Threats justified

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    June 19, 2013 4:08 p.m.

    Re: Lost

    Actually, you might want to take that revamped civics course yourself. Many, if not most, constitutional scholars acknowledge that the Constitution was a contract between the people and the proposed federal government. Hence the preamble, "We the People." That relationship was in fact one of the main legal tenets for declaring secession unconstitutional. The States have no recourse to leave the Union, the people do.

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    June 19, 2013 9:47 a.m.

    re: Kent C. DeForrest

    Exactly. When one is extreme and thinks they are (dare I say?) moderate then it makes the truly moderate seem like they are out on the lunatic fringe.

    Let us all thank Rush, Roger Ailes, Pretty boy Sean, & Uncle Rupert for getting so many to fall for that nice little piece of misdirection. ROFL!?

    “…in politics, what is real is not important. The important is what appears to be real to the gullible” – The Cobra by Frederick Forsyth

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 18, 2013 7:21 p.m.


    The best way to lose a war is to fail to see it coming. Reading the signs they hold, the flags they fly and the things they do to injure our government, it’s hard not to think of the conservatives as an enemy of America. Ronald Reagan said “the government is the problem” and following his lead, the conservatives have fought to limit and reduce the power of our national government. If the American government falls, America will fall along with all within.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 18, 2013 7:07 p.m.

    Lost in DC

    The America we live in today is not the America of 200 years ago. Today we are ruled by a code of law that evolved from those original documents. In truth the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are merely the first pages of the American code.

    200 years ago, the states by their remote location and independence were able to stand with the giants of their world. Independently the states of today could not begin to protect themselves if left to their own devices.

    It doesn’t really matter what the situation was 200 years ago, in the year 2013 and on the words Stand United or die are thousands of time more appropriate than earlier.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 18, 2013 4:20 p.m.

    You complain that you were called "UN-patriotic" for criticizing Bush when he was President. Well I've seen you and your friends calling many people "UN-patriotic" for criticizing Obama. Do you realize that today YOU are doing the exact same thing you complain about Bush sycophants doing when he was in office? I'm pretty sure you think YOU are justified doing it today.. but they weren't. That's the way partisan coolaid works.

    If you ask me the "UN_Patriotic" accusations are just as bad today (from the left), as they were back then (from the right).

    You ask for consistency. Are you consistent?

    I was against the Patriot Act when Bush proposed it. Same today. You claim Fox was for it. I don't know if that's true but I know at least Glen Beck and the Tea Party people were against it. I was against the comprehensive immigration legislation proposed under Bush. I'm against the same legislation now (until we enforce what we already have). I think that's consistent regardless of the party.

    According to DeForrest, I'm "Far-right". Yet I've been consistent. Is the Far-left consistent?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 18, 2013 3:13 p.m.

    The name calling was on another topic (a few days ago, can't remember the topic). The point is... lets drop the name calling "nut job", "Un-patriotic", "Repugs", etc. Both sides.

    We're actually doing very well today. I was just concerned that your claim that somebody called you a "nut job" would start the usual daily name calling again (which gets us nowhere).

    I never heard it, but I guess I was called "Un-Patriotic" back during the Bush days too, because I fought the Patriot_act (on principle). Not because I thought we didn't need it, but because of the possibility that future administrations would probably abuse it (and I was right). And I think much more abuse is in store IF we leave it in place. Not by Obama necessarily but by some future administration (could be either side).

    It's just bad legislation, and IMO it's a bad decision to trade our Constitutional Rights for the illusion of security. I think the government should find a way to provide security without trampling guaranteed individual liberties, like the 4th amendment, the 2nd amendment, and the 1st amendment.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    June 18, 2013 2:54 p.m.

    2 bits,

    Funny thing is that almost all of the "left-leaning" commenters (not daily bloggers) in this paper are rather middle-leaning. I guess from the far-right haze everything looks liberal . . . and rather distorted.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    June 18, 2013 2:22 p.m.

    Ernest T. You said that the Democrats look for the greater good, and that Republicans are just in it to enrich themselves. Kind of a blanket generality wouldn't you say? There are plenty of very rich Democrats who have not given in their lifetimes what a very rich Mitt Romney has given in one year. But people like you don't and won't see that in Republicans, you just think we are all selfish and greedy.

    Ultra Bob, Really, "the WAR against our national government" The only group that is at war with our government is the terriorists. But then, as I pointed out with Ernest, maybe people like you don't, won't see any good in Republicans/conservatives. Maybe you think we are as bad or worse than terriorists. Thanks for helping me validate my origional point.
    There You Go Again, Take note.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    June 18, 2013 1:55 p.m.

    "...It has been said that Conservatives believe that Liberals are "wrong", but Liberals believe that Conservatives are "evil"...".

    "...Said..." by Frank Luntz, messaging guru for the Republican Party...

    Repeated by Republicans as part of the daily Republican talking points.

    Frank Luntz by-the-way is up for the Goebbels

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 18, 2013 12:53 p.m.

    He wasn't making a liberal argument... nor is he a liberal.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    June 18, 2013 12:50 p.m.

    2 bits: when did I call anyone names? My original comment applies, in this state, if you didn't buy in to the Iraq war, tax cuts for the wealthy, the patriot act, etc, you were labeled as non-patriotic. The reality is the best patriots are those who question both parties, not just the dems. I don't recall fox news outraged about the patriot act but now that the other party is in the White House their outrage seems to be never ending.
    An "honest patriot" questions all of it, not just along party lines.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 18, 2013 10:57 a.m.

