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

SternSkipper -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/9/2012 9:53:40 PM)
quote: At least one member of the committee has denounced this and no one has come out to defend it. My prediction is that this is a game which is being slowly picked up on and played out ... I say "slowly" cause that's what ultra-right wing assholes are... SLOW. Don't be real shocked if we're treated to several of these a month till the election is over with. They'll shut the fuck up then, cause it's just a game. Or maybe when the word gets around that things DIDN'T go the way Nugent claimed, they'll think better.

Marini -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/9/2012 10:03:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper quote: At least one member of the committee has denounced this and no one has come out to defend it. My prediction is that this is a game which is being slowly picked up on and played out ... I say "slowly" cause that's what ultra-right wing assholes are... SLOW. Don't be real shocked if we're treated to several of these a month till the election is over with. They'll shut the fuck up then, cause it's just a game. Or maybe when the word gets around that things DIDN'T go the way Nugent claimed, they'll think better. Skipper, you missed the fun here during the last Presidential election, when President Obama was elected, 4 years ago. It was crazy town here. In fact, many of the most outlandish posters are not even around these days. -----thinking they have been banned------- I was just sitting here pondering if I should or should not frequent these message boards during election time! I have to, I am sadistic and masochistic. [sm=crop.gif]

Zonie63 -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/9/2012 10:09:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle It is central to this discussion that the GOP flunky who made the call for "armed revolution" made his sedition conditional on Obama being re-elected. This entire discussion is taking place within a context where the people of the USA will already have decided, by majority vote, to re-elect Obama as President. Therefore any "armed revolution" against a re-elected Obama can only be initiated by a minority. Any talk of a majority of the people rebelling against a re-elected Obama is, and can only be, an impossible fantasy. Not necessarily. Doing the math, by comparing the number of votes Obama received in 2008 versus the total population in that year, only about 23% of the U.S. population supported Obama. That's not a majority.

SternSkipper -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/9/2012 10:31:17 PM)
quote: Yes siree...I'm a polishing up my 410 and stocking up on buckshot...gone a shoot me some DemOcratic Ass. Buckshot? For a .410? REALLY? Okay, well if they make that... you better get REAL CLOSE. I could probably do more harm with a wet towel than a .410 shooting projectiles too large for any kind of decent muzzle velocity. Wanna Borrow my old PSE fireflight?

Zonie63 -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/10/2012 12:43:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Or because they think the disclaimer covers that. By the way have you denounced Bill Maher because one of his guests said that there would be a race war if Obama losses. No? then i guess you agree with that. Slight difference between saying something "might" happen or calling people to rebel against their government and violate the principles of the nation - I guess you don't really understand that difference, but nevermind... It depends on how one defines the principles of the nation. The U.S. was founded in Revolution. To quote Thomas Jefferson, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure." Now, I'm not saying that our government has "tyrants" (some of the current rhetoric from both sides seems a bit overblown). But that doesn't mean that revolution, in and of itself, would necessarily violate the principles of the nation. Perhaps just the threat of revolution might be enough to keep the government honest and encourage the politicians to reform the system. When I look at some of the successful revolutions throughout history, it astonishes me how easily they could have been avoided if the ruling powers had not been so mule-headed and stubborn as to refuse to make a few key concessions and reforms. Opening the lines of communication and encouraging more public discourse would have also gone a long way to defusing any revolutionary fervor. But a lot of the current discourse is rather toxic nowadays, although nowhere near as bad as it could potentially become. I do see troubling times ahead, if only because the government is cash-strapped and will soon no longer be able to afford to keep the safety nets in place. If those who subsist on welfare, food stamps, and other social services suddenly find themselves cut off, who knows what might happen? They'll probably gravitate towards the far left, although if that happens, then it will scare the bejesus out of the middle class, who might then gravitate towards the far right. quote: Btw if you want to denounce Bill Maher, you could just tell the cable company you're cancelling because of him, that's called putting your money where your mouth is. I never watch Bill Maher myself. His show is on HBO, which is a premium channel which costs extra. I used to subscribe to HBO many years ago, back when they still showed movies.

thompsonx -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/10/2012 4:42:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle It is central to this discussion that the GOP flunky who made the call for "armed revolution" made his sedition conditional on Obama being re-elected. This entire discussion is taking place within a context where the people of the USA will already have decided, by majority vote, to re-elect Obama as President. Therefore any "armed revolution" against a re-elected Obama can only be initiated by a minority. Any talk of a majority of the people rebelling against a re-elected Obama is, and can only be, an impossible fantasy. Not necessarily. Doing the math, by comparing the number of votes Obama received in 2008 versus the total population in that year, only about 23% of the U.S. population supported Obama. That's not a majority. Since you are so keene on math why don't you do the same calculations for the last 40 or so presidents. Then please come and tell us of your shocking discoveries.

