NationStates Jolt Archive

"Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people -- we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country..."

"...people in Minnesota armed and dangerous..."

http://www.startribune.com/politics/41719957.html


"...At this point, the American people - it's like Thomas Jefferson said - A revolution every now and then is a good thing. We are at the point, Sean, of Revolution. And, by that, what I mean, and orderly revolution - where the people of this country wake up, and get up, and make a decision that this is NOT going to happen on their watch..."

"We can't let the Democrats achieve their ends, any longer."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGn1ruk7Xcs


So.

Is this even legal? Isn't there some kind of rule about government officials calling for violent revolution against elected presidents?

Michele Bachman is an object demonstration of why it was a fucking disaster when we closed all the publicly funded mental hospitals.

I'm still doing the whole "holy shit, I can't believe she said that" thing.

Can you imagine if someone had said something like this, I don't know... a year ago?

I think that things aren't at the boiling point yet, but I do think that something big, as in Revolution big, is going to happen within the next 10-20 years.

Is this even legal? Isn't there some kind of rule about government officials calling for violent revolution against elected presidents?
An orderly revolution; it is a metaphor sort of thing. I know, it is hard for some people to grasp, this whole "nonliteral speech"-thing, but it happens sometimes.

I think that things aren't at the boiling point yet, but I do think that something big, as in Revolution big, is going to happen within the next 10-20 years.

I'm willing to agree. However, I'm not calling for it... and I'm not an elected Representative calling for it.

That's the bit that's twisting my melon - you expect people on NSG to say that sort of thing from time to time, but even here - what she has said would have got her modded. But she's an elected Representative!

Meh...Her opinion, and/or goals, matter little to myself...

I'm willing to agree. However, I'm not calling for it... and I'm not an elected Representative calling for it.

That's the bit that's twisting my melon - you expect people on NSG to say that sort of thing from time to time, but even here - what she has said would have got her modded. But she's an elected Representative!

It's because we elect some real psychos. I blame it on the French.:tongue:

An orderly revolution; it is a metaphor sort of thing. I know, it is hard for some people to grasp, this whole "nonliteral speech"-thing, but it happens sometimes.

If it's not literal, why invoke Jefferson? He wasn't talking about placards, he was talking about killing people.

If it's not literal, why say she wants "people in Minnesota armed and dangerous... because we need to fight back".


The first set of statements I posted were from earlier than the second set - the 'orderly' part is maybe attempting to temper her speech a little, but I don't believe for a second that she was being non-literal.

This is the same person who wanted Obama supporters investigated for being un-American.

If she has explicitely called for violent revolution, I'm pretty sure she's breaking the law. If not, she's probably within her legal rights.

Either way though, she's a fool to say things like that which could easily be taken to encourage violence.

Meh...Her opinion, and/or goals, matter little to myself...

She's a fricking Representative. She's in CONGRESS! They SHOULD matter to you! Hell, this is why our whole system is falling apart, rife with corruption and incompetence, because of the sheer apathy enveloping our whole country.

Skall, it's nothing against you, you just happened to post the wrong thing at the wrong time.;)

If it's not literal, why invoke Jefferson? He wasn't talking about placards, he was talking about killing people.

If it's not literal, why say she wants "people in Minnesota armed and dangerous... because we need to fight back".

Most likely that is what she means, and she's just covering her ass by making sure that she can't be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt.":upyours:

This is the same person who wanted Obama supporters investigated for being un-American.

Perhaps she is another who feels that being "American" is using the law to supress any dissenting view points in the name of freedom?

And on the subject of Revolution in America...

See:
American Idol/various TV programing


The people of the USofA dont care enough to get a revolution going, and even if they did, it would consist of bitching on Talk Radio, and/or Blogging, or bitching on internet forums...

The populace just isnt going to get up and do anything....

I was saying we might need a revolution a year ago, and I'm still saying it now. I want a peaceful revolution, but I very much doubt the federal government will allow that because they're all trigger-happy.

She's a fricking Representative. She's in CONGRESS! They SHOULD matter to you! Hell, this is why our whole system is falling apart, rife with corruption and incompetence, because of the sheer apathy enveloping our whole country.

Skall, it's nothing against you, you just happened to post the wrong thing at the wrong time.;)

True, but, she's not my Representative...as well, I cant vote for, or against her...

therefore if i did care, itd be me getting worked up over something that I really cant do anything about...

And on the subject of Revolution in America...

See:
American Idol/various TV programing


The people of the USofA dont care enough to get a revolution going, and even if they did, it would consist of bitching on Talk Radio, and/or Blogging, or bitching on internet forums...

The populace just isnt going to get up and do anything....

You know, I wonder if its reached the point where the cliche of "Americans care more about American Idol than politics, they're so lazy and stupid," is equivalent to comparing people you don't like to Hitler. I mean, its so used, so cliche, and it proves absolutely nothing. Sorry to be so aggressive on this point, but this is a line that to me comes off as a talking point for the empty-minded.

She's a fricking Representative. She's in CONGRESS! They SHOULD matter to you! Hell, this is why our whole system is falling apart, rife with corruption and incompetence, because of the sheer apathy enveloping our whole country.


That's nothing. We had an MP here draw out a dagger in a televised session and publicly threaten anyone who dared question the special rights of his ethnic group.

I'll give the relatively easy to grant benefit of the doubt that she was being hyperbolic. She nutty enough with what she actually means that I don't think it's necessary to worry about what she implies "accidentally."

You know, I wonder if its reached the point where the cliche of "Americans care more about American Idol than politics, they're so lazy and stupid," is equivalent to comparing people you don't like to Hitler. I mean, its so used, so cliche, and it proves absolutely nothing. Sorry to be so aggressive on this point, but this is a line that to me comes off as a talking point for the empty-minded.

Well, I do know a few people who watch the show...they are the ones that refuse to watch news or educational programming...

So, I was actually talking about specific people...

But, cliche or no, it still gets the point across...

I'm going to stand against the wall ---- just in case.

That's nothing. We had an MP here draw out a dagger in a televised session and publicly threaten anyone who dared question the special rights of his ethnic group.

Dammit. Then it's happening everywhere.

By the way, what happened to that MP?

And on the subject of Revolution in America...

See:
American Idol/various TV programing


The people of the USofA dont care enough to get a revolution going, and even if they did, it would consist of bitching on Talk Radio, and/or Blogging, or bitching on internet forums...

The populace just isnt going to get up and do anything....

I agree that the bulk of the American populace probably isn't prepared to jump up and shoot... well, anyone. On this much, I agree.

What worries me, is that Bachmann speaks to a small but well-armed minority.

What worries me, is that I can't believe what she's doing is legal.

An orderly revolution; it is a metaphor sort of thing. I know, it is hard for some people to grasp, this whole "nonliteral speech"-thing, but it happens sometimes.
No, it isn't. Not when Bachman says it. This is the same woman who told Chris Matthews that she wished the media would conduct investigations into members of Congress to judge whether they were "pro-America" or "anti-America" and expose those who held "anti-American" views. Michele Bachman is the kind of rabid idiot who really does believe the rhetoric of the extreme right. The kind who yells "Kill him!" at political rallies. Yeah, she'll claim she was speaking figuratively when called on it, but what the words mean is what she means. "Orderly" is only a modifier of "revolution."

Dammit. Then it's happening everywhere.

By the way, what happened to that MP?

Oh nothing much. The head of the party just went "Well, we don't really think it's a bad thing he did. A little too exuberant on his part. Ha ha ha." Then he sicced the secret police on a couple of bloggers who did question the special rights as doing more harm than good.

Well, I do know a few people who watch the show...they are the ones that refuse to watch news or educational programming...

How many people? Enough to represent a meaningful statistic?

So, I was actually talking about specific people...

It doesn't sound that way to me. It sounds as if you think Americans as a whole are incapable of meaningful revolution because they fit a cliche of people who care more about American Idol/TV than politics.

"The people of the USofA don't care enough to get a revolution going..." A direct quote, and fairly explicite.

But, cliche or no, it still gets the point across...

Perhaps, but its a point of questionable validity.

I could easily use the enthusiasm over Obama, any number of protests, or even that fact that idiots like the woman quoted in the OP get elected to counter the argument that America is too politically apathetic to have a revolution. Or I could give a long list of historical examples, citing both historical causes of revolution such as economic crises, and America's long history of political violence.

