RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected

RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Zonie63 -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/11/2012 4:26:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: Consider how the single beating of one man (Rodney King) at the hands of the police sparked riots in Los Angeles and other cities. You seriously believe that the government acting "mercilessly" will produce the results you desire? The racist attack of a citizen by the police is not in the same zip code with armed insurrection. That you would seek to conflate a connection speaks volums. When arizona expells all of its brown people will you then start on the blacks? Gee, and you have the audacity to call my post a "mother fucking lie." You really are too much, aren't you?

Zonie63 -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/11/2012 4:40:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: I label you a Stalinist because you previously cited an obscure source by a Stalinist apologist who denied the Ukrainian famine and other atrocities of Stalin. Reputable scholars dismissed that source as hate literature, and yet you cited it as your only source to support your denials of Stalinist atrocities The famin was world wide. Millions of people died around the world. How does any human being generate a world wide famine? So far your "reputable scholars" have all been vociferous anti communist. If you wish to lable communism a felony then anything you say agains it becomes true in your mind. I notice when you speak of stalins actions they are atrocities yet when the same act is committed by someone you approve of they cease being atrocities...even the fucking tsar. As long as you choose to discuss history as a morality play you will get good grades in literature and sociology but you will fail history. In this previous thread, the only source you cited was a book entitled Fraud, Famine, and Fascism: the Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard by Douglas Tottle. A few Amazon reviews: "The late author attempts to deny or minimize the existence of the Soviet famine genocide in Ukraine in 1932-33. The book was written when the Soviet Union still existed and the Soviet government denied the famine in Ukraine. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the independence of Ukraine in 1991, both Ukraine and Russia have made available much evidence of the 1932-33 famine in Ukraine. So Tottle's conclusions fall apart. It is difficult to disprove the author's individual arguments without having proper access to his documents. However in one particular case with which I am familiar, the author puts together correct but weak evidence and comes to an erroneous conclusion. I suspect he has done the same in many places in his book. Tottle uses the same techniques (partial truths, omissions, unnamed or secondary sources) as the Holocaust deniers and his book deserves the same fate as the Holocaust denial books." "This book -- which purported to "debunk" the Holomodor (Ukrainian Famine) -- was hurriedly withdrawn when the (then) Soviet party chief of the Ukraine admitted that the famine had, in fact, occurred. Hard to find, but not really worth the price." "To deny that the Ukrainian Famine ever occured is the same as denying that the Jewish Holocaust ever occured. This book is only good to line the bottom of bird cages. Douglas Tottle is nothing but a racist, the same as Ernst Zudel." "Holocaust denial is rightly despised and ridiculed. Holodomor denial, as exemplified by Mr. Tottle, belongs in the same category of despicable intellectual filth." "Holocaust denial is a hate crime. So too should be Holodomor (Great Famine) denial. This is a book that has no place on the shelves of anyone other than a member of a police Hate Crimes unit. It is utterly pro Soviet, anti-Ukrainian, and, of course, very dated. Mr Tottle never did explain why the government of post Soviet Ukraine has acknowleged that the Great Famine was man-made, confirming that many millions of people died needlessly during 1932-33 as a result of Stalinist policies, even setting aside the 4th Saturday of every November for a national day of mourning. The Great Famine was probably the greatest act of genocide to have ever taken place in 20th century Europe. That is only now being full appreciated. Tottle's book will be remembered, if at all, as an example of a last gasp by the Soviet regime to try and befoul the Ukrainian national liberation movement. The latter won, whereas folks like Tottle have, properly, ended up on the dust bin of history." "This book, quite frankly, is not worth the paper it is printed on. I would use it to line the bottom of my bird cage if the pages were big enough. Pure propaganda and worthless." A bit more on the author and his work: Douglas Tottle is mostly known for his controversial book Fraud, Famine, and Fascism: the Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard, in which he asserts that claims the Holodomor was an intentional genocide are "fraudulent", and "a creation of Nazi propagandists".[7] He downplays the responsibility of what he calls "mistakes" by Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin and "amateurish Soviet planning," and suggests blame can be placed on Ukrainian saboteurs, resisting collectivization. Nonetheless, Tottle puts significant emphasis into denying the validity of photographs of the famine, suggesting a conspiracy.[8] Only a portion of Tottle's book deals with the Holodomor, as most of it deals with claims of conspiracy and supposed fascist cover-ups. Tottle admits that he "does not attempt to study the famine in any detailed way" (p. 1) and that he is more interested in the "Nazi and fascist connections" and the "coverups of wartime collaboration" (p. 3). Critics argued that both of these topics, even if objectively treated, are not relevant to the study of the famine and can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the famine or define the nature of the tragedy. It has also been argued that Tottle's attacks on various segments of the Ukrainian diaspora constitute hate literature.[8] His book, published by the pro-Communist Progress Publishers in Toronto, appeared practically at the same time Ukrainian Communist party leader Volodymyr Shcherbytsky publicly acknowledged the Famine, in December 1987. As a result the book was subsequently withdrawn from circulation.[9] Nevertheless, the book is available on the internet, and continues to be cited as an "invaluable" and "important" book by groups such as the Stalin Society in Great Britain, author Jeff Coplon, and the Communist Party of Sweden. In a review of Tottle's book in the Ukrainian Canadian Magazine, published by the pro-Communist Association of United Ukrainian Canadians, Wilfred Szczesny wrote: "Members of the general public who want to know about the famine, its extent and causes, and about the motives and techniques of those who would make this tragedy into something other than what it was will find Tottle's work invaluable" (The Ukrainian Canadian, April 1988, p. 24).[8] In his book, Searching for place: Ukrainian Displaced Persons, Canada, and the Migration of Memory, Lubomyr Luciuk comments: "For a particularly base example of famine-denial literature, see Tottle, Fraud, famine, and fascism...".[10] In 1988 the International Commission of Inquiry Into the 1932–33 Famine in Ukraine was set up to establish whether the famine existed and its cause. Tottle was invited by the commission to attend the hearings, however he ignored the request. While the commission was organized along judicial lines, it had no judicial power to compel witnesses to attend or testify. However Tottle's book was examined during the Brussels sitting of the commission,[11] held between May 23–27, 1988, with testimony from various expert witnesses. The commission president Professor Jacob Sundberg subsequently concluded that Tottle was not alone in his enterprise to deny the famine on the basis that material included in his book could not have been available to a private person without official Soviet assistance.[12] In general the book is regarded as blatant example of pro-Soviet propaganda and not credible. .... By the way, I NEVER approved of the Tsar's atrocities, so that's another bald-faced lie. Also, for your information, I did rather well in history. I never labeled communism a felony, either, so I'm not sure where you're getting this stuff. You make all kinds of loose accusations against me, while claiming that I'm doing it to you. That's the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?

