I think they're jugggling fire, and they've already dropped the baton several times. |
|
One man, one problem. by Mike the Usurper at 4:03 pm EDT, Apr 9, 2005 |
] Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" ] for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph ] Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for ] him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no ] problem,' " Vieira said. Unbelievable! In very unmistakable terms, this guy advocated the assassination of federal judges. There is a certain disconnection from ethics and reality here that is truly terrifying. Now, let me go out on a limb here.. After reading this, I feel pretty damn safe saying a radical thing or two. Hell, I feel driven to balance it out. Madness does beget madness.. You'd think that in comparison, it would be pretty hard to breech some line missed by Edwin Vieira. Google this guy and scan over a few items. In short, he is very unhappy with "the Establishment", and thinks that the dollar and the federal reserve system is a bad idea. So, In a world where someone making purchases with two-dollar bills can be arrested on terrorism suspicions, are fools invoking Stalin and talking about "fixing" the judiciary the answer? I don't think so, and I'm pretty sure Jefferson would agree with me. Would it be acceptable for me to say that people like this should be rounded up and send to "education camps"? Shit, maybe that is the plan. After all this guy does have several college degrees, including a doctorate and a law degree, from Harvard no less. On one page it said he argued the "last" case involving money the Supreme Court heard, quite awhile ago. I didn't look that hard for any information involving his cases before the court, but I get this image in my head of this guy arguing before the justices and thinking about how he wants to kill them.. This guy needs to get hip to the Conspiracy. Its much more fun than the Establishment. You can't prove it exists, but you can take part! If you build your delusions on something solid, like the Conspiracy, it offers much more personal freedom. Rather then fight the Establishment, join the Conspiracy! Start conspiring! That's how we made the dollar! ho ho ho.. We are all about the principles of the founding fathers in the Conspiracy. Edwin would like that. However, we are not about whacking judges or using Stalin as a role model. Edwin's world view is broken. These guys are scary as hell, and they're the mainstream of that wing. |
One man, one problem. by noteworthy at 6:49 pm EDT, Apr 9, 2005 |
A double dose of the Constitution in action. Here's the latest evidence that the first amendment dutifully protects America's whackos even as it enables the press to show us how very silly (but no less frightening) they are. Ominously, Vieira said his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said. And people make fun of Hollywood! Forget about the Scientologists ... the truth in Washington is stranger yet. Michael Farris told the crowd he is "sick and tired of having to lobby people I helped get elected." A better-educated citizenry, he said, would know that "Medicare is a bad idea" and that "Social Security is a horrible idea when run by the government." Oh, yes -- much better to hire lackeys and yes-men to do your political and judicial bidding. |
|
|