All you have is a tired and insulting cliche based around the fact that a lot of Americans (and other people) watch stupid television programs. What the hell does that contribute to this discussion?

I would also like to point out that political ignorance is not the same as political apathy. And that political apathy rises and falls over time. It doesn't matter how retarded and lazy those American Idol fans are. If they get too poor not only to afford a TV but also to feed their families, things can get ugly.

Clearly this woman is nuts. The only thing the rest of us can do is to be armed and ready in case the people she's telling to be armed and ready actually buy into her static enough to do that.

Honestly, I think Hitler mk II is more likely than a revolution.

The only way there be a revolution is if people conclude their vote doesn't count. Even then it would probably have to be an order of magnitude worse that 1932 which is unlikely.

Might be one in japan.

Well, considering that I don't usually post in these threads becuase as soon as I express my political views they get the shit attacked out of them, I get called "stupid" in all senses of the word, my intelligence is questioned, etc.

I will say this however. It IS time for a revolution. The politicians in Washington; leftist, rightist, Democrat, Republican, Independent, etc. have lost touch with the people they represent. It is no longer a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. It has become a government of people who's sole intent is not to do what's best for the people who elected them, but what's best for their party and themselves.

I'm still doing the whole "holy shit, I can't believe she said that" thing.

Can you imagine if someone had said something like this, I don't know... a year ago?
People were calling Bush a Nazi throughout his presidency and a very small minority let the molotovs fly at the 2008 RNC. Nothing was done to the people saying shit. A few arrests were made when people actually did shit. To the best of my knowledge most charges were dropped due to a lack of evidence and I think there's only been something like 2 convictions.

Point is that people said a lot of crazy shit during the Bush years and the Clinton years and the Bush Sr. years and the Reagan years and the Carter years... but you can't be locked up in the United States for expressing seditious thoughts. You can be arrested and tried for going on a killing spree targeting government officials but speaking your mind is always legal. Except during the Roosevelt administration, especially if you were related to anyone of Japanese origin.

Well, considering that I don't usually post in these threads becuase as soon as I express my political views they get the shit attacked out of them, I get called "stupid" in all senses of the word, my intelligence is questioned, etc.

Hmm, I wonder why?

I will say this however. It IS time for a revolution. The politicians in Washington; leftist, rightist, Democrat, Republican, Independent, etc. have lost touch with the people they represent. It is no longer a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. It has become a government of people who's sole intent is not to do what's best for the people who elected them, but what's best for their party and themselves.

Oh, I see.

Ok, maybe you're not talking about a violent revolution, but in the context of this thread I doubt it. So, do you really believe it has reached the point where we should be advocating a course of action that could well bring the most powerful nation in the world to a state of permanent anarchy and kill thousands or millions?

If so, remember that your friends and family may end up among the body count, and that revolutionaries have a history of committing atrocities in the name of their ideals. But maybe your fine with that. In which case, you're a bastard.

Hmm, I wonder why?



Oh, I see.

Ok, maybe you're not talking about a violent revolution, but in the context of this thread I doubt it. So, do you really believe it has reached the point where we should be advocating a course of action that could well bring the most powerful nation in the world to a state of permanent anarchy and kill thousands or millions?

If so, remember that your friends and family may end up among the body count, and that revolutionaries have a history of committing atrocities in the name of their ideals. But maybe your fine with that. In which case, you're a bastard.
Not saying I agree with him, but...
which swept a thousand years of such villany away in one swift tidal-wave of blood — one: a settlement of that hoary debt in the proportion of half a drop of blood for each hogshead of it that had been pressed by slow tortures out of that people in the weary stretch of ten centuries of wrong and shame and misery the like of which was not to be mated but in hell. There were two "Reigns of Terror," if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the "horrors" of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror — that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
It sounds like he believes that a slightly milder form of this is being carried out from Washington. Of course, that's a whole other problem, but looking at it from that perspective, it's slightly more understandable.

OOC: Hence the reason I never post on these threads; because people such as yourself (Romulan) are far too stuck up to even remotely consider things with an open mind. I am not saying that I want a revolution. I am simply saying it's time for one to happen. I've put my two cents in, and am satisified. Good evening everyone!

I will say this however. It IS time for a revolution.

No. It's not. The fact remains, that for all the hysterical hand wringing about "they politicians don't care for us!", despite the current blips on the statistical radar, on the whole, American has as a general trend, become both more prosperous, more peaceful, and more representative of actual voting wills as time has gone on.

Taken as a whole, we are living in one of the most peaceful, most prosperous, and most free times in our nation's history

OOC: Hence the reason I never post on these threads; because people such as yourself are far too stuck up to even remotely consider things with an open mind. I've put my two cents in, and am satisified. Good evening everyone!

wait, let me make sure I understand this. Are you under the impression that because you have decided, through your good will, to grace us with your opinions, that we're supposed to agree with them?

Sorry, where do you think you are, exactly?

OOC: No, I clarified who it was pertaining too. And no, I do not expect you to agree with them, nor was I expecting a favorable reaction for the population on the board with them. I do expect you too, however, treat me as you would any other person, and not insult their character or intelligence with irrelevant personal attacks.

I was also talking to Romulan specifically. Went in an edited it, as I forgot to quote his speech.

America is nowhere near the levels of insecurity that tend to spur a revolution. Maybe in a few decades, but most certainly not now. Be it economic, territorial, religious or political....at least one, if not more, of those generally need to be at levels of insecurity far beyond what we have now.

OOC: Hence the reason I never post on these threads; because people such as yourself (Romulan) are far too stuck up to even remotely consider things with an open mind. I am not saying that I want a revolution. I am simply saying it's time for one to happen. I've put my two cents in, and am satisified. Good evening everyone!

Their's nothing stuck up about having a problem with blood running and bombs flying in American streets, especially when we've probably been far less democratic and prosperous at other times (the Depression, the Wilson Administration for example) , and their's no reason to believe we can't improve things peacefully.

And of course, I'm sure their's nothing stuck up about it if you refuse to consider peaceful solutions.:upyours: But you've "put your two cents in," so feel free to slink away rather than actually defend your position.

Who's saying a revolution can't be peaceful or diplomatic? I don't recall ever expressing that it had to be violent or bloody.

OOC: No, I clarified who it was pertaining too. And no, I do not expect you to agree with them, nor was I expecting a favorable reaction for the population on the board with them. I do expect you too, however, treat me as you would any other person, and not insult their character or intelligence with irrelevant personal attacks.

I don't care much about the poster, I care about the argument. And yours isn't one that's worth much consideration. As I said, taken as a whole, we are in a period of greater prosperity, peace, and freedom than at any point in our history.

An orderly revolution; it is a metaphor sort of thing. I know, it is hard for some people to grasp, this whole "nonliteral speech"-thing, but it happens sometimes.

I'd tend to agree, the rhetoric might have gotten overblown, but considering that at the end of the interview she encouraged listeners to contact their representatives in Congress and not to start hoarding guns and ammunition rhetoric is all it sounds like to me.

Well, to an extent I'd agree with you. The situation is all in the eye of the beholder. I live down here in Arizona (Need to update my location), and let me tell you; more than just a few people here share my views. In a way, we're already pretty much at war with Mexico and the Government sits on their hands and does nothing to stop the Illegal Immigrants from coming over the border. As this is about a Revolution however, I'm gonna leave it at that before I lure you off topic.

OOC

You're not in the role playing part of the forums, this is taken as a given.

Yea, I know. Was just thinking the same thing. Force of habit, I guess.

In a way, we're already pretty much at war with Mexico

No, we're not.

Do you live in Arizona?

Who's saying a revolution can't be peaceful or diplomatic? I don't recall ever expressing that it had to be violent or bloody.

Michele Bachmann mentioned 'armed and dangerous'.

She's have to do some pretty fancy dancing to convince me she meant something about being licked by kittens.

Do you live in Arizona?

no, but then again, I'm not given to emotive hyperbole and uber nationalist jingoism. So I'll call it a bit of a draw.

Michele Bachmann mentioned 'armed and dangerous'.

She's have to do some pretty fancy dancing to convince me she meant something about being licked by kittens.