Zonie63 -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/11/2012 4:47:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: Actually, there was quite a bit of public outcry after those events, which led to congressional investigations under pressure because the public was demanding an explanation from their government. That can have the effect of minimizing public outrage, as well as the fact that they were isolated incidents and not something that happens every day. But by the same token, where was there any threat or sense of urgency on the part of the government that prompted them to launch the raids on Ruby Ridge or Waco in the first place? No demonstrations. No marchingin the street. Not much of a public outcry. Well, if that's the standard you're using, then there hasn't been much of a public outcry on anything for decades.

Zonie63 -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/11/2012 5:15:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: Yes, he did, as do I. And yet, you advocate the Marines shooting Americans because they dare to dissent against their government. That sounds rather Stalinist as well. My friend never advocated anything like that. Your post is a mother fucking lie. Armed insurrection is a federal felony. That you support it is a federal felony. I never supported armed insurrection at all. I was just speaking hypothetically and attempting to discuss the ramifications of what would happen IF there was an armed insurrection. You've been making all kinds of wild statements in an attempt at character assassination, and yet, you accuse me? Hmmm.... You're proving too much here. First, you're saying that the military would come down hard on any armed insurrection, but now, you're saying that I support it and suggesting that I would be just as felonious as an armed insurrectionist. I have no weapons whatsoever, and yet, you're implying that the government would use force against me? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Based on what you're saying here, it's clear that, in a martial law situation, the government would not just stop armed insurrectionists, but they would go after people for their political beliefs, whether real or imagined. In your case, they would be imagined political beliefs, because I never supported armed insurrection (nor did I ever advocate any of the other things you're accusing me of, some of which are too offensive to even repeat). That's kind of what Stalin did, wasn't it? He was so paranoid that he went after anyone and everyone he thought was a threat to him, including innocent family members and anyone who is remotely associated with someone branded "an enemy of the Soviet people." It's not surprising that you advocate similar tactics against Americans. quote: Why is it that you feel the need to lie to make shit up. You tell me. You're the one who is lying. quote: I defy you to show where I have avocated marines shooting americans because they peacefully dissent agaist their government. When you brought up the Kent State example. You also implied that 120 Marines would easily defeat 10,000 insurrectionists. What can we deduce from that? You're implying that those 10,000 insurrectionists would be rank amateurs who wouldn't stand a chance against armed Marines. That being the case, the government has nothing to worry about, does it? You're displaying the same government paranoia which led to the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents in which innocent people were killed. You also don't display any willingness to have a reasonable discussion on this matter. You show no indication that you would try to talk to these imaginary "insurrectionists" beforehand or that you would try to seek a peaceful solution. You would just go in with reckless abandon. And here in this post, you're suggesting that you would round up anyone you think supports such an insurrection. I think it's pretty clear what you advocate.