    You make it impossible to carry on a constructive discussion when you keep dredging up Bush's mistakes and pretend people called you names. I've never seen anybody call you a "nut cake", but I've seen you call lots of names. I tried to call you on it one day but I was over my 4 posts already, but I counted 8 name calling episodes from you in one topic, cut and pasted them all, just to find out I couldn't post it (over the limit).

    Let's not call names. Let's not constantly try to dredge up the best old mistake you can find to drive a wedge of contention. Let's try to be as constructive as possible (both sides).

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    June 18, 2013 10:54 a.m.

    Ultra Bob,
    you need to retake your civics course. or take a better one since the one you recall appears to have taught you incorrectly.

    When the constitution was ratified, it was to join the states, not the people. The states were not really united as colonies; when the brits were driven from MA, many there thought there part of the war was done.

    the articles of confederation was a loose document that did not unite the then "free and independent states" the term "Independent" applied to their relationship with each other, not just England. The constitution was designed to strengthen the central government, but not supplant the rights of the states, as evidenced by the 10th amendment.

    Prior to the 17th amendment, the states chose the senators, not the people - the house represented the people and the senate the states.

    prior to the civil war, proper grammar was "the United States ARE.." post civil war, it became, "the United States IS.." denoting the difference between multiple and singular.

    Things may have evolved to your way of thought, but that is not what the founders intended when they designed the Constitution.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    June 18, 2013 10:34 a.m.

    Happy: I don't recall using the word "evil".
    The most "honest patriots" were the ones who saw the sham of the Iraq war, but they were classified as "nut cakes" by conservatives.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    June 18, 2013 10:19 a.m.

    The dangers I see to our freedoms are rooted in a situation in which the allegiance to the Constitution sworn to by congressmen and those in the other departments of government, is sworn ignorantly or cynically.

    Partisanship is also a major problem and so is the apparent fact that most of "we the people" do not completely know or believe in constitutional principles orselves. The people seem instinctively, however, to be much closer, in many issues, to the spirit of constitutional principles than does government, but they have not been vigilant in the people they elect and have formerly been all to ready to trust their electees.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 18, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    The Constitution I learned about in school is not the Constitution that the conservatives have reinterpreted. I grew up thinking America was about people and the Constitution was for the American people. I believed that states were just subdivisions of America. I still do.

    The war against our national government by the conservatives is not about liberty, justice or those things mentioned in our founding documents. This is a war to control the commercial activities of the American people. The smoke of persecution and scandal are just that.

    By their own words and actions conservatives do not want less control over the American people, they just want to change who is doing the control.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    June 18, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    You know Ernest, It has been said that Conservatives believe that Liberals are "wrong", but Liberals believe that Conservatives are "evil". If your side really believes that the Republicans are evil, then no wonder our country is so divided politically. I mean, if I truly thought your side was "evil", I wouldn't want to compromise with evil either.
    Think about it.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 18, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    Boy... the left_leaning daily_bloggers seem full of self_righteousness this morning.

    The one factual statement I read in all the postings so far this morning was, "Self evaluation is hard".

    Hard-core Republicans learned this during the Bush years. They defended him to the end even when he made mistakes. And the left attacked him and investigated absolutely EVERYTHING he did... whether good or bad. Now that he's gone, some can see things more clearly now. But while he's in office... it's hard not to just knee-jerk defend your guy. I know... I was there.

    Some people on the left are just learning this lesson (they are so used to being on the attacking-the-President side, and they know well it works, so they DON'T like seeing it done to their guy). But that knee-jerk reaction so common to both sides makes it VERY hard to objectively react when you sense your guy is being attacked.

    Our politics have become poisoned. It's all about Revenge now days. Democrats attack Bush in Revenge for how Clinton was treated. And Republicans are returning the favor now. It's wrong.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    June 18, 2013 8:14 a.m.

    A truly "honest patriot" would admit that the Reagan, Bush and Bush years and policies did a lot of harm to the United States. An "honest patriot" can admit that both parties make mistakes and that dems look for the greater good while repubs look at enriching themselves.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 18, 2013 8:10 a.m.

    The funny thing is, does anyone think that David would be writing this had his boy, Bro Romney won the White House? Doubt it. And had here been a major terrorist attack recently, David would be the first in line to blame the president for not doing more to prevent the attack.

    Move along. Nothing to see here. David is merely playing political games (as he typically does). More sour grapes from the far right which just seem to not get over the fact that they have now lost 2 elections in a row. Yet... The refuse to look inward and instead prefer to point the finger at the other side.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    June 18, 2013 7:54 a.m.

    This all is very much like the 70's for Democrats. Self evaluation is hard. The problem Republicans have today is the center right, and center left are gone. All ready claimed by the Clintons and Obama. Far right and left is all that is still available, and surprise, surprise, when you come full circle on an issue such as privacy they meet and agree. They have to, nothing else is available.

    It's one of the things that is so amusing about this thread. When you are standing on the shore of the Atlantic Ocean, Ohio seems pretty far West.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 18, 2013 7:47 a.m.

    Where was this concern for the Constitution from 2000-2008? Could someone shed some light on this mystery?

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 18, 2013 7:38 a.m.

    "And who is "questioning the legitimacy of our government"? No one."

    Ask the birthers.

  • bodgerdlue Kearns, UT
    June 18, 2013 7:11 a.m.

    How far to the right are we when George W. Bush's former speechwriter, who was also a senior policy advisor at the Heritage Foundation, is accused of writing a "liberal attack on honest patriots"?

    We are through the looking glass people.

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    June 18, 2013 7:01 a.m.

    No, defending the Constitution is not "recognizably conservative". Conservatives are just as prone, just as likely, and just as historically guilty of trampling the Constitution as liberals. It's not a matter of who is trampling the Constitution, it's a matter of which parts they want to trample.