It's obvious that she meant that Minnesota has a large amount of friendly kittens.:D

Snip.

And this is the woman who calls the Left UnAmerican, ladies and gentlemen!

Worse, she actually gets HEARD by some morons.

But fear not. After all, she's an isolated inc...

Fort Sumter.

Oh, right.

Ok. I wasn't talking about Michele Bachmann's speech, but about my own. Guess I misinterrupted what was being argued against me.

Ok. I wasn't talking about Michele Bachmann's speech, but about my own. Guess I misinterrupted what was being argued against me.

You're going to be judged by the company you keep.

If you say she's basically making the same argument as you, well, people are going to most likely take you at your word.

And this is the woman who calls the Left UnAmerican, ladies and gentlemen!

Worse, she actually gets HEARD by some morons.

But fear not. After all, she's an isolated inc...

Oh, right.

Exactly - you expect some pretty... out there... stuff, from NSGers - we're largely anonymous and we're not representing anyone but ourselves. So when someone says something crazy about secession... yeahyeah.

But, we're not talking about an unknown here. We're talking about an elected Representative. She KNOWS we know who she is.

Alright Neo Art. I accept your draw.

In all honesty though, it's chaos here in Phoenix. We've got our sheriff doing "crime sweeps," which is in essence giant door-to-door searches for illegal immigrants, armed bands of ex-Mexican Commandos and American Paramilitaries patrolling the border becuase we can't get enough funds to pay the Border Patrol, nor to maintain what equipment they have. National Guard got sent to the border for about a year, before they too were shipped off to Iraq/Afghanistan. I'm lucky to live outside the city itself, but even we see our fair share of it.


Oh, and yes. Grave, point taken. Thank you.

It's obvious that she meant that Minnesota has a large amount of friendly kittens.:D

That's some mighty fine footwork, there, partner. Let's see if yer shooting's as fancy as yer dancing.

:)

That's some mighty fine footwork, there, partner. Let's see if yer shooting's as fancy as yer dancing.

:)

I can honestly say I thought I'd never see you say that.:D

Well, to an extent I'd agree with you. The situation is all in the eye of the beholder. I live down here in Arizona (Need to update my location), and let me tell you; more than just a few people here share my views. In a way, we're already pretty much at war with Mexico and the Government sits on their hands and does nothing to stop the Illegal Immigrants from coming over the border. As this is about a Revolution however, I'm gonna leave it at that before I lure you off topic.

Let me guess, you're a big fan of Glen "sedition" Beck? If you want to know how I guessed, it was the "war with Mexico" crap.

Look, we are not at war with Mexico. The Mexican army is not invading America, and Mexican bombs are not falling on our cities. Their are a lot of problems with gang-related violence, but the gangs are the enemies of the Mexican government as well.

As for the illegal immigration, if I were in Mexico I'd want out too. Of course, their are a lot of problems related to illegal immigration, not least the exploitation of the immigrants themselves, but to describe the situation as being anything like a "war with Mexico" is melodrama from someone who probably has no idea of what war is actually like. Illegal immigration is not an invasion. Tell me when Mexican tanks are rolling into Phoenix.

Of course, I don't doubt that their are right-wingers who want a war with Mexico (for either nationalist or racist reasons, or both). I also remember hearing during the last election that one of the minor GOP candidates (Tancredo, I think) wanted to stop all immigration into the country. I think that if the economy continues to worsen, especially along side the violence on the border, a lot of people will be glad to have some brown-skinned foreigners to scapegoat, and we may very well see a GOP President sending the troops over the southern border, with or without justification. The last Depression helped give us Hitler and the Holocaust. Their are probably plenty of people who would be happy to use a new Depression and resentment over lost jobs as an excuse to establish a xenophobic, hypernationalist dictatorship. And I would not be surprised to see you in the front ranks.

Exactly - you expect some pretty... out there... stuff, from NSGers - we're largely anonymous and we're not representing anyone but ourselves. So when someone says something crazy about secession... yeahyeah.

But, we're not talking about an unknown here. We're talking about an elected Representative. She KNOWS we know who she is.

THOSE, mind you, were the people who claimed WE hate America.

I can honestly say I thought I'd never see you say that.:D

What can I say. I'm an enigma within a mystery within a ... like.. box or something. In a pie.

Um.

I am not a friend of Glen Beck. I have a faint idea who he is, but other than that, I do not know nor care who he is. I ask you this, Romulan. Do you live in Arizona? If you do not, then you have no idea how downplayed the situation is here. Illegal Immigration isn't even a major priority when you see or hear what's going on right at the border, uncensored and without the media twist.

I am not a friend of Glen Beck. I have a faint idea who he is, but other than that, I do not know nor care who he is. I ask you this, Romulan. Do you live in Arizona? If you do not, then you have no idea how downplayed the situation is here. Illegal Immigration isn't even a major priority when you see or hear what's going on right at the border, uncensored and without the media twist.

DUR DURKA DURR!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2fGl9587X8)

Alright Neo Art. I accept your draw.

In all honesty though, it's chaos here in Phoenix. We've got our sheriff doing "crime sweeps," which is in essence giant door-to-door searches for illegal immigrants,

Is that legal?

armed bands of ex-Mexican Commandos and American Paramilitaries patrolling the border becuase we can't get enough funds to pay the Border Patrol, nor to maintain what equipment they have. National Guard got sent to the border for about a year, before they too were shipped off to Iraq/Afghanistan. I'm lucky to live outside the city itself, but even we see our fair share of it.

Yeah, its a clusterfuck. Don't think I underestimate the seriousness of the problem. I think that the potential for escalation to the point of anarchy along the southern border puts the situation near Pakistan and Iran levels of seriousness when it comes to foreign policy.

The government is doing something though, at least last I heard. Specifically, I heard that troops being brought back from overseas are being sent to the southern boarder. I'll see if I can find a good source.

Do you live in Arizona? If you do not, then you have no idea how downplayed the situation is here. Illegal Immigration isn't even a major priority when you see or hear what's going on right at the border, uncensored and without the media twist.

Oh please. Instead of making vague accusations of censorship and alluding to the (highly original!) theory of Its A Media Conspiracy!!, maybe you could provide, you know, evidence to support your argument.

Just insisting that you know best because you're in Arizona (allegedly) is incredibly non-persuasive.

Well, the legality of it all is up for grabs. There's been a whole bunch of debate and controversy around it. Sheriff Joe Arpaio, if you're interested in pursuing it. Some say it is legal, others not.

As for what you said regarding the seriousness of the border, I have to agree. It's what the government is doing about it, that I don't. As you said, they are doing something, but that something is not simply not enough. Most of the time, it seems like the border itself is an afterthough in Washington. A few Border Patrol agents driving dusty 20-30 year old pickups can only go so far.

I am not a friend of Glen Beck. I have a faint idea who he is, but other than that, I do not know nor care who he is.

He's probably one of the worst of the crazy, paranoid, borderline-treason inciting right-wing commentators.

I ask you this, Romulan. Do you live in Arizona? If you do not, then you have no idea how downplayed the situation is here.

One can be informed on a situation to the degree that they can comment on it intelligently without having lived through it.

Illegal Immigration isn't even a major priority when you see or hear what's going on right at the border, uncensored and without the media twist.

Well, you brought up illegal immigration, didn't you? But I agree, the drugs and rampant gun violence are a bigger issue. I don't want to see Iraq on the southern border, which is where this is arguably headed right now.

That said, fear-mongering about a "war with Mexico" is not the solution. The solution requires avoiding war with, or in, Mexico. To do this, we need to support the Mexican government, increase security along the border, and possibly change drug laws to legalize pot and take away a lot of the drug cartel's business.

Well, the legality of it all is up for grabs. There's been a whole bunch of debate and controversy around it. Sheriff Joe Arpaio, if you're interested in pursuing it. Some say it is legal, others not.

As for what you said regarding the seriousness of the border, I have to agree. It's what the government is doing about it, that I don't. As you said, they are doing something, but that something is not simply not enough. Most of the time, it seems like the border itself is an afterthough in Washington. A few Border Patrol agents driving dusty 20-30 year old pickups can only go so far.

For God's sake, Obama has a lot of other things to worry about. Is the border a bigger issue than Iran, or Pakistan, or the Recession?