Zonie63 -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/11/2012 5:33:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: And you don't even point out historical facts, not really. Most of what you do is question others while offering very little substance of your own. I seem to have blown a rather large hole in your moronic statment that che was fighting 10:1 odds at santa clara. The odds were 3:1. As I pointed out che was only one of three groups attacking santa clara. You claim he led a rag tag bunch of revolutionaries when the facts were that the men with che had been in combat against batista fo years...hard as nails. You make false claims and I point out how full of shit they are. I don't have time to respond to every little digression which comes up in this thread. The whole point in bringing up that example was to point out the flaw in your assertion that a professional military will always prevail in such a situation. That seems a bit of expert fallacy there, assuming that only the experts and professionals know what they're doing - while everyone else in the general public are nothing more than incompetent boobs. I've always considered that to be a self-serving myth. Whether the ratio was 3:1 or 10:1 is really just nitpicking on your part. According to you, even if the ratio was 120:10,000, the professional army would still prevail over the amateurs. That's what I was addressing.

Zonie63 -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/11/2012 6:03:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto It seems you are the one making an assumption based on a fallacy, the fallacy being the mistaken belief that all military veterans, in particular Marine veterans, and all active military service members hold conservative political views and, therefore, any military veteran and all active military service members who expresses liberal, libertarian or moderate political views are somehow "Stalinists". Not at all. I believe thompsonx is a Stalinist based on a previous discussion with him. I elaborated further in post #182 of this thread. I didn't say anything about Marine veterans or active military service members being Stalinists. As I said above, I know some vets whose views lean towards the left, some whose views lean towards the right, but I've never and would never call them Stalinists. We don't even know that thompsonx is a Marine veteran. It's the internet; he can say whatever he wants about himself, and there's no way that anyone can verify it. We only have his word to go by. But for someone to blatantly and wantonly DENY the atrocities committed by one of the worst mass murderers in human history is beyond outrageous, and that's something we DO know about thompsonx. I don't know of anyone in the U.S. military who would do something like that, no matter what their political leanings might be. quote: I spend 27 years wearing an Army uniform, 6 on active duty and 21 in the Army Reserves. I served in Vietnam with the U. S. Army Rangers, where I was awarded the Bronze Star with "V" (Valor) device, and three of my 5 Army Commendation Medals. I took a bullet in my left shoulder in a suburb of Munich, Germany in 1973 while apprehending an East German agent. I even was called back to active duty and went into Grenada on the first day of our invasion in 1983. And the whole 27 years I wore the uniform of my country, I have been a registered Democrat and have been proud to identify myself as a "Liberal". Many of my fellow military veterans and many men and women presently serving on active duty (yes, even active duty Marines) are liberals - or as you may label them "Stalinists". I appreciate and respect your service to our country, but with all due respect, you're wrong; I wouldn't label someone a Stalinist for being a Democrat or a liberal. I label people Stalinists when they blatantly deny the atrocities committed by that monster. Since you have not done so, I don't see why you're stepping up to defend thompsonx. He seems more than capable of defending himself and stating his own beliefs. We don't need to run a tag-team here. I don't really see anything about thompsonx's posts that would make him a liberal, either. He's also said that he doesn't support either political party (the only thing I agree with him on), so he's clearly not a Democrat either. quote: Though I am getting older, and though I have tried my best to live my life since retiring from the Army Reserves in a non-violent way, I would take up arms again against any American who tried to overthrow my nation's government because their man or their woman lost a Presidential election. Any American who tried to overthrow my nation's government because their man or their woman lost a Presidential election would definitely push this proud, patriotic American off the fence - against those trying to mount a coup, and if martial law was declared in the face of an armed revolt by disgruntled losers of an election, I would stand proudly next to the active military members blowing them to Hell. I would proudly and patriotically pull the trigger on those revolting myself. But how far would you go? That's the real question here. You, thompsonx, and Mupainurpleasure keep talking about this as if it's some black-and-white, us-versus-them issue, which is divisive rhetoric no different than the kind you cited in the editorial you linked in your OP (which I haven't supported, btw). Because of this, I don't believe you would stop with only armed insurrectionists or those who are directly involved in the commission of a violent crime. Sure, if someone is shooting at a federal building or committing other acts of violence, then by all means, go after them, shoot them, do whatever you have to do. If you're saying that you would go after ONLY those who are caught in the act, then okay. Do your worst. But my question to you is: Do you really seriously believe that it will be that simple? You're a military man, so you tell me. How simple was it in Vietnam? How simple is it for our military in Iraq or Afghanistan? Are you willing to sit there and tell me that the military has never done anything wrong and that innocent people were never harmed? Are you saying they would conduct themselves no differently if they were operating on U.S. soil against American citizens, and if so, what guarantees would you be willing to make to ensure against atrocities committed against innocent Americans?

