# For Those Down On Republicans



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

The Republican House is actually earning some of their pay.
Democrats are not happy.:glee:

GOP Reps To Block DOJ's Backdoor Gun Control - Breitbart


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

I'm happy to see this, of course, but I hate the inside the beltway crowd playing politics with our constitutional rights. As a poster here said a few days ago: "What's wrong with just freedom?"


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

I really hope this isn't just another of their "stand tough then finally cave in" tactics they've been so good at lately.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Two party system equals one coin with two sides.


----------



## BagLady (Feb 3, 2014)

Good.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Finally


----------



## LONE WOLF (Dec 12, 2014)

I just do not trust any of them anymore! It is probably a distraction of what they are really doing!


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

sideKahr said:


> I'm happy to see this, of course, but I hate the inside the beltway crowd playing politics with our constitutional rights. As a poster here said a few days ago: "What's wrong with just freedom?"


Our freedoms were chisled away, a chip at a time. They will have to be gotten back a step at a time, because the alternative, revolution, is unworkable.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Our freedoms were chisled away, a chip at a time. They will have to be gotten back a step at a time, because the alternative, revolution, is unworkable.


RPD brings up a very good yet debate-able point; Revolution is unworkable.

Some reasons are and not limited to;

Out of 310 million US citizens 47-51% (depending on who is right) are on the government teat.
A few million are incarcerated, a few million are mentally ill, a few million are truly disabled, many million are small children and infants and many are simply metrosexual whussies and many are simply too old to fight.
A whole lot of people are Apathetic and will NEVER care
A whole lot of people actually buy into the socialist model even though many will not admit it...partly because they are too stupid or apathetic.
There are approx. 30-40 million illegals who will be fighting against any revolution.

Anyway, just some random thoughts.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

I think I read somewhere that only 3% of the colonists took up arms against the king. 
But look how many years they had to fight, how many battles were lost, how much hardship endured, before ultimate victory.

FWIW - I am a direct descendant of an Infantry Private who fought in the Revolution. I was a member of the Florida Society of the Sons of the American Revolution until I let my membership lapse. But I have been vetted, I'm not simply passing along family lore.
I say this as a mention that I AM a conservative Patriot, a right-winger. A liberals worst nightmare. But I am also a realist, and understand that successful politics is the art of compromise.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

rice paddy daddy said:


> I think I read somewhere that only 3% of the colonists took up arms against the king.
> But look how many years they had to fight, how many battles were lost, how much hardship endured, before ultimate victory.
> 
> FWIW - I am a direct descendant of an Infantry Private who fought in the Revolution. I was a member of the Florida Society of the Sons of the American Revolution until I let my membership lapse. But I have been vetted, I'm not simply passing along family lore.
> I say this as a mention that I AM a conservative Patriot, a right-winger. A liberals worst nightmare. But I am also a realist, and understand that successful politics is the art of compromise.


I may be wrong but the weaponry that the colonists had were probably pretty equal to what the British Soldiers stationed in the US had in 1770. However, the weapons that the US citizens have today vs what the Federal Government has is no comparison. That certainly is a big difference in revolution today vs revolution 1770 style.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Slippy said:


> I may be wrong but the weaponry that the colonists had were probably pretty equal to what the British Soldiers stationed in the US had in 1770. However, the weapons that the US citizens have today vs what the Federal Government has is no comparison. That certainly is a big difference in revolution today vs revolution 1770 style.


The weakness of all weapon systems are the users. I would say the Citizens have a pretty fair shot against the feds or any other tyranical gov (PRNY), being there is a lot of vets among the ranks of the citizens.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

dsdmmat said:


> The weakness of all weapon systems are the users. I would say the Citizens have a pretty fair shot against the feds or any other tyranical gov (PRNY), being there is a lot of vets among the ranks of the citizens.


Agreed, the veterans would be an integral and important part of any revolution. I was just thinking high dollar equipment and technology advantages.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Slippy said:


> Agreed, the veterans would be an integral and important part of any revolution. I was just thinking high dollar equipment and technology advantages.


Everyone has a family. There lies the problem for the agressors.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

dsdmmat said:


> Everyone has a family. There lies the problem for the agressors.


