Violent Overthrow Possible in US?

[Father Heathen]

Chuckles is the nutless monkey that the GOP uses to both distract their constituents from real issues and remind them what their talking points are.

To achieve this goal, Chuckles wears a two sided slate on which can be written one two-word point on each side.

Example:

Side A = Obama Bad

Side B = War Good

or Side A = Abortion Bad
Side B = Palin Good

Chuckles can then dance around pointing at the slate, making funny faces. And somehow the Republicans will get fired up and vote for the monkey.

That's pretty much the republican party in a nutshell.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's pretty much the republican party in a nutshell.

Hey Revolting --

Put that in your smipe and poke it.

 

[Engyo]

Have you noticed that you always have taunts & insults, but you don't
ever really discuss anything with me? It doesn't inspire involved responses.

I notice that you like to use this as a deflection technique when asked a question you don't want to answer.

Sunstone asked for a list of Democratic candidates who have threatened violent revolution to overthrow the government, since you contend that the parties are equal. I didn't see any taunts or insults. What about that made you feel insulted or taunted?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Oh geeze, paint us all with a wide brush.

First off, I don't see anyone with an ounce of sanity thinking for one moment that a bunch of rednecks would take up arms against the government. Even rednecks have the sense God gave them to pick a fight they can win.

In a perfect storm, the police, national guard and military would have to take sides against the government for there to be any possibility of an overtaking.

Local people taking up arms would only be an option if there where no National guard or police keeping order in the streets.

I don't know of anyone who does not believe that our system will prevail and wants to scrap everything and slide into Anarchy. Thats plain stupid.

The mainstream American gun owner is NOT locking and loading for an armed dispute with the government.

The Police, Military, and National Guard is our sons and daughters, not the enemy!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Oh geeze, paint us all with a wide brush.

First off, I don't see anyone with an ounce of sanity thinking for one moment that a bunch of rednecks would take up arms against the government. Even rednecks have the sense God gave them to pick a fight they can win.

In a perfect storm, the police, national guard and military would have to take sides against the government for there to be any possibility of an overtaking.

Local people taking up arms would only be an option if there where no National guard or police keeping order in the streets.

I don't know of anyone who does not believe that our system will prevail and wants to scrap everything and slide into Anarchy. Thats plain stupid.

The mainstream American gun owner is NOT locking and loading for an armed dispute with the government.

The Police, Military, and National Guard is our sons and daughters, not the enemy!

Yeah, that's the point.

If it truly were a revolution, the rebels would have some control over the local militias, which would include the local National Guard. That would give access to their armories.

 

[T-Dawg]

Chuckles is the nutless monkey that the GOP uses to both distract their constituents from real issues and remind them what their talking points are.

To achieve this goal, Chuckles wears a two sided slate on which can be written one two-word point on each side.

Example:

Side A = Obama Bad

Side B = War Good

or Side A = Abortion Bad
Side B = Palin Good

Chuckles can then dance around pointing at the slate, making funny faces. And somehow the Republicans will get fired up and vote for the monkey.

But WHO is Chuckles? We can't just assassinate him like you said earlier, because he's more of a metaphor than an actual figure.

 

[Sunstone]

Oh geeze, paint us all with a wide brush.

First off, I don't see anyone with an ounce of sanity thinking for one moment that a bunch of rednecks would take up arms against the government. Even rednecks have the sense God gave them to pick a fight they can win.

In a perfect storm, the police, national guard and military would have to take sides against the government for there to be any possibility of an overtaking.

Local people taking up arms would only be an option if there where no National guard or police keeping order in the streets.

I don't know of anyone who does not believe that our system will prevail and wants to scrap everything and slide into Anarchy. Thats plain stupid.

The mainstream American gun owner is NOT locking and loading for an armed dispute with the government.

The Police, Military, and National Guard is our sons and daughters, not the enemy!

As usual, everything you say, Rick, is sane, sensible, and even wise, and, as usual, it's a bit off the point or mark. At issue is not whether an armed uprising would succeed, nor even whether most Rednecks would recognize that an armed uprising must fail, but rather the fact that some Republican candidates call for armed uprisings in the event of their loosing an election. So what do you think of those Republican candidates who call for armed uprisings?

 

[Reverend Rick]

So what do you think of those Republican candidates who call for armed uprisings?

I think they are bat poop crazy, just as I think anyone who votes 100% along party lines is too.

 

[Sunstone]

I think they are bat poop crazy, just as I think anyone who votes 100% along party lines is too.

Thanks! A friend of mine is voting straight ticket this year and I think it's evidence she's going senile, so I guess we agree.