mnottertail -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/11/2012 6:35:53 AM)
Yes we do know that Huntie is a ex-suck. Now you can call him stalinist, because he fought for that right for you to do so, but alot of us fought for the right for some armchair chickenhawk to spew diarheaa day and night in hyperbole and horseshit. It made losing all of our freinds worthwhile.

Fightdirecto -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/11/2012 6:35:57 AM)
Zonie63, Perhaps I have become hyper-sensitized after years of verbal crap from conservatives that, because I self-identify as a liberal, I am a traitor, I hate my country, I am a secret Communist or Socialist, I am not really a follower of Jesus Christ (actually I am a liberal BECAUSE I am a follower of Jesus Christ), etc. etc. etc. [sm=angry.gif] I was even spat on by a George Bush II supporter in South Carolina while working for "Veterans For Kerry" [sm=angry.gif] and told by George Bush II supporters that I should have my military retiree benefits stripped from me and my honorable discharge changed to dishonorable because I was a Democrat - and, therefore, an enemy of the United States. [sm=angry.gif] After 35+ years of such treatment from conservatives, my gut reaction IS to see certain things sometimes as "some black-and-white, us-versus-them issue"- patriotic Americans vs. Rightist crypto-Fascists who want to destroy my country whenever anyone other than a Republican is in the White House. If I over-reacted, I apologize.

Anaxagoras -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/11/2012 6:48:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto It seems you are the one making an assumption based on a fallacy, the fallacy being the mistaken belief that all military veterans, in particular Marine veterans, and all active military service members hold conservative political views and, therefore, any military veteran and all active military service members who expresses liberal, libertarian or moderate political views are somehow "Stalinists". Not at all. I believe thompsonx is a Stalinist based on a previous discussion with him. I elaborated further in post #182 of this thread. I didn't say anything about Marine veterans or active military service members being Stalinists. As I said above, I know some vets whose views lean towards the left, some whose views lean towards the right, but I've never and would never call them Stalinists. We don't even know that thompsonx is a Marine veteran. It's the internet; he can say whatever he wants about himself, and there's no way that anyone can verify it. We only have his word to go by. But for someone to blatantly and wantonly DENY the atrocities committed by one of the worst mass murderers in human history is beyond outrageous, and that's something we DO know about thompsonx. I don't know of anyone in the U.S. military who would do something like that, no matter what their political leanings might be. That was my experience with Tx as well, e.g. where he questioned the 20 to 30 million death toll attributed to Stalin, repeatedly defended the USSR to the hilt while at the same time always damning the US. Clearly there's nothing wrong with having left wing views but its something altogether different to be an unreconstructed Stalinist as he evidently is.