thompsonx -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/10/2012 4:43:43 AM)
quote: The air traffic controlers were completly different they were goverment employees who have signed an agreement not to stike. What is your point? My statement still stands. The government has trained operators for every stratigic enterprise in this country. It matters not if they are atc or truck drivers,airplane drivers or train drivers or boat drivers or anything else.

thompsonx -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/10/2012 4:45:15 AM)
quote: Please see my earlier post about the Left getting desperate and going over the edge. So far it is the right that is the only group I have seen calling for armed insurrection

thompsonx -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/10/2012 4:47:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Actually I consider Truman to be our greatest president of the 20th century. Why?

thompsonx -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/10/2012 4:51:10 AM)
quote: When I look at some of the successful revolutions throughout history, By definition revolutions are successful. Rebellions are the ones that are unsuccessful. quote: it astonishes me how easily they could have been avoided if the ruling powers had not been so mule-headed and stubborn as to refuse to make a few key concessions and reforms. Opening the lines of communication and encouraging more public discourse would have also gone a long way to defusing any revolutionary fervor. Why would that astonish you. Historically it is "de regueur"

Zonie63 -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/10/2012 5:47:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Since you are so keene on math why don't you do the same calculations for the last 40 or so presidents. Then please come and tell us of your shocking discoveries. Yeah, it amounts to approximately the same thing. Do you have a point here, or is this just more gainsaying on your part?

Moonhead -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/10/2012 5:50:24 AM)
About 15% of the electorate turned out to vote in 2000, which is why there was such a fuss over absentee ballots and stopping recounts in Florida. 23% doesn't look too shabby a percentage to have voted for the Kenyan next to that.

Zonie63 -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/10/2012 6:05:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead About 15% of the electorate turned out to vote in 2000, which is why there was such a fuss over absentee ballots and stopping recounts in Florida. 23% doesn't look too shabby a percentage to have voted for the Kenyan next to that. True enough, but my point was addressing this statement: quote: Therefore any "armed revolution" against a re-elected Obama can only be initiated by a minority. Any talk of a majority of the people rebelling against a re-elected Obama is, and can only be, an impossible fantasy. How can it be an "impossible fantasy" if 77% of the country was against Obama? He only won because a greater percentage of the country was against McCain. But that's hardly an endorsement by the "majority." That's all I was trying to get straight here. If people were really all that enthusiastic about their leadership, then they'd rush down and register right away and make their voice heard at the polls. Since the majority of people don't vote, it seems pretty clear that they're not all that fired up about any candidate. What this means is that, in a rebellion, very few people would fight to protect the regime, except those who are paid to do so. And if the government doesn't have any money to pay them, then who would fight against an armed revolution? Certainly not the "majority." That's the only point I was making.

DesideriScuri -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/10/2012 6:12:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead About 15% of the electorate turned out to vote in 2000, which is why there was such a fuss over absentee ballots and stopping recounts in Florida. 23% doesn't look too shabby a percentage to have voted for the Kenyan next to that. True enough, but my point was addressing this statement: quote: Therefore any "armed revolution" against a re-elected Obama can only be initiated by a minority. Any talk of a majority of the people rebelling against a re-elected Obama is, and can only be, an impossible fantasy. How can it be an "impossible fantasy" if 77% of the country was against Obama? He only won because a greater percentage of the country was against McCain. But that's hardly an endorsement by the "majority." That's all I was trying to get straight here. If people were really all that enthusiastic about their leadership, then they'd rush down and register right away and make their voice heard at the polls. Since the majority of people don't vote, it seems pretty clear that they're not all that fired up about any candidate. What this means is that, in a rebellion, very few people would fight to protect the regime, except those who are paid to do so. And if the government doesn't have any money to pay them, then who would fight against an armed revolution? Certainly not the "majority." That's the only point I was making. How can you say that 77% of the country was against Obama? Because they didn't vote for him? Seriously? You can not simply count a non-voter as a vote against someone. I'm sure there were Obama supporters who chose to not vote because they felt their vote wasn't needed to get their guy in office. Unless you're Uri Gellar, Edward Cayce or some other ESP mystic, you have no idea who people supported if they didn't vote.

Zonie63 -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/10/2012 6:13:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: When I look at some of the successful revolutions throughout history, By definition revolutions are successful. Rebellions are the ones that are unsuccessful. quote: it astonishes me how easily they could have been avoided if the ruling powers had not been so mule-headed and stubborn as to refuse to make a few key concessions and reforms. Opening the lines of communication and encouraging more public discourse would have also gone a long way to defusing any revolutionary fervor. Why would that astonish you. Historically it is "de regueur" Yes, but you'd think that people who consider themselves the elite in their society would have been smart enough to be able to figure it out before their government was overthrown.