 

[Revoltingest]

I notice that you like to use this as a deflection technique when asked a question you don't want to answer.

You actually haven't noticed it. But feel free to cite examples of my purposely avoiding tough questions. (You won't find any.)
His question was off the mark & snarky. And I tire of this continual attitude towards me. Since I'm not one to stew in my own
juices, I thought he deserved an explanation why I didn't respond to this particular one.

Sunstone asked for a list of Democratic candidates who have threatened violent revolution to overthrow the government, since you contend that the parties are equal. I didn't see any taunts or insults. What about that made you feel insulted or taunted?

First, I was responding to this post by someone else:

Quote:
Originally Posted by no-body
Love how the GOP talking point in recent years is if they don't win it's "unamerican" The total irony that by spouting such gibberish it's them that's being unamerican is lost on them.

And the other party is different?

You'll note that I addressed no claims about violence in politics, so Sunstone's challenge was either mistaken or disingenuous. That made
this part of his post seem rather peevish, "Don't be bashful. If the parties are as identical as you say, you should have a nice list of them
handy." I sense that no matter what I post after an exchange like that, it will be a pointless argument. I prefer pointless discussion.
Do you suppose he asked because he believes that only Republicans talk of violence, & that no Democrats ever do? Sounds doubtful.

Note that the word "identical" was not my choice. Of course, Democrats & Republicans are not identical in all specifics, but I do find them
lacking difference in general. Both are prone to pandering, dishonesty, greed, hypocrisy, stupidity, hubris, false piety, rancor, etc....all
the regular human failings......which afflict even us wonderful Libertarians. Does this clear it up for you?

 

[Revoltingest]

*kicks Revolting in the pants*

I know, I know....to criticize another's joke is severe, but I thought you should know.
In retrospect, a PM would've been better. Curse my poor social skills!
(Btw, you kick like a girl!)

Hey Revolting --
Put that in your smipe and poke it.

I don't know what this one refers to.

 

[Sunstone]

You actually haven't noticed it. But feel free to cite examples of my purposely avoiding tough questions. (You won't find any.)
His question was off the mark & snarky. And I tire of this continual attitude towards me. Since I'm not one to stew in my own
juices, I thought he deserved an explanation why I didn't respond to this particular one.

First, I was responding to this post by someone else:
You'll note that I addressed no claims about violence in politics, so Sunstone's challenge was either mistaken or disingenuous. That made
this part of his post seem rather peevish, "Don't be bashful. If the parties are as identical as you say, you should have a nice list of them
handy." I sense that no matter what I post after an exchange like that, it will be a pointless argument. I prefer pointless discussion.
Do you suppose he asked because he believes that only Republicans talk of violence, & that no Democrats ever do? Sounds doubtful.

Note that the word "identical" was not my choice. Of course, Democrats & Republicans are not identical in all specifics, but I do find them
lacking difference in general. Both are prone to pandering, dishonesty, greed, hypocrisy, stupidity, hubris, false piety, rancor, etc....all
the regular human failings......which afflict even us wonderful Libertarians. Does this clear it up for you?

Whine much? At issue is not your silly feelings, but whether you can or cannot back up your claim -- clearly implied by your comments -- that the Democrats are more or less the same as the Republicans when it comes to advocating violence. I presume the reason you are now backpedaling on that claim just as fast as your legs can carry you is because you cannot provide us with any support for it and you were foolishly BSing us when you made it. Or do you actually have evidence for your stupid and/or ignorant claim? But please! Don't try to "answer" that question by whining about me. Answer it with the evidence you have for your claim! I'm sick and tired of your whining about me when you should be debating the facts.

 

[Revoltingest]

Whine much?

I tend to skip personal drama, but if you insist upon opening that door.....this is a good example of why I
find you often unworthy of a response. You have too many empty cliched insults, poor comprehension, &
little of interest to say. Thus, many of your petulant demands will go unmet.

..... whether you can or cannot back up your claim....

Tis a claim you invented & then demanded that I support, lest you win some imagined debate.
I don't play that.

I'm sick and tired of your whining about me when you should be debating the facts.

Oh, boo hoo.....if I inspire such flaming & fuming, then you ought to put me on ignore. I'd be OK with it.
Moreover, your complaints are usually about my posts to someone else perfectly capable of responding on
their own behalf. I really have no idea what I ever did to get your panties permanently into such a bunch.

 

[Sunstone]

This is a good example of why I find you often not worthy of a response.

Tis a claim you invented & then demanded that I support, lest you win some imagined argument.
I don't play that.