Mupainurpleasure -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/11/2012 6:56:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 But how far would you go? That's the real question here. You, thompsonx, and Mupainurpleasure keep talking about this as if it's some black-and-white, us-versus-them issue, which is divisive rhetoric no different than the kind you cited in the editorial you linked in your OP (which I haven't supported, btw). Because of this, I don't believe you would stop with only armed insurrectionists or those who are directly involved in the commission of a violent crime. Sure, if someone is shooting at a federal building or committing other acts of violence, then by all means, go after them, shoot them, do whatever you have to do. If you're saying that you would go after ONLY those who are caught in the act, then okay. Do your worst. But my question to you is: Do you really seriously believe that it will be that simple? You're a military man, so you tell me. How simple was it in Vietnam? How simple is it for our military in Iraq or Afghanistan? Are you willing to sit there and tell me that the military has never done anything wrong and that innocent people were never harmed? Are you saying they would conduct themselves no differently if they were operating on U.S. soil against American citizens, and if so, what guarantees would you be willing to make to ensure against atrocities committed against innocent Americans? Actually it is black and white. I'm not sure what peaceful protesters have to with a discussion on armed insurrection. No one but you is talking about shooting them. You on the other hand quewstion the professionalism of out armed forces and their fealty to the oath they swore when you suggust they wouldntput down an armed insurrection. I think they would operat4e on american soil against doemestic enemies with in the rules of engagement the command structure gave them....period. Would there be civilian casualties along with the domestic enemies...sure but the other option is to not fight and surrender our republic to tyranny

Zonie63 -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/11/2012 7:04:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Yes we do know that Huntie is a ex-suck. Now you can call him stalinist, because he fought for that right for you to do so, Actually, the Constitution guarantees me that right, and that right was guaranteed long before anyone alive today was even born. You seem to be making a more conservative, right-wing argument in this instance, as they're the war hawks who always go on and on about how the military fights for our "rights." If you're a liberal, you should know better than that. For those who defend this country, I am thankful for their service, but I am not so blind as to be fooled or intimidated by this particular argument. Nor does it mean that I'm wrong about thompsonx denying the atrocities of Stalin and citing pro-Stalinist literature as a "source" of information. I've addressed that already.