He's only just been elected. I think that given the multiple long-in-the-making crises that he has to deal with, he can hardly be expected to deal with everything in a few months. Certainly, his failiur to do so to your satisfaction is not grounds for revolution, violent or otherwise.

Nor will everything he does get equal media coverage. What do you actually know about his policies regarding the borders?

It's not the cartels so much, as it is their influence. In a way though, the only way to eliminiate or mitigate said influence is to either "take them out," or, as you said, legalize drugs. Alaska, if I remember correctly, legalized pot and saw their crime rate jump form something I believe around 5-6% to something in the range of 25-35% in the same time span. Hypothetically, and from a humorously speaking standpoint, imagine that occuring here in Phoenix. We'd be in for some fun times, let me tell you.

With increasing border security however, that would be easier had or given the US Government provide the BP with adequte funds. Yes, they were able to buy an APC with some grant money sometime last year, but that's only one; and there's a lot of hostile border to patrol.

For God's sake, Obama has a lot of other things to worry about. Is the border a bigger issue than Iran, or Pakistan, or the Recession?

He's only just been elected. I think that given the multiple long-in-the-making crises that he has to deal with, he can hardly be expected to deal with everything in a few months. Certainly, his failiur to do so to your satisfaction is not grounds for revolution, violent or otherwise.

Nor will everything he does get equal media coverage. What do you actually know about his policies regarding the borders?

I'm not blaming Obama, am I? I'm speaking of the Government as a whole. Even back when Bush was in office, the the Government still sat on their hands.

As for Obama's policies, I know that he; along with just about every other candidate at the time, wanted to ensure our border's integrity through various means, offers to "fix" our "broken" immigration system, and plans to have illegals pay a fine, require them to learn English, then go through the same processes as every other Immigrant is required to do.

It's not the cartels so much, as it is their influence. In a way though, the only way to eliminiate or mitigate said influence is to either "take them out," or, as you said, legalize drugs. Alaska, if I remember correctly, legalized pot and saw their crime rate jump form something I believe around 5-6% to something in the range of 25-35% in the same time span. Hypothetically, and from a humorously speaking standpoint, imagine that occuring here in Phoenix. We'd be in for some fun times, let me tell you.

One example, unsourced, proves nothing. Especially when you consider that other factors could have resulted in such an increase. And banning drugs hasn't worked, so why not try this? It would also keep a lot of minor drug offenders from having their lives fucked up, would result in fewer people going to prison and coming out hardened criminals, and would allow us to slash prison budgets (the money could even go to border security).

With increasing border security however, that would be easier had or given the US Government provide the BP with adequte funds. Yes, they were able to buy an APC with some grant money sometime last year, but that's only one; and there's a lot of hostile border to patrol.

Well, I don't think I want border security to become a sort of "second military." I don't like paramilitary police forces. But they should probably be better equipped.

However, its not like there's limitless money to throw around. Between the wars, the debts, healthcare, the bailouts, etc. When there's a massive debt, two wars, and a recession, some budgets get cut.

Ok, maybe you're not talking about a violent revolution, but in the context of this thread I doubt it. So, do you really believe it has reached the point where we should be advocating a course of action that could well bring the most powerful nation in the world to a state of permanent anarchy and kill thousands or millions?

If so, remember that your friends and family may end up among the body count, and that revolutionaries have a history of committing atrocities in the name of their ideals. But maybe your fine with that. In which case, you're a bastard.

I'd say he has a point...

Not enough to convince me but all too many politicians seem to care more about advancing themselves rather than listening to what the people they represent want.

I'm not blaming Obama, am I? I'm speaking of the Government as a whole. Even back when Bush was in office, the the Government still sat on their hands.

Ok, sorry if I jumped to unfounded assumptions.

However, Obama has popularity and his party has a majority in both houses. And if the Republicans try to block attempts at improving border security, he can fucking nail them with it. He could fix at least some of these problems. But he needs time.

As for Obama's policies, I know that he; along with just about every other candidate at the time, wanted to ensure our border's integrity through various means, offers to "fix" our "broken" immigration system, and plans to have illegals pay a fine, require them to learn English, then go through the same processes as every other Immigrant is required to do.

Pity that such things have taken a backseat during this recession. But its probably nessissary to some extent.

Well, I don't think I want border security to become a sort of "second military." I don't like paramilitary police forces. But they should probably be better equipped.

Yea, that's a given. When the "Coyotes" who get these Immigrants across end up carrying AKs and fire them off at Border Patrol like pop-pistols, then you know you need something a little bit tougher than an old, beatup pick-up truck.

However, its not like there's limitless money to throw around. Between the wars, the debts, healthcare, the bailouts, etc. When there's a massive debt, two wars, and a recession, some budgets get cut.

No kidding. You and me both on that one.

Well, thanks for the chat, but I'm off to bed. Need to get up early and play hockey, as well as prepare for my mother's garage sale tommorrow. Man, I hate slave labor, even when you don't even live with'um anymore. Anyways, take care and have a good night or day or whatever.

I'd say he has a point

Maybe if he was talking about a non-violent revolution. But, while he hasn't explicitely stated otherwise from what I've read, I doubt that was the case.

Really, when you consider everything else America has been through, and how comparatively good things still are, I don't know how you can rationally and reasonably conclude that the situation warrants the unimaginable horrors of a violent revolution tearing through the world's most powerful (nuclear) country.

Maybe if he was talking about a non-violent revolution. But, while he hasn't explicitely stated otherwise from what I've read, I doubt that was the case.
Explain to me how a non-violent revolution would work?
Really, when you consider everything else America has been through, and how comparatively good things still are, I don't know how you can rationally and reasonably conclude that the situation warrants the unimaginable horrors of a violent revolution tearing through the world's most powerful (nuclear) country.
It depends... Am I leading the revolution?

Explain to me how a non-violent revolution would work?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolu%C3%A7%C3%A3o_dos_Cravos

We're not there yet.

Within a decade or two, if things continue the way the are, we'll see shit hit the fan. Maybe even sooner.

People were calling Bush a Nazi throughout his presidency But none of them were elected officials in VIP positions.

and a very small minority let the molotovs fly at the 2008 RNC. They were the black Bloc, it's what they do.


It's against the law to be in the government if you have supported or do support a violent overthrow of the government, it's a throwback from the Red Scare. I think they still do the testing on it.

She just advocated it, kick her ass out.

Just like the Army guys who are still shouting "Usrper".

Kick them all out.

Hah, if only it were just the Democrats...we've allowed our government to grow so large that it has its hands in everything, and its grip only continues to tighten as successive regimes feel fit to attack one liberty or another, usually under the pretext of the "greater good" or "national security" or whatever other bullshit buzzwords they decide to use to justify taking away my rights. People seem to forget that freedom is hard to get but easy to lose.

I work hard, spend my money responsibly, and am fully aware of the consequences of my actions. I can't for the life of me see why my hard-earned money and hard-earned effort have to be siphoned away to pay for some pointless wars of aggression in some backward shithole or poured down the drain of corporate welfare and social programs that do nothing but perpetrate the very problems they're supposed to address. Of course, the truth is that none of the insiders really give a shit about eliminating these problems...if we eliminated poverty, or terrorism, or unemployment, or anything else there would be a far reduced need for the government's meddling hand. It's sort of like how pharmaceutical firms prefer treatments to cures...cures end the disease, and ending the disease ends most or all of its business. Personally, I think we need to impose strict, non-negotiable term limits on elected officials. The President can live with them so I see no reason why they shouldn't be applied to Congress. It would be the first step towards eliminating the Congressional parasites that stifle progress and drain away government resources from where they are needed to pet projects whose existence is solely contingent on winning votes. If this country abandons its principles and trades its freedom for the imprisoning safety of the nanny state, quite frankly it deserves to fail and deserves to be wiped off the face of the Earth.

Now, that being said, I have some faith that Obama might be able to reverse or slow the spread of the infestation but it's contingent on whether or not he can overcome his own party, let alone the Republicans. He definitely needs to establish fiscal responsibility... deficits are insidious because they eliminate any remaining accountability. It's not realistic or easy to understand the economic ramifications of rampant deficits, so it's far easier to pass them off on the American people...after all, in the short term we can just issue an endless supply of bonds to cover expenses.