Don't you imagine a widespread revolution would split the country along regional or state lines, perhaps into multiple areas. There would most likely be neutral or safe areas where the 'loyalists' could safely ensconce their families.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

sideKahr said:


> Don't you imagine a widespread revolution would split the country along regional or state lines, perhaps into multiple areas. There would most likely be neutral or safe areas where the 'loyalists' could safely ensconce their families.


Well if you look at the modern military, they come from all over the country, there would be a lot of uncertainty among the ranks should the forces be deployed against the civilians. Guys in the 82nd would not take to kindly to the 101st mistreating their sisters, mothers, aunts... you get the picture.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

I get the picture oh so well. It's a bloody one and I hope this country doesn't have to endure it again.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

sideKahr said:


> I get the picture oh so well. It's a bloody one and I hope I this country doesn't have to endure it again.


Yeah me too but, as I often have to remind people, "hope is not a method."


----------



## Charles Martel (Mar 10, 2014)

Slippy said:


> I may be wrong but the weaponry that the colonists had were probably pretty equal to what the British Soldiers stationed in the US had in 1770. However, the weapons that the US citizens have today vs what the Federal Government has is no comparison. That certainly is a big difference in revolution today vs revolution 1770 style.


I think I may have shared this in other threads, but, the idea that a revolution can't and wouldn't be successful in this country isn't necessarily accurate.

I have a good friend who currently works for the NSA (apparently designing quantum computers). Earlier in his career, he worked for the Defense Department and helped develop the hardware and software for the supercomputer system that the DOD still uses to simulate global conflicts. He says its probably the most complex single piece of technology on the planet. It allows the DOD to simulate any conflict between any combination of armed forces in the in the world. It apparently takes weeks, even months just to set up each simulation as there are tens of thousands of different parameters. They run each simulation hundreds of times, tweaking parameters as they go. They run the results of these simulations through incredibly complex algorithms in order to arrive at the most probable outcome of any conflict.

I asked him if they had ever run a simulation pitting the US armed forces against the portion of the US population likely to participate in a civil war against the government. He candidly admitted that they had, and that it was actually the most common simulation they had run. Naturally, I asked him how the simulation turned out and he said it would be a blood bath, that it would be over in as little as 12 weeks.

A little shocked and bummed out, I asked him how the US government could subdue such a heavily armed population in so little time. He then looked a little surprised and said something like "The government never prevailed in that simulation...the people win every time".

He said that the nature of that particular conflict would be so asymmetric, and fought on so many fronts by so many different factions, that a conventional army could never prevail. He also said that the military would almost certainly fracture...these simulations are apparently the reason behind the high level purging of military brass by this administration.

In any event, this gave me tremendous hope that we could take back our country by force if we had no alternative but to do so.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Charles Martel said:


> I think I may have shared this on in other threads, but, the idea that a revolution can't and wouldn't be successful in this country isn't necessarily accurate.
> 
> I have a good friend who currently works for the NSA (apparently designing quantum computers). Earlier in his career, he worked for the Defense Department and helped develop the hardware and software for the supercomputer system that the DOD still uses to simulate global conflicts. He says its probably the most complex single piece of technology on the planet. It allows the DOD to simulate any conflict between any combination of armed forces in the in the world. It apparently takes weeks, even months just to set up each simulation as there are tens of thousands of different parameters. They run each simulation hundreds of times, tweaking parameters as they go. They run the results of these simulations through incredibly complex algorithms in order to arrive at the most probable outcome of any conflict.
> 
> ...


Excellent post my good friend Hammer!

I had better get to work on new Pikes, looks like we gonna need 'em.

(Slippy turns to his desk, readies his material lists and begins to calculate the number of traitors that are at the Federal Government level and a grin spreads across his handsome face...Bidness is good!)


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

We can't talk Revolution! We are to big to fail!


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Hooray for the Republican House. Personally while overjoyed I am pleasantly surprised they had the stones to do it.


----------



## Charles Martel (Mar 10, 2014)

Slippy said:


> (Slippy turns to his desk, readies his material lists and begins to calculate the number of traitors that are at the Federal Government level and a grin spreads across his handsome face...Bidness is good!)


Hah! It would be far easier to make a list of people at the Federal Government level that WEREN'T traitors, at this point.