Zonie63 -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/11/2012 9:15:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto Zonie63, Perhaps I have become hyper-sensitized after years of verbal crap from conservatives that, because I self-identify as a liberal, I am a traitor, I hate my country, I am a secret Communist or Socialist, I am not really a follower of Jesus Christ (actually I am a liberal BECAUSE I am a follower of Jesus Christ), etc. etc. etc. [sm=angry.gif] I was even spat on by a George Bush II supporter in South Carolina while working for "Veterans For Kerry" [sm=angry.gif] and told by George Bush II supporters that I should have my military retiree benefits stripped from me and my honorable discharge changed to dishonorable because I was a Democrat - and, therefore, an enemy of the United States. [sm=angry.gif] After 35+ years of such treatment from conservatives, my gut reaction IS to see certain things sometimes as "some black-and-white, us-versus-them issue"- patriotic Americans vs. Rightist crypto-Fascists who want to destroy my country whenever anyone other than a Republican is in the White House. If I over-reacted, I apologize. Well, maybe I got a bit overcharged myself, so I also apologize to anyone else who may have been caught up in my argument with thompsonx and the specific points I was raising here. Let me try to back up a bit and explain about where I'm coming from, just to clear the air of any potential misunderstandings about where I stand on this. First, I'm not a conservative. I used to be a dyed-in-the-wool liberal Democrat (some might even call me socialist, although I tend to identify as Keynesian). I've been called every name in the book by conservatives, particularly the conservative economists who subscribe to the Chicago School. I've written several posts here which outline my opposition to Reagan and his trickle down economics, as well as the obnoxious, arrogant Ronnie Robots who engaged in character assassination and red-baiting against anyone deemed liberal, "pinko," or whatever term they might use. So, believe me, I do sympathize and understand what you're saying about conservatives and their verbal crap. In a lot of ways, I suppose I was influenced a lot by the anti-establishment rhetoric which was prevalent during my formative years. I don't consider myself a revolutionary, but over the course of my life, I've tried to understand that particular point of view and the conditions which might compel someone to feel that they have to take up opposition to their government. Due to my personal experiences in my friendships with both military and non-military people, I've come to understand that serving or not serving in the military has absolutely nothing to do with one's political beliefs. So, I don't see how this is even relevant to the discussion. I resent any attempts at belittlement by people telling me that "they fought for my rights" or that I'm denigrating the military when I personally know military people who are even more revolutionary and anti-establishment than anyone I've ever known. I've always tried to show gratitude and support veterans whenever possible, not just because of their military service, but also because I know that many of them are in the same boat as the rest of us. We come from the same culture, the same neighborhoods, and we have the same basic needs for food, shelter, medical care - just like anyone else. When they get treated like shit by the VA, I'm outraged, and my anti-establishment side starts to come out. Just because I criticize what the government orders them to do (or might order them to do in a hypothetical scenario), it does not mean that I'm denigrating them as individuals or questioning their own personal honor. I know they're neither fascists nor Stalinists, so if someone suggests that the military would behave in that manner in the event of some domestic upheaval or revolutionary situation, then I'm going to call bullshit on that. I also know that military people don't particularly relish the idea of having to put down some kind of internal disturbance or some kind of civil war. We've already had a Civil War in this country, and I don't know of anybody, military or non-military, who would actually look forward to and desire such a thing (other than a couple of people who have posted in this thread). Okay, so that guy in Virginia was an asshole and a loudmouth. Reading the editorial you linked, I honestly don't believe that he or his ilk would ever actually do anything like start an armed insurrection. It's just empty talk. But in a theoretical sense, IF the government was truly out of control and IF the politicians were wantonly violating the Constitution and the rights of American citizens, then maybe some people might just cross that line and take up arms against their government. Only time will tell, but right now, in May, 2012, I don't really see that happening. As for me, I'm a social worker. I've also been a teacher and a translator. I could have taken other more lucrative jobs, I suppose, but I've found that I'd prefer helping others less fortunate rather than working to make money for someone else in some rat race. I've never committed any acts of violence in my adult life, nor do I ever intend to. That's how I live with myself, and I feel no need to apologize for who I am or what I believe. I'm still very much a liberal in the sense that I have great sympathy for the poor, the underclass, and working people (even though I'm not particularly happy about what organized labor has turned into in recent years). But as an old-school liberal (unlike the neo-liberals who tend to dominate the debate these days), I know that when people (especially those at the bottom of society) lash out or speak derisively against their government or ruling class, they're doing so out of a sense of powerlessness and frustration. Liberals used to show more compassion and understanding towards the powerless and disaffected in our society, and that's why I'm somewhat confused and irritated about some of the attitudes displayed by many liberals in recent years. They seem to have adopted the heartless tactics of the Ronnie Robots, painting their political opposition as devils with horns, without even bothering to look underneath the surface and see what it is they're actually demonizing. There's no more compassion for the poor and underclasses, no sense of charity, empathy, or understanding. I would expect that attitude from wealthy conservatives who care nothing about people, but not from liberals who should take the higher road and not turn into that which they claim to oppose. That's where I'm coming from here. If people from the lower classes (whether liberal or conservative) speak derisively of the privileged classes (whether liberal or conservative), then I admit that my sympathies will probably still be with the little people and against the elite and the establishment, regardless of whatever form it might take. I've encountered many left-wingers and liberals who might also harbor some revolutionary sympathies. It's also not a matter of race, either, as some have suggested, since there are quite a few people of all races who might display a bit of revolutionary or seditious rhetoric. They might lash out, too. In all honesty, if there ever is a revolution in this country, I don't believe it will come from the "One Percent" or wealthy conservatives who are only concerned about protecting their tax shelters from a supposedly "liberal" government. If any kind of armed insurrection occurs, it will likely start with people who have been squeezed and bled dry, who are at the bottom of society and literally driven to the edge of insanity. Of course, they'll probably be influenced and encouraged by a lot of the toxic rhetoric we see in politics from both sides, and that's the real danger I see here. I'll admit that I was somewhat rattled by those who seem to take delight in having the Marines go in and mow down these people, when it would be so much easier to take a softer, more compassionate, more liberal approach to dealing with the problems we're facing in this country. There's already a lot of violence in this country. Hell, I hear gunfire outside my window on a regular basis. I'm not sitting up in the foothills in some mansion; I'm here in the middle of it. There's a lot of nuts out there, a lot of crazies. I see them on the streets, and some of them, I even know personally. They're human beings in deep pain, and that's what I see. It doesn't mean that I condone violence, but just because I try to understand why they're in pain and why they lash out, it doesn't mean that I support them. There are ways of reaching out to them without the need to send out the Marines. Despite whatever character deficiencies they might have, they're still our neighbors, our family members, our fellow citizens, our brethren. We're products of the same nation, influenced by similar beliefs and the same way of life, whether anyone wants to believe it or not. At this point, having said all this, I don't think there's anything more I wish to contribute to this thread. I'm putting thompsonx on hide, since there's nothing more I wish to say to him. He can have the last word, but I won't see it. If someone wants to come and shoot me, then I would welcome that, mainly because I have no real desire to see what the future holds for this country. I have nothing to defend, nothing to fight for anymore. All I will do in the time I have left is try to help people wherever I can with what meager resources I have available. I will die with a clear conscience.