It's the charge card with no limit...too bad the balance will be due in full at some point in the future.

Of course, there's also the little fact that she never actually advocated a violent revolution against anything...you've got to be pretty goddamn stupid to interpret what she's saying as a violation of the Smith Act. It's as puerile and as much a waste of time as claiming Ron Paul was advocating violent revolution through his political campaign. So, a given plan is a bad idea in the opinion of a particular person and she uses clearly metaphorical language to express the fact that those on her side should be adamant about the issue and fight hard to keep it from being imposed upon them.

I mean, a revolution based on opposition to a cap-and-trade system? Seriously now, think about that one a little... Regardless, if Bush supporters had tried to purge people in the Democratic Party by selectively sifting through their statements like this, the uproar and righteous anger would have been almost palpable.

It's the charge card with no limit...too bad the balance will be due in full at some point in the future.

What surprises me is that people seem to imagine is that balance due in full part is still a long way off. The average duration of US gov. debt is 4.3 years. Right now it can still mostly be punted off at low interest rates because there is a large indirect bid from foreign central banks. But with trade flows collapsing/reversing the demand is dropping while at the same time fresh supply is exploding onto the market.

Eventually there is going to be a bond market dislocation. I'm not saying that US debt will trade at distress levels, but I don't think 5 or 6% on the ten year is out of the question - I figure that is about the level that will pull domestic money to cover, maybe a little less. Of course that will roach just about every other asset class as money runs into it.

This is why I say it is inevitable that interest rates will rise, QE notwithstanding. You just can't run 10% deficits and expect otherwise. We are not japan.

I mean, a revolution based on opposition to a cap-and-trade system? Seriously now, think about that one a little...
I have already stated earlier that I more or less agree with you...but as Bachman herself pointed out, we did have a revolution over a stamp tax...

Regardless, if Bush supporters had tried to purge people in the Democratic Party by selectively sifting through their statements like this, the uproar and righteous anger would have been almost palpable.
Well, when they fired attorneys that wouldn't selectively go after members of the Democratic Party the righteous anger was pretty palpable, so I guess you're right...kinda...

I was saying we might need a revolution a year ago, and I'm still saying it now. I want a peaceful revolution, but I very much doubt the federal government will allow that because they're all trigger-happy.

^ This.

I agree that the bulk of the American populace probably isn't prepared to jump up and shoot... well, anyone.

Perhaps a bit paranoid but...

Even if the general population isn’t ready for a revolution, might a revolution not be forced?

If a militia group started an armed march on Washington, what could the President do? Let them march all the way to the White House brandishing shotguns? Or ask the army to stop them? What would happen if shots were fired? The army would have been attacked by “rebels” and the militia groups would have ample evidence that the “oppressive government” was out to get them.

If militia groups all over the country marched on the Capital, could the rest of the country really ignore it?

Perhaps a bit paranoid but...

Even if the general population isn’t ready for a revolution, might a revolution not be forced?

If a militia group started an armed march on Washington, what could the President do? Let them march all the way to the White House brandishing shotguns? Or ask the army to stop them? What would happen if shots were fired? The army would have been attacked by “rebels” and the militia groups would have ample evidence that the “oppressive government” was out to get them.

If militia groups all over the country marched on the Capital, could the rest of the country really ignore it?

If they shot first, and if everyone knew it, then I doubt they'd get much additional sympathy. If anything, most people would be scared and want the government to protect them from the violence, I think. Its one thing to bitch about the government. But I think most people would be frightened of the implications if blood was actually in the streets.

Is this even legal? Isn't there some kind of rule about government officials calling for violent revolution against elected presidents?

Dunno about the US, but in Italy it would be filed under:
"treason", "perjury", "attempt against the unity of the Country", "ideological falsehood", "attempt against the constitutional form of the State", "attempt against the state of peace".

Anyway, this is when we scream "FOOOORRRRT SUUUUMMMTEEEERRRRR!", right?

Explain to me how a non-violent revolution would work?

I believe in the US we call them "elections."

Or at least, one would think so from listening to Michele Bachman rant about her dreams and hallucinations. She, Glen Beck, and the rest of the rightwing fringe nutters (and of course she's the worst because she actually got into the government (wtf?)) all carry on as if the current administration came in by coup somehow and are literally destroying the country (maybe with hammers?) as we speak. They talk about the new WH admin as if it made up of foreign invaders put into power by Quisling traitors in America's midst in a non-violent revolution which they want Real America (tm) to fight against.

Which I guess, in revolution-speak, would make them "counter-revolutionaries."

Of course, considering that the US is a revolutionary nation founded by revolution, and considering the stated principles of that revolution, and considering the vast difference between those revolutionary principles and what Bachman et al. advocate socially and politically, I've been calling them "counter-revolutionaries" for years.

It has not been a compliment.

until ms bachman spells out just what her revolution would fight for she is skirting the laws against sedition. she barely won her last election so she is firing up her nutcase base to get them excited about the job she is doing.

she needs to stop using this revolution talk before someone takes her seriously and starts shooting. thats what nutty people DO. its irresponsible to egg them on. should someone start shooting on her "advice" she wont end up in jail but it would be another big fat nail in the republican coffin.

Of course, there's also the little fact that she never actually advocated a violent revolution against anything...you've got to be pretty goddamn stupid to interpret what she's saying as a violation of the Smith Act. It's as puerile and as much a waste of time as claiming Ron Paul was advocating violent revolution through his political campaign. So, a given plan is a bad idea in the opinion of a particular person and she uses clearly metaphorical language to express the fact that those on her side should be adamant about the issue and fight hard to keep it from being imposed upon them.

I mean, a revolution based on opposition to a cap-and-trade system? Seriously now, think about that one a little... Regardless, if Bush supporters had tried to purge people in the Democratic Party by selectively sifting through their statements like this, the uproar and righteous anger would have been almost palpable.
I admit that the OP's rhetoric is a little alarmist and that no literal arrangements are being made to organize an overthrow of the US government at this time. His words do suggest that what could happen already has, which it hasn't.

However, I think it is extremely unwise to dismiss what Bachman did as mere political play-acting.

Her words are incendiary to a degree that is beyond the pale of acceptable political discourse. Her attacks against not just Obama but all of her fellow Congress members are personal and vicious. She accuses them all of treason and sabotage, willy-nilly. She accuses them of having associations with presumed enemies of the state. She accuses them of conspiracy. She emphatically encourages US citizens to take direct action to "stop" them.

And she does all of this, repeatedly, in media venues, especially radio, that have an unfiltered and unmonitored audience, in a country full of racists, separatists, conspiracy believers, and people with mental illnesses and access to guns.

Will you be laughing off Bachman's nonsense as mere hyperbole if some conspiracy nutter does respond to what she says by attempting to shoot the president or bomb the Capitol? Or if some extremist McVeigh-type militia does ramp up domestic terrorism, citing her statements as support for their agenda?

She is a public official. She has an obligation of duty to the pubic to behave in a responsible manner. She is doing the opposite of that.

She should be publicly censured by the Congress and her words condemned in the strongest possible manner. She should be taken aside by her party leaders and told to shut the fuck up or say goodbye to re-election. And if it were up to me, there would be a few people in DC who would be able to sue her personally for slander.

Bitch needs to learn where the line is drawn.

Well, the legality of it all is up for grabs. There's been a whole bunch of debate and controversy around it. Sheriff Joe Arpaio, if you're interested in pursuing it. Some say it is legal, others not.

Some people say it's legal. It's blatantly not legal, which is why Arpaio is getting investigated.

How many people? Enough to represent a meaningful statistic?

Youd be surprised



It doesn't sound that way to me. It sounds as if you think Americans as a whole are incapable of meaningful revolution because they fit a cliche of people who care more about American Idol/TV than politics.

"The people of the USofA don't care enough to get a revolution going..." A direct quote, and fairly explicite.
And, the problem with Cliches are that they are usually based in some truth...




Perhaps, but its a point of questionable validity.

I could easily use the enthusiasm over Obama, any number of protests, or even that fact that idiots like the woman quoted in the OP get elected to counter the argument that America is too politically apathetic to have a revolution.
I would say that the hype over Obama and many of those protests are a product of people that dont pay attention to many things around them, being easily manipulated...

I am an Obama supporter and I can see this happening...