Indeed...bidness is good.:armata_PDT_36:


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Charles Martel said:


> I think I may have shared this in other threads, but, the idea that a revolution can't and wouldn't be successful in this country isn't necessarily accurate.
> 
> I have a good friend who currently works for the NSA (apparently designing quantum computers). Earlier in his career, he worked for the Defense Department and helped develop the hardware and software for the supercomputer system that the DOD still uses to simulate global conflicts. He says its probably the most complex single piece of technology on the planet. It allows the DOD to simulate any conflict between any combination of armed forces in the in the world. It apparently takes weeks, even months just to set up each simulation as there are tens of thousands of different parameters. They run each simulation hundreds of times, tweaking parameters as they go. They run the results of these simulations through incredibly complex algorithms in order to arrive at the most probable outcome of any conflict.
> 
> ...


Agreed. I have seen this theory elswhere as well. The problem is once so many factions are formed and the country is in disarray will it ever be cohesive again as a country? Will outside forces take advantage and strike while we are preoccupied? Will a land so divided ever be at peace with both their immediate factions and the world as whole?


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

rice paddy daddy said:


> I think I read somewhere that only 3% of the colonists took up arms against the king.
> But look how many years they had to fight, how many battles were lost, how much hardship endured, before ultimate victory.
> 
> FWIW - I am a direct descendant of an Infantry Private who fought in the Revolution. I was a member of the Florida Society of the Sons of the American Revolution until I let my membership lapse. But I have been vetted, I'm not simply passing along family lore.
> I say this as a mention that I AM a conservative Patriot, a right-winger. A liberals worst nightmare. But I am also a realist, and understand that successful politics is the art of compromise.


The "american revolutionary war" really was an entirely different kettle of fish, and doesn't really translate well to modern days.

For example, the colonies did not have any professional army until 1776, and even then it was professional only in the fact that they got paid (ish). Now, we have a huge professional military service that would do... heavens only knows... depending on the situation, whether they would follow the orders of the president if those orders were unconstitutional.

We will not have another "revolutionary war", what we may have is an armed insurrection. There's a big difference.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

If we learn from the successful engagements of the revolutionary war we find that the "modern" military tactics would not work in our favor. we would have to fight a guerilla war of strike and run. we would need to use "captured" guns and disable the big hardware. Taking out the leaders in our case would mean the politicians first - those that are the problem and leave those that still believe in individual freedoms in place. Then in each mosquito bite we take out the officers first and then communications. (that last one would be hard) Hit, run, rest, act "normal" and then do it all over. That along with raids on headquarters and supply lines would be the only way to provide people with food and fire-power to get the job done. 

With a little "Yankee ingenuity" and some supplies we could even fight air power to some degree. If we had a secure means to communicate over long ranges then we could coordinate or rotate our attacks to keep them guessing. We could also distribute misinformation to have them chasing their tails.

It would be a long bloody battle and there is likely to be casualties on both sides but we would win. Once the fighting was over we could re-establish the constitutional controls on the federal government and reform state governments to make the whole system do what it was supposed to do in the first place; protect the freedoms, liberties, and rights of the individual.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

For those interested in a good, non-"government BS" take on the revolutionary war, I recommend downloading the American Revolution series of podcasts from Prof CJ's Dangerous History podcast.

A LOT, perhaps even most, of what I was taught about the American Revolution in schools was entirely BS. CJ's just one of many historians who tell a much more complete, warts and all story about the founding of America (there are others, he just does a good job and it's free  ).

Prof CJ's | Dangerous History Podcast


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Aa


PaulS said:


> If we learn from the successful engagements of the revolutionary war we find that the "modern" military tactics would not work in our favor. we would have to fight a guerilla war of strike and run. we would need to use "captured" guns and disable the big hardware. Taking out the leaders in our case would mean the politicians first - those that are the problem and leave those that still believe in individual freedoms in place. Then in each mosquito bite we take out the officers first and then communications. (that last one would be hard) Hit, run, rest, act "normal" and then do it all over. That along with raids on headquarters and supply lines would be the only way to provide people with food and fire-power to get the job done.
> 
> With a little "Yankee ingenuity" and some supplies we could even fight air power to some degree. If we had a secure means to communicate over long ranges then we could coordinate or rotate our attacks to keep them guessing. We could also distribute misinformation to have them chasing their tails.
> 
> It would be a long bloody battle and there is likely to be casualties on both sides but we would win. Once the fighting was over we could re-establish the constitutional controls on the federal government and reform state governments to make the whole system do what it was supposed to do in the first place; protect the freedoms, liberties, and rights of the individual.