thompsonx -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/11/2012 9:55:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto Zonie63, Perhaps I have become hyper-sensitized after years of verbal crap from conservatives that, because I self-identify as a liberal, I am a traitor, I hate my country, I am a secret Communist or Socialist, I am not really a follower of Jesus Christ (actually I am a liberal BECAUSE I am a follower of Jesus Christ), etc. etc. etc. [sm=angry.gif] I was even spat on by a George Bush II supporter in South Carolina while working for "Veterans For Kerry" [sm=angry.gif] and told by George Bush II supporters that I should have my military retiree benefits stripped from me and my honorable discharge changed to dishonorable because I was a Democrat - and, therefore, an enemy of the United States. [sm=angry.gif] After 35+ years of such treatment from conservatives, my gut reaction IS to see certain things sometimes as "some black-and-white, us-versus-them issue"- patriotic Americans vs. Rightist crypto-Fascists who want to destroy my country whenever anyone other than a Republican is in the White House. If I over-reacted, I apologize. Well, maybe I got a bit overcharged myself, so I also apologize to anyone else who may have been caught up in my argument with thompsonx and the specific points I was raising here. Let me try to back up a bit and explain about where I'm coming from, just to clear the air of any potential misunderstandings about where I stand on this. First, I'm not a conservative. I used to be a dyed-in-the-wool liberal Democrat (some might even call me socialist, although I tend to identify as Keynesian). I've been called every name in the book by conservatives, particularly the conservative economists who subscribe to the Chicago School. I've written several posts here which outline my opposition to Reagan and his trickle down economics, as well as the obnoxious, arrogant Ronnie Robots who engaged in character assassination and red-baiting against anyone deemed liberal, "pinko," or whatever term they might use. So, believe me, I do sympathize and understand what you're saying about conservatives and their verbal crap. In a lot of ways, I suppose I was influenced a lot by the anti-establishment rhetoric which was prevalent during my formative years. I don't consider myself a revolutionary, but over the course of my life, I've tried to understand that particular point of view and the conditions which might compel someone to feel that they have to take up opposition to their government. Due to my personal experiences in my friendships with both military and non-military people, I've come to understand that serving or not serving in the military has absolutely nothing to do with one's political beliefs. So, I don't see how this is even relevant to the discussion. I resent any attempts at belittlement by people telling me that "they fought for my rights" or that I'm denigrating the military when I personally know military people who are even more revolutionary and anti-establishment than anyone I've ever known. I've always tried to show gratitude and support veterans whenever possible, not just because of their military service, but also because I know that many of them are in the same boat as the rest of us. We come from the same culture, the same neighborhoods, and we have the same basic needs for food, shelter, medical care - just like anyone else. When they get treated like shit by the VA, I'm outraged, and my anti-establishment side starts to come out. Just because I criticize what the government orders them to do (or might order them to do in a hypothetical scenario), it does not mean that I'm denigrating them as individuals or questioning their own personal honor. I know they're neither fascists nor Stalinists, so if someone suggests that the military would behave in that manner in the event of some domestic upheaval or revolutionary situation, then I'm going to call bullshit on that. I also know that military people don't particularly relish the idea of having to put down some kind of internal disturbance or some kind of civil war. We've already had a Civil War in this country, and I don't know of anybody, military or non-military, who would actually look forward to and desire such a thing (other than a couple of people who have posted in this thread). Okay, so that guy in Virginia was an asshole and a loudmouth. Reading the editorial you linked, I honestly don't believe that he or his ilk would ever actually do anything like start an armed insurrection. It's just empty talk. But in a theoretical sense, IF the government was truly out of control and IF the politicians were wantonly violating the Constitution and the rights of American citizens, then maybe some people might just cross that line and take up arms against their government. Only time will tell, but right now, in May, 2012, I don't really see that happening. As for me, I'm a social worker. I've also been a teacher and a translator. I could have taken other more lucrative jobs, I suppose, but I've found that I'd prefer helping others less fortunate rather than working to make money for someone else in some rat race. I've never committed any acts of violence in my adult life, nor do I ever intend to. That's how I live with myself, and I feel no need to apologize