I want to know that if you elect me president in 2016, I will barely use the power of government because I fear what that is. At the the heart of every single law is a threat: I will send people with guns after you if you don’t do that. It doesn’t matter how minor the law is, the threat is there. Such as in New York City, if you sell a 17 oz soda and refuse to stop, eventually people with guns will come after you. Over soda. So obviously the people who wield the power of government haphazardly are psychopaths who should be locked up. Also, anyone who claims to be a peaceful person but is for government expansion is in fact a very violent person who loves using the threat of force to get what he wants and will use it in even minor instances. In fact, I could repeatedly punch that person in the face and be less violent. And I probably will do that.
But I am not a violent person, so I won’t use the government to force people to do anything and will dismantle as much of it as I can.
Frank J. 2016: I will obliterate the government because I am not violent.
Where do I get a bumber sticker?
Frank,
as much as I admire your promise to be less violent, and I do admire that, in you, but I must say that there is NOT enough violence in Politics. Not enough! Specifically between the political parties.
During the days of the formation of this once great nation guns were brought into Congress. Everyone was packing! If you said the wrong thing, if you lied about the wrong person you might end up DEAD! Soldiers openly wore swords and carried muskets in the streets. Bad guys seen GUNS everywhere!!
Back in the Good Old Days there were fist fights, knife fights and killings in Congress while it was in session. There were even duels fought over Congressional issues. I will vote for you Sir if you promise to make GUNS in Congress mandatory. Put Guns back into the Congress and we will never have a sissy Congressman like Barney Frank ever again. Put Guns back in the Senate and we will never see a Traitor like John “fraud” Kerry ever again.
So more government on government violence, less government on citizen violence. Sounds good to me. But let’s even go one step farther: cage fights between government agencies for funding.
I miss the days when the Vice President could shoot the Secretary of the Treasury.
Are you opposed to those grateful for their freedoms “giving back” to their communities by administering a little violence upon those who relish the firm hand and Bloombergian jackboot of the left? Either way, you have my vote.
@ 3
Yes that is correct. I meant more government on government violence, less government on citizen violence.
Way back in 2003, in his masterpiece Parliament of Whores, P.J. O’Rourke wrote, “The other secret to balancing the budget is to remember that all tax revenue is the result of holding a gun to somebody’s head. Not paying taxes is against the law. If you don’t pay your taxes, you’ll be fined. If you don’t pay the fine, you’ll be jailed. If you try to escape from jail, you’ll be shot. . . . Therefore, every time the government spends money on anything, you have to ask yourself, ‘Would I kill my kindly, gray-haired mother for this?'”
Mr. O-Rourke also very chillingly noted that “The whole idea of our government is this: If enough people get together and act in concert, they can take something and not pay for it . . . in a democracy the whores are us.”
Seriously, if you haven’t read Parliament of Whores lately, read it again. Right now. (Take a day off of work, this is important.)
I had a comment in here but apparently it ruined the Internet.
@4
I miss the days when the Vice Pesident shot lawyers.
I miss the day the Runner-Up for President was the Vice President. This worked perfectly. No party controlled both positions, and an over-reaching President could be called on it. Even better, it meant the President of the Senate was NOT allied with the President. We need to get back to where we were on this in the beginning.
@10 Writer….Good Point ! I’m with you!!