Or I could give a long list of historical examples, citing both historical causes of revolution such as economic crises, and America's long history of political violence.

You could of course, but, historical sources, are, what I like to call, Historical, as in, not the present, as in, no bearing on the current situation...

All you have is a tired and insulting cliche based around the fact that a lot of Americans (and other people) watch stupid television programs. What the hell does that contribute to this discussion?

The fact that those people are not about to enter any revolution any time soon...

Im not sure how you could miss its relevancy to be honest...

until ms bachman spells out just what her revolution would fight for she is skirting the laws against sedition. she barely won her last election so she is firing up her nutcase base to get them excited about the job she is doing.

she needs to stop using this revolution talk before someone takes her seriously and starts shooting. thats what nutty people DO. its irresponsible to egg them on. should someone start shooting on her "advice" she wont end up in jail but it would be another big fat nail in the republican coffin.

In that case, let them. The sooner that damn party dies, the better.

The hilarious thing is she thinks that the revolution is coming from the right.

The hilarious thing is she thinks that the revolution is coming from the right.

Let her have her delusions. When she wakes up, her party will be an afterthought, her views will be scorned and her chances of ever obtaining power again will be zero. If her reaction to these facts is filmed, I want it.

Let her have her delusions. When she wakes up, her party will be an afterthought, her views will be scorned and her chances of ever obtaining power again will be zero. If her reaction to these facts is filmed, I want it.

We can dream...A Country can Dream...

If she has explicitely called for violent revolution, I'm pretty sure she's breaking the law. If not, she's probably within her legal rights.

Either way though, she's a fool to say things like that which could easily be taken to encourage violence.

She's a fricking Representative. She's in CONGRESS! They SHOULD matter to you! Hell, this is why our whole system is falling apart, rife with corruption and incompetence, because of the sheer apathy enveloping our whole country.

Skall, it's nothing against you, you just happened to post the wrong thing at the wrong time.;)

Most likely that is what she means, and she's just covering her ass by making sure that she can't be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt.":upyours:



Perhaps she is another who feels that being "American" is using the law to supress any dissenting view points in the name of freedom?

No, it isn't. Not when Bachman says it. This is the same woman who told Chris Matthews that she wished the media would conduct investigations into members of Congress to judge whether they were "pro-America" or "anti-America" and expose those who held "anti-American" views. Michele Bachman is the kind of rabid idiot who really does believe the rhetoric of the extreme right. The kind who yells "Kill him!" at political rallies. Yeah, she'll claim she was speaking figuratively when called on it, but what the words mean is what she means. "Orderly" is only a modifier of "revolution."

Well, she better hope and pray that her "armed and dangerous Minnesotans" don't open fire on anyone, because it'd probably become very very uncomfortable for her after that.

Perhaps a bit paranoid but...

Even if the general population isn’t ready for a revolution, might a revolution not be forced?

If a militia group started an armed march on Washington, what could the President do? Let them march all the way to the White House brandishing shotguns? Or ask the army to stop them? What would happen if shots were fired? The army would have been attacked by “rebels” and the militia groups would have ample evidence that the “oppressive government” was out to get them.

If militia groups all over the country marched on the Capital, could the rest of the country really ignore it?
they would be stopped by the police or the national guard (if required), arrested and tried for a variety of crimes.

You wish. Judeo-Christian ethics have been around for thousands of years.

Well, she better hope and pray that her "armed and dangerous Minnesotans" don't open fire on anyone, because it'd probably become very very uncomfortable for her after that.

I, on the other hand, hope and pray her "armed and dangerous Minnesotans" DO open fire on a Democrat, missing and hitting HER, but not killing her; rather, making her quadraplegic and making it patent in TV that her people were after the Democrat, prompting her impeachment and weakening of the accursed GOP, all the while, she, paralyzed and in pain, can only watch.

But that's because I'm not as nice a person as you. ^_^

You wish. Judeo-Christian ethics have been around for thousands of years.

1- I am God.

2- That statement means nothing to the issue at hand.

3- Greek Polytheist ethics were around way longer before that. Fat lod of good it did them.

1- I am God.

2- That statement means nothing to the issue at hand.

3- Greek Polytheist ethics were around way longer before that. Fat lod of good it did them.

Loki destroys all in the end anyway, laughing maniacally, :(

The only time weapons were sucessfully used to change an election was the 1946 Battle of Athens (AKA the McMinn County War) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946))when a bunch of former WWII vets stole from the National Guard Arsenal and assaulted the Corrupt Local police with Submachine guns, Military Rifles, and Explosives for refusing to allow a fair election.

It succeeded only because the local Police already become infamous for it's corruption in the past years and the entire population supported the actions. So when they were kicked out they found little support from the rest of the country, the governer thought about mobilization but decided that ordering WWII Vets to shoot fellow WWII Vets would be a bad idea.

Jesus Christ.

You know what?

I cannot help but notice that conservatives talk a lot about democracy, but, when it elects someone they don't like, talk about subverting it then and there.

QED:

- Coups throughout South America, overthrowing elected leaders.
- Chavez.
- Talking about overthrowing Lula here militarily if he won (Washington Times, I hope it burns to ashes with its journalists inside).

And now this, in their own country.

Some pro-democracy people, these conservatives, eh?

People were calling Bush a Nazi throughout his presidency and a very small minority let the molotovs fly at the 2008 RNC. Nothing was done to the people saying shit. A few arrests were made when people actually did shit. To the best of my knowledge most charges were dropped due to a lack of evidence and I think there's only been something like 2 convictions.

Yeah, but none of them were elected officials. Your defense of the representative in question's statements has to be filtered through the fact tat you probably voted for her.

Except during the Roosevelt administration, especially if you were related to anyone of Japanese origin.

You really think that this was the first time that happened, dont you?

You know what?

I cannot help but notice that conservatives talk a lot about democracy, but, when it elects someone they don't like, talk about subverting it then and there.

QED:

- Coups throughout South America, overthrowing elected leaders.
- Chavez.
- Talking about overthrowing Lula here militarily if he won (Washington Times, I hope it burns to ashes with its journalists inside).

And now this, in their own country.

Some pro-democracy people, these conservatives, eh?

They like Democracy as long as nothing changes or progresses...I.E as long as they are in control, lol...

You know what?

I cannot help but notice that conservatives talk a lot about democracy, but, when it elects someone they don't like, talk about subverting it then and there.

QED:

- Coups throughout South America, overthrowing elected leaders.
- Chavez.
- Talking about overthrowing Lula here militarily if he won (Washington Times, I hope it burns to ashes with its journalists inside).

And now this, in their own country.

Some pro-democracy people, these conservatives, eh?

No shit. The Republican party is only about freedom when its Christian. Theyre only about democracy when their guy is in charge. Theyre only about fiscal responsibility when it comes to social programs and programs that arent military or tax cuts for the rich related. Theyre only about free speech when you arent critisizing them or their god. Theyre only about personal responsibility when it isnt them that has to be responsible.

Theyre the biggest bunch of hyprocrits and intellectually dishonest liars in America.

You get the point.

She is a public official. She has an obligation of duty to the pubic to behave in a responsible manner. She is doing the opposite of that.

She should be publicly censured by the Congress and her words condemned in the strongest possible manner. She should be taken aside by her party leaders and told to shut the fuck up or say goodbye to re-election. And if it were up to me, there would be a few people in DC who would be able to sue her personally for slandern.

Yeah, but there are plenty of people in there that ramble off on embarassing, irresponsible shit, from inept clowns like Charles Rangel and Dennis Kucinich to the mentally unstable Ron Paul or everyone's favorite homophobe (former Senator) Dick Santorum. Frankly, the truth is that these kind of irresponsible remarks and waste-of-time legislation drain our system of time and money that could be better spent elsewhere.

Her remarks are pretty mild compared to some of the stuff uttered in years past.

Her remarks are pretty mild compared to some of the stuff uttered in years past.
How is implying that the government should be overthrown "Minor"?

Yeah, but there are plenty of people in there that ramble off on embarassing, irresponsible shit, from inept clowns like Charles Rangel and Dennis Kucinich to the mentally unstable Ron Paul or everyone's favorite homophobe (former Senator) Dick Santorum. Frankly, the truth is that these kind of irresponsible remarks and waste-of-time legislation drain our system of time and money that could be better spent elsewhere.