Zonie63 -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/10/2012 6:23:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead About 15% of the electorate turned out to vote in 2000, which is why there was such a fuss over absentee ballots and stopping recounts in Florida. 23% doesn't look too shabby a percentage to have voted for the Kenyan next to that. True enough, but my point was addressing this statement: quote: Therefore any "armed revolution" against a re-elected Obama can only be initiated by a minority. Any talk of a majority of the people rebelling against a re-elected Obama is, and can only be, an impossible fantasy. How can it be an "impossible fantasy" if 77% of the country was against Obama? He only won because a greater percentage of the country was against McCain. But that's hardly an endorsement by the "majority." That's all I was trying to get straight here. If people were really all that enthusiastic about their leadership, then they'd rush down and register right away and make their voice heard at the polls. Since the majority of people don't vote, it seems pretty clear that they're not all that fired up about any candidate. What this means is that, in a rebellion, very few people would fight to protect the regime, except those who are paid to do so. And if the government doesn't have any money to pay them, then who would fight against an armed revolution? Certainly not the "majority." That's the only point I was making. How can you say that 77% of the country was against Obama? Because they didn't vote for him? Seriously? You can not simply count a non-voter as a vote against someone. I'm sure the Republicans and Democrats would prefer to look at things that way. quote: I'm sure there were Obama supporters who chose to not vote because they felt their vote wasn't needed to get their guy in office. If they were supporters, why wouldn't they vote? quote: Unless you're Uri Gellar, Edward Cayce or some other ESP mystic, you have no idea who people supported if they didn't vote. Well, it seems pretty obvious that if they were such staunch supporters, they would have registered and voted. It's not that difficult, and anyone 18 and over can vote (except for convicted felons in some states, although that's probably a small percentage). So, at best, we can assume that they either just don't care enough or that they don't support any candidate. A lot of people don't vote because they don't see any point to it. They don't see any appreciable difference between the two parties and don't feel that their lives would be significantly different no matter which party gets into power. The real pity here is that if they voted for a third party or write-in candidate, they could conceivably topple the whole system. A revolution at the ballot box. But alas, because so many people don't vote, supporters of the winning candidate can crow about having the "majority" behind them, when nothing could be further from the truth.

DesideriScuri -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/10/2012 6:36:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsKatherine2123 But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - Declaration of Independence, JULY 4, 1776 I provided a larger portion of the DoI in an earlier post. While I think we'd agree that we have a duty to "throw off such Government," much of the rest of the DoI was a listing of the "long train of abuses and usurpations." The very next portion of the DoI points out that attempts to reverse the abuses were taken and rebuffed, and that the throwing off of the old was a last resort. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. @dcnovice quote: Forgive me for picking a nit, but no one else seems to have mentioned this, and it think it's worth clarifying that your quote comes from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. ETA: Oops, apparently I posted too soon. This was not put out there to show that the Constitution of the US gives us right and power to overthrow Government. If you read the DoI, it doesn't give any power to the People. It is, essentially, the reason behind the Revolutionary War. the Reason we threw off British Rule. The US Constitution (itself a seditious document, created by people who ended up seditionists, if you truly want to get nitpicky) is nothing more than a legal document creating a compact for how We the People want to be governed. It is by the agreement of We the People that government of any form has any authority. We have given of our own authorities to the Federal Government. If necessary - and Obama's re-election will not make it necessary, IMO - we can and should dissolve the compact among We the People and recast a new compact forming a government better suited to the needs and desires of We the People. The thing is, I still fully believe the US Constitution can't be beat, other than to declare a conservative interpretation being the correct interpretation. Through the eyes of a conservative interpretation, which I truly do believe was the Framer's intent, much of what Government now does and is looking to do, would not stand Constitutional muster. Much of what President Bush did would be struck down. I do believe the vast majority of laws would be struck down either as un-Constitutional, or repealed because the Federal Government does not have Constitutional authority to legislate.

xssve -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/10/2012 7:13:37 AM)
Is it not possible to have a socialist republic? Of course it is, Christianity is proof of it, but neither does it work very well, it tends to rapidly devolve into feudal socialism, so I think we should oppose the republican socialist agenda in favor of capitalism and freedom of conscience.

thompsonx -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/10/2012 7:13:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Since you are so keene on math why don't you do the same calculations for the last 40 or so presidents. Then please come and tell us of your shocking discoveries. Yeah, it amounts to approximately the same thing. Do you have a point here, or is this just more gainsaying on your part? My point was and is that virtually all of the u.s presidents have been "elected" by similarly small percentage of the total electorate. Perhaps that is because most of the people in this country know that their vote for president has about as much usefullness as second hand shit paper. The electoral college appoints the president. The electoral college is appointed by the state legislatures. The state legislatures are chosen by the people from a government approved list of acceptable candidates.

Fightdirecto -> RE: GOP Newsletter Calls for Armed Revolution if Obama Re-Elected (5/10/2012 7:17:40 AM)
I go back to my original question, somewhat re-phrased, motivated by this wing-nut individual's "editorial": If the MAJORITY of the American voters once again decide to elect Barack Obama President this year - Would this justify an "armed revolution" against the will of the MAJORITY of the American voters by the minority of the American voters who vote for the GOP Presidential candidate or the Libertarian Presidential candidate or some other Presidential candidate or the voters who chose not to vote at all?

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875