for who I am or what I believe. I'm still very much a liberal in the sense that I have great sympathy for the poor, the underclass, and working people (even though I'm not particularly happy about what organized labor has turned into in recent years). But as an old-school liberal (unlike the neo-liberals who tend to dominate the debate these days), I know that when people (especially those at the bottom of society) lash out or speak derisively against their government or ruling class, they're doing so out of a sense of powerlessness and frustration. Liberals used to show more compassion and understanding towards the powerless and disaffected in our society, and that's why I'm somewhat confused and irritated about some of the attitudes displayed by many liberals in recent years. They seem to have adopted the heartless tactics of the Ronnie Robots, painting their political opposition as devils with horns, without even bothering to look underneath the surface and see what it is they're actually demonizing. There's no more compassion for the poor and underclasses, no sense of charity, empathy, or understanding. I would expect that attitude from wealthy conservatives who care nothing about people, but not from liberals who should take the higher road and not turn into that which they claim to oppose. That's where I'm coming from here. If people from the lower classes (whether liberal or conservative) speak derisively of the privileged classes (whether liberal or conservative), then I admit that my sympathies will probably still be with the little people and against the elite and the establishment, regardless of whatever form it might take. I've encountered many left-wingers and liberals who might also harbor some revolutionary sympathies. It's also not a matter of race, either, as some have suggested, since there are quite a few people of all races who might display a bit of revolutionary or seditious rhetoric. They might lash out, too. In all honesty, if there ever is a revolution in this country, I don't believe it will come from the "One Percent" or wealthy conservatives who are only concerned about protecting their tax shelters from a supposedly "liberal" government. If any kind of armed insurrection occurs, it will likely start with people who have been squeezed and bled dry, who are at the bottom of society and literally driven to the edge of insanity. Of course, they'll probably be influenced and encouraged by a lot of the toxic rhetoric we see in politics from both sides, and that's the real danger I see here. I'll admit that I was somewhat rattled by those who seem to take delight in having the Marines go in and mow down these people, when it would be so much easier to take a softer, more compassionate, more liberal approach to dealing with the problems we're facing in this country. There's already a lot of violence in this country. Hell, I hear gunfire outside my window on a regular basis. I'm not sitting up in the foothills in some mansion; I'm here in the middle of it. There's a lot of nuts out there, a lot of crazies. I see them on the streets, and some of them, I even know personally. They're human beings in deep pain, and that's what I see. It doesn't mean that I condone violence, but just because I try to understand why they're in pain and why they lash out, it doesn't mean that I support them. There are ways of reaching out to them without the need to send out the Marines. Despite whatever character deficiencies they might have, they're still our neighbors, our family members, our fellow citizens, our brethren. We're products of the same nation, influenced by similar beliefs and the same way of life, whether anyone wants to believe it or not. At this point, having said all this, I don't think there's anything more I wish to contribute to this thread. I'm putting thompsonx on hide, since there's nothing more I wish to say to him. He can have the last word, but I won't see it. If someone wants to come and shoot me, then I would welcome that, mainly because I have no real desire to see what the future holds for this country. I have nothing to defend, nothing to fight for anymore. All I will do in the time I have left is try to help people wherever I can with what meager resources I have available. I will die with a clear conscience. Your apology sux, it is filled with self contradictions thus proving it's disingenuousness.

Zonie63 -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/11/2012 10:37:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Your apology sux, it is filled with self contradictions thus proving it's disingenuousness. It wasn't an apology to you, and I have no interest in your opinions or what you think is a self-contradiction. I was just trying to speak from the heart, something that you could not possibly understand.

thompsonx -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/11/2012 4:29:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Your apology sux, it is filled with self contradictions thus proving it's disingenuousness. It wasn't an apology to you, and I have no interest in your opinions or what you think is a self-contradiction. I was just trying to speak from the heart, something that you could not possibly understand. [8\|]

Page: << < prev 6 7 8 9 [10]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875