Her remarks are pretty mild compared to some of the stuff uttered in years past.

Im sure you can show me where any of the above mentioned have called for revolution against a legitimitally elected government?

Im sure you can show me where any of the above mentioned have called for revolution against a legitimitally elected government?

Or, y'know, something that even BEGINS to look like it might one day be equivalent to it.

And, by the way, something not uttered by a Republican - Rick Santorum (motherfucking shit, I share a birthday with that idiot!) isn't on OUR side, y'know.

My dad voted for her simply because she's a foster mom and that my parents used to run a foster care home.

What an asinine reason to vote for a nut job. :mad:

My dad voted for her simply because she's a foster mom and that my parents used to run a foster care home.

What an asinine reason to vote for a nut job. :mad:

Sorry to hear that, TPE.

Ill be honest, every time I look at this thread, it makes me think of this:

http://flowtv.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/image-2-am-revolution-truck.jpg

How is implying that the government should be overthrown "Minor"?

I want you to show me where she directly and unequivocally states that she advocates a violent revolution against the government of the United States.

I want you to show me where she directly and unequivocally states that she advocates a violent revolution against the government of the United States.

She said there needs to be a revolution and said "watch out, we're armed and dangerous!"

Its obvious what she is saying. Denying it is either playing dumb or being an apologist.

She said there needs to be a revolution and said "watch out, we're armed and dangerous!"

Its obvious what she is saying. Denying it is either playing dumb or being an apologist.

And that was AFTER calling for HUAC-style investigations on people.

When is that bitch gonna die slowly and painfully?

When is that bitch gonna die slowly and painfully?

Youre so quick to surrender the moral highground.

Youre so quick to surrender the moral highground.

Holding it is somewhat difficult with opponents like her. -_-

Edit: Hell, it's hard to hold with most Republicans, really: These are people who call for violent overthrow of any democratic regime they disagree with in the same breath in which they call for forced democracy, and that including their own country in the same breath in which they call their opponents anti-American. Hell!

Holding it is somewhat difficult with opponents like her. -_-

Whilst you may not hold the moral high ground, she's a few miles underground.

She said there needs to be a revolution and said "watch out, we're armed and dangerous!"

Its obvious what she is saying. Denying it is either playing dumb or being an apologist.

So a political revolution that advocates kicking Democratic officials out of office and replacing them with Republicans is against the law now? All I got from this is that she wants people to rise up and fight back against this legislation and to get the Democrats out of office in order to prevent it from being implemented.

I mean, if you interpret "people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back" as meaning anything else besides being politically active and ready to fight against this law, you're really reaching for straws in an attempt to purge her from office. It's kind of sad that people would bitch about the Patriot Act and then support implementing provisions that are the brainchild of WWII, McCarthy and the HUAC as a way of purging political opponents.

Whilst you may not hold the moral high ground, she's a few miles underground.

Wait, are you really someone other than ME arguing that even wishing those things on her I AM still better than the bitch? :p

HUAC

Oh, no, you FUCKING didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Bachmann#Calling_for_the_investigation_of_members_of_Congress

You don't get to use HUAC when defending HER.

Wait, are you really someone other than ME arguing that even wishing those things on her I AM still better than the bitch? :p

She's calling for the removal of democracy, and armed revolution in, one of the greatest countries on Earth. You can't be much further down the moral scale than that.

She's calling for the removal of democracy, and armed revolution in, one of the greatest countries on Earth. You can't be much further down the moral scale than that.

Awwww...I didnt know you cared, :fluffle:

Oh, no, you FUCKING didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Bachmann#Calling_for_the_investigation_of_members_of_Congress

You don't get to use HUAC when defending HER.

So, rather than hold the moral high ground and fight against her authoritarian scare tactics, you're going to do the exact same thing? How is it okay for one side to do it but the other not to; of course I know the answer is that one side fits your political views while the other doesn't, so it's okay to trample the Constitution and to impose political witch hunts as long as the people doing the hunting agree with you.

Talk about the revolution betrayed...I figured the Democrats might actually bring about some good changes, but the reaction of people to this just reinforces the clearly SSDD politics that have been the norm for a long time.

She's calling for the removal of democracy, and armed revolution in, one of the greatest countries on Earth. You can't be much further down the moral scale than that.

It's precisely the way I feel about those who would say the same regarding the coup here.

She's calling for the removal of democracy, and armed revolution in, one of the greatest countries on Earth. You can't be much further down the moral scale than that.

I want to see where she calls for either of those. Specific, unequivocal and completely non-metaphorical quotes.

Awwww...I didnt know you cared, :fluffle:

When you're not shooting each other, or violating the sovereignty of other countries, I love you guys. :fluffle:

So, rather than hold the moral high ground and fight against her authoritarian scare tactics, you're going to do the exact same thing?

It's what she wishes, is it not? Let's grant it.

It's what she wishes, is it not? Let's grant it.

Well, then I guess the truth is that America will continue to see its civil liberties erode under the Democrats...talk about change we can believe in.

Well, then I guess the truth is that America will continue to see its civil liberties erode under the Democrats...talk about change we can believe in.

I'm pretty sure the most liberal country doesn't have elected representatives call for the violent overthrowing of its political system unpunished.

When you're not shooting each other, or violating the sovereignty of other countries, I love you guys. :fluffle:

oh, so you actually hate us, IS THAT IT!!!?

I see how it is, lol...

I'm pretty sure the most liberal country doesn't have elected representatives call for the violent overthrowing of its political system unpunished.

Nobody has yet shown me the unequivocal quote calling for violent revolution. That's because it doesn't exist.

Nobody has yet shown me the unequivocal quote calling for violent revolution. That's because it doesn't exist.

So which is it? Apologist or playing dumb?

Originally Posted by Michele Bachmann
"...At this point, the American people - it's like Thomas Jefferson said - A revolution every now and then is a good thing. We are at the point, Sean, of Revolution. And, by that, what I mean, and orderly revolution - where the people of this country wake up, and get up, and make a decision that this is NOT going to happen on their watch..."

"We can't let the Democrats achieve their ends, any longer.

While she says "Orderly", it would seem this statement contradicts that statement of "Orderly"...

Originally Posted by Michele Bachmann
"Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people -- we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country..."

"...people in Minnesota armed and dangerous..."

"Fight back hard", "Armed and Dangerous", "We are at the point of Revolution"...Sounds like fightin words to me, friend...

Man, the republicans have been extremely whiny lately. I guess they're hit hard by PES and the lack of visible republican leadership, and feel that whining is all they've got.

That's how I view this. Attention-whoring and whining.

I was going to do some kind of ridiculous, over-dramatic, absurd parody of conservatism in response to this...

And then the lady says that she, as a Republican representative in the US government, considers herself "a foreign correspondent reporting from behind enemy lines".

She quotes Reagan that "America is the last great hope of mankind". And Hannity says "The last great hope of man on this Earth!"

She talks about how Obama is going to destroy the economy.

I'm ready to support a global currency with a goat's head on one side and a gay wedding on the other just to hear how this woman would respond.

I'm ready to support a global currency with a goat's head on one side and a gay wedding on the other just to hear how this woman would respond.

Not a goat's head. A hammer and sickle. If there's one thing the Republican crazies hate more than teh ghey it's teh PINKO COMMIES!!!11!!1!

So which is it? Apologist or playing dumb?

If you're going to get somebody under the Smith Act, you've got to have pretty strong, unequivocal evidence, certainly stronger than "I don't like her so I'm going to take her statement as literally as possible". Besides, do you really think you'd gain any points with the American people for a move like that? If anything, it would just hurt the Democrats by showing them to be no different than their corrupt and power-hungry predecessors.

And then the lady says that she, as a Republican representative in the US government, considers herself "a foreign correspondent reporting from behind enemy lines".
Don't you know that all Democrats want to destroy America? And it's been so long since the Republicans had any power to do anything in the US...


She talks about how Obama is going to destroy the economy.
Yeah. Only way to save the economy is to BRING BACK BUSH!!


Ugh... I just threw up in my mouth.
At least it wasn't yours!

It's what she wishes, is it not? Let's grant it.

It's not that I hate fascism, I just hate her version of fascism.