Oh, boo hoo.....if I inspire such flaming & fuming, then you ought to put me on ignore.
I'd be OK with it. After all, your complaints are usually about my posts to someone else.
Let them deal with it. Honestly, I don't know what I ever did to get your panties into such a bunch.

Now my panties are in a bunch? LOL! Whatever you think, big guy. All I know is, you like to make claims you can't support, and that you can get plenty devious about when called on them. Backpedaling. Misdirection. Those are your tools. Anything but honest debate. I don't know how you live with yourself.

 

[Revoltingest]

Now my panties are in a bunch? LOL! Whatever you think, big guy. All I know is, you like to make claims you can't support, and that you can get plenty devious about when called on them. Backpedaling. Misdirection. Those are your tools. Anything but honest debate. I don't know how you live with yourself.

You've yet to show where I made the claim you're so hot to debunk.
I'm not even debating anything...just observing.
Well, if you can't win an actual argument...invent a phony one you can feel like you've won.
I declare you the victor. I hope you feel embiggened....& disinterested in continuing.

 

[Kathryn]

Oh, bloody hell - it's a dirty job but somebody's got to do it:

1. OK, for starter, Robert Byrd springs immediately to mind. This former KKK member was lauded as the PARAGON OF DEMOCRATIC VIRTUES by his party at his recent memorial service. Last time I checked, the KKK was a pretty violent, rambunctious crowd made up of nefarious characters - Byrd included.

2. The esteemable Joseph Biden, our illustrious Vice President, promised at a recent Democratic fundraiser, "If I hear one more Republican tell me about balancing the budget, I am going to strangle them." He quickly added: "To the press, that's a figure of speech." Really? It probably was - but as usual, he's a blathering idiot.

3. Sunsara Taylor is a radical who speaks regularly at events nationwide for campus Democrat organizations. She regularly calls for a violent revolutionary overthrow of the government, but was especially vocal during the Bush administration. She is a very popular speaker on the circuit, though not, of course, a candidate for office.

4. In case you missed it, Keith Halloran, a Democrat candidate for the New Hampshire House, posted in a Facebook thread about the plane crash that killed former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, “Just wish Sarah and Levy [sic] were on board.”

5. New Hampshire State Representative Timothy Horrigan replied the next day, “Well a dead Palin wd [sic] be even more dangerous than a live one … she is all about her myth & if she was dead she cldn’ t [sic] commit any more gaffes.”

6. What was it Obama said to incite Democrats to violence? Ah, yes: "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." (fund raiser in Philly, June 13, 2008)

7. Dr. John Holdren - and no, he's not an ELECTED official. He is Obama's appointed science advisor, and these are his beliefs, published in the book,"Ecoscience" which anyone can pick up and read:

1. Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
2. The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
3. Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
4. People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
5. A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.

Damn, if that's not advocating revolution and violence to accomplish political goals, I don't know what is. Not to mention that he's a total nutjob.

Environmentalism – What Has It Become? | Hawaii Reporter


I am not saying that the Republicans are any better. They probably aren't. In fact, I am sure we could sit here all night long and shoot ridiculous, assinine quotes from both parties back and forth.

The truth would be that most of the comments would be taken out of context and abused so much by the mainstream media and political whores out there, that their original intent may be virtually unfathonable through all the ********.

But the point is that both parties are chock full of corrupt, agenda-driven people who are concerned, first and foremost, with their own political careers, and care precious little about the day to day challenges of their constituents.

I say kill 'em all - let God sort 'em out.


JUST KIDDING!!!!!!!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think they are bat poop crazy, just as I think anyone who votes 100% along party lines is too.

I think that they are desperately trying to say anything that will get themselves elected. Unfortunately, these lousy politicians "said anything" but alienated themselves from *hopefully* their supporters and the rest of us.

I doubt very much that these ya-hoos really want armed revloution. They are just trying to get votes.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I think that they are desperately trying to say anything that will get themselves elected. Unfortunately, these lousy politicians "said anything" but alienated themselves from *hopefully* their supporters and the rest of us.

I doubt very much that these ya-hoos really want armed revloution. They are just trying to get votes.

While I agree with you on this, it make no sense to me why any candidate would have to pander to them. It is like preaching to the choir.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

While I agree with you on this, it make no sense to me why any candidate would have to pander to them. It is like preaching to the choir.

Yep.

Here's the thing, too... in context, this idiot is talking about armed resistence if people of his political persuasion loses the election.

OK, so you know you don't have popular support. And you're planning an armed resistence?

 

[Engyo]

Yep.

Here's the thing, too... in context, this idiot is talking about armed resistence if people of his political persuasion loses the election.

OK, so you know you don't have popular support. And you're planning an armed resistence?

That's the (Central) American way, isn't it?