Taking out the officers will not do to our military what it did to the British. Our military is designed to continue with the mission because of overlapping responsibilities and authorities. Take out the generals and Colonels take their place, take out the Captians the lieutenants and sergeants take over. Take out the sergeants and the corporals take over. If they all believe they are fighting an enemy of the state in a constitutional war they will continue to fight until they have no means to fight with.

To defeat them you would have to convince them their cause is not constitutional or just. It may not be that difficult but that is what you would have to do.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

I think - perhaps wrongly - that soldiers would get the message that they might be following unconstitutional orders as the top disintegrates toward them and we are not engaging the fights but only those giving the orders.

I do know the differences between the two military concepts but human nature recognizes an enemy by the personal threat they pose. In the middle east our soldiers don't fire on civilians - they return fire from "the enemy". It will be very hard to distinguish enemy from foe in a guerilla war. There is no race, custom, or ethnicity that sets one apart from the other. If we only fire on the leaders we might get some new followers.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Vv


PaulS said:


> I think - perhaps wrongly - that soldiers would get the message that they might be following unconstitutional orders as the top disintegrates toward them and we are not engaging the fights but only those giving the orders.
> 
> I do know the differences between the two military concepts but human nature recognizes an enemy by the personal threat they pose. In the middle east our soldiers don't fire on civilians - they return fire from "the enemy". It will be very hard to distinguish enemy from foe in a guerilla war. There is no race, custom, or ethnicity that sets one apart from the other. If we only fire on the leaders we might get some new followers.


 If they believe their cause is just, by killing their brothers ( or leaders) you may Strengthen their resolve. Right now they are constrained by rules of engagement which presumably would not be the case if the government was fighting for its life.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

The Government, will fight tooth and nail to stay in power. The gloves would come off fairly quick I would think. We were just discussing Lincoln. Look what he did to preserve the union. Granted, in times of war every president takes liberties with the Constitution but think, if they were actually loosing their grip...what ends would be justified to maintain their grip on power?


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Yes they will; and you will have to pardon me but I still remember when the republicans took over the majority saying they were going to defund Oldbambam care and the DHS. They not only didn't defund them they gave them a raise!

So not they want a big pat on the back for sneaking in a way that MIGHT stop future erosion of our rights? NEWSFLASH! Do what you said you were going to do - that is why you got elected!


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

PaulS said:


> Yes they will; and you will have to pardon me but I still remember when the republicans took over the majority saying they were going to defund Oldbambam care and the DHS. They not only didn't defund them they gave them a raise!
> 
> So not they want a big pat on the back for sneaking in a way that MIGHT stop future erosion of our rights? NEWSFLASH! Do what you said you were going to do - that is why you got elected!


I say we fire the bastards next election. Maybe if we keep tossing them eventually the will figure out that they need to start doing what we put them in office to do. To much to hope for I know.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Republicans for the most part follow the party line. 
It's funny, the republican party was once known as the "law and order" party. Now they have become the "militant" and control party. They have worked to tighten restrictive force on the people through legislation and facilitate it through "detached" but still federal agencies. 
If one is comfortable calling the democrats "socialists" then the republicans could just as justly be call "fascists". We can all agree on one thing - simply because it is "common" knowledge - both parties are headed toward the destruction of the republic of the United States. Now, this is where I need to talk to "the other person" there with you (or within you); If you admit that they are the "lesser of two evils" how can you continue to vote for the destruction of the United States if you really love this country?

Putting new, other republicans in office has never changed the direction they are moving - NEVER! We need to overwhelmingly show exactly what we want. FREEDOM, LIBERTY, and our God given rights! We need to remember that we can only have the rights we are willing to grant to everyone else; that we can only have the freedom that we allow others to enjoy; that the liberty we have belongs to everyone else too.

OK, I know that as long as people keep voting for one of the two major parties a third party is pretty well shut out. That is a self fulfilling prophesy. Nothing will change until we change it! If you keep doing what you have always done you will always get the same result! As soon as you change what you are doing you get a different result. I need a different result! I need the United States back to what it should be. If you feel the same way then please, change what you are doing - get others to see what is going on, get them to change what they are doing too. The constitution is the only law in this republic and it is being ignored by the very government we elect. Be a part of the solution.


----------