It's not that I hate fascism, I just hate her version of fascism.

Again. Not Fascism to remove from a position of power a person that wants to overthrow the system.

So, rather than hold the moral high ground and fight against her authoritarian scare tactics, you're going to do the exact same thing? Yes.
Moral High ground= Sit back and take it while whining.
Yeah that's worked out real well.

How is it okay for one side to do it but the other not to; Provide any citation of a Democratic Congressman\Woman ever saying people should be "Armed and Dangerous" to fight Bush's policies.

of course I know the answer is that one side fits your political views while the other doesn't, so it's okay to trample the Constitution and to impose political witch hunts as long as the people doing the hunting agree with you. If this is a "Witch Hunt" then the witch turned herself in long before the search party got together.



Talk about the revolution betrayed...I figured the Democrats might actually bring about some good changes, but the reaction of people to this just reinforces the clearly SSDD politics that have been the norm for a long time. Sounds more like that you mean "It's okay if WE imply you are traitors but it's not okay if you do it."(Even if the person is outright stating treason)

Again. Not Fascism to remove from a position of power a person that wants to overthrow the system.

Yes. The system must survive. At all costs.

Hmm. I hope not. Revolutions in history tend to not be civilized, and usually after them the country is in shambles. America got better after everything that happened because of good leadership.

Look at what happened to France- crazy ogliarchy in charge killing whoever could potentially be against them. It had a lot of revolutions after that, too. (that was pretty much the point of Les Miserables.)

Russia- Haha, yeah right. Let's try to avoid THAT.

Then again, those were all revolutions for a more progressive government, so I don't know. I really hope it doesn't come to this, and I doubt it will. But we'll see.

Yeah, but there are plenty of people in there that ramble off on embarassing, irresponsible shit, from inept clowns like Charles Rangel and Dennis Kucinich to the mentally unstable Ron Paul or everyone's favorite homophobe (former Senator) Dick Santorum. Frankly, the truth is that these kind of irresponsible remarks and waste-of-time legislation drain our system of time and money that could be better spent elsewhere.

Her remarks are pretty mild compared to some of the stuff uttered in years past.
Bullshit. I challenge you to show me quotes of Rangel or Kucinich saying anything that could in anyway be taken as even an indirect call to arms against a sitting president and Congress. Even nutty Ron Paul and "Which Way Out Of This Closet?" Santorum have never said anything about their fellow Congresspeople being "dangerous people" who hold "anti-American views" and must be stopped by people "rising up," "armed and dangerous," etc.

Your attempt to equivocate Bachman's grossly out-of-line remarks is pathetic.

I want you to show me where she directly and unequivocally states that she advocates a violent revolution against the government of the United States.
I would like you to show us where you've been bothering to read the thread.

If you had been reading it, you would know that exactly what is wrong with her remarks has been addressed at length already.

Claims that she didn't use magic word <insert term> so voila! everything she said is A-OK are a tactic of those with no defenses left for their argument.

Yes. The system must survive. At all costs.

:rolleyes:

Quit playing dumb. She's calling for overthrowing a democratically elected leader because she doesn't like him. That's all.

It's kind of sad that people would bitch about the Patriot Act and then support implementing provisions that are the brainchild of WWII, McCarthy and the HUAC as a way of purging political opponents.
No, seriously, this is just TOO hypocritical. Do you even know who Michele Bachman is or what she has said and done in her career? If you did know, then typing that should have made you vomit.

And let me tell you wretched pus-bubbles on an infected horse wang something else: whether we agree on this Head Start funding proposal or not, if you motherfuckers don't quit eyeballing my wife when she comes by to drop off my lactose free lunch, I'm going to activate the Ohio Unorganized Militia, overthrow this entire fucking government, and turn your colons into musket holsters. Also, I think we should review this report on slowed vocabulary development among children in impoverished households.

See.

If you're going to get somebody under the Smith Act, you've got to have pretty strong, unequivocal evidence, certainly stronger than "I don't like her so I'm going to take her statement as literally as possible". Besides, do you really think you'd gain any points with the American people for a move like that? If anything, it would just hurt the Democrats by showing them to be no different than their corrupt and power-hungry predecessors.
Ah, now who's making claims about something that was never said. Kindly show us where anyone said she should be hit with the Smith Act. Questions have been raised about whether what she did was legal or not, but I'm sure you can show us clear, definite, unmetaphorical words from at least one poster calling the Smith Act down on Bachman.

See.
Hm. Well, I guess I stand corrected.

Very funny. :D

*has Sgt Toomey quietly murdered*

Well, then I guess the truth is that America will continue to see its civil liberties erode under the Democrats...talk about change we can believe in.

Because of the words of a Brazilian on a British game forum? Please, invoke some more assinine hyperbole. You fit in quite well with Ms. Bachman.

:rolleyes:

Quit playing dumb. She's calling for overthrowing a democratically elected leader because she doesn't like him. That's all.

So? People call for all kinds of things. She too was elected. Maybe she was elected by her electorate to say silly things.

Hm. Well, I guess I stand corrected.

Very funny. :D

*has Sgt Toomey quietly murdered*

You can strike me down, but you'll never stop the spirit of orderly revolutionaries like Bachmann.

She defeated Tinklenberg. She defeated Wetterling. She defeated Binkowski.

She'll beat Barack. Because its on the American people's watch. And they won't allow this man to engage in policies consistent with the ones that he campaigned on, not on their watch.

So? People call for all kinds of things. She too was elected. Maybe she was elected by her electorate to say silly things.

Then, by god, the system works.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/41719957.html



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGn1ruk7Xcs


So.

Is this even legal? Isn't there some kind of rule about government officials calling for violent revolution against elected presidents?

When she starts talking about people need to wake up and choose, I think he suggesting a revolution at the ballot box.
Sort of like Chavez's revolution. The language is a bit strong, but seems to be little more then trying to scrounge for votes.

I'm not really seeing it. I don't see anything suggesting she literally supported a violent revolution. Terms like 'revolution' are pretty standard political rhetoric, it usually just means major change, a change in the way we think, the way politics work, or whatever. It doesn't inherently mean a violent take over. What I do find a little disturbing, is the vitriol directed to people who question if she literally supported a violent revolution.

When he starts talking about people need to wake up and choose, I think he suggesting a revolution at the ballot box.
Sort of like Chavez's revolution. The language is a bit strong, but seems to be little more then trying to scrounge for votes.
She. Michele Bachman is a woman. I might have a little more patience with all these apologists and shruggers-off if they made even the least effort to sound as if they knew what they were talking about.

I'm not really seeing it. I don't see anything suggesting she literally supported a violent revolution. Terms like 'revolution' are pretty standard political rhetoric, it usually just means major change, a change in the way we think, the way politics work, or whatever. It doesn't inherently mean a violent take over. What I do find a little disturbing, is the vitriol directed to people who question if she literally supported a violent revolution.

"Armed and dangerous". Metaphorically armed? Metaphorically dangerous?

"Armed and dangerous". Metaphorically armed? Metaphorically dangerous?

People could metaphorically die or be metaphorically injured, and the president could be metaphorically at gunpoint.

Hm.

You wish. Judeo-Christian ethics have been around for thousands of years.

I say this as a devout Catholic: Religious values should not decide what goes into legal codes. Not now, not ever. When that happens, you get Iran. You get medieval Europe.

"Armed and dangerous". Metaphorically armed? Metaphorically dangerous?

In the context of the sentence:

"people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back"

It really does just seem like a strong bit of rhetoric to me, I see no reason to assume she meant it literally. It's no different from saying "the people will fight this legislation", nobody ever takes the word "fight" literally when that word is uttered.

Wait, are you really someone other than ME arguing that even wishing those things on her I AM still better than the bitch? :p

I took it as sarcasm, really. But I'm thinking more along the lines of a needle-and-thread solution. :p

http://www.startribune.com/politics/41719957.html



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGn1ruk7Xcs


So.

Is this even legal? Isn't there some kind of rule about government officials calling for violent revolution against elected presidents?

I agree that the bulk of the American populace probably isn't prepared to jump up and shoot... well, anyone. On this much, I agree.

What worries me, is that Bachmann speaks to a small but well-armed minority.

What worries me, is that I can't believe what she's doing is legal.

1. Rep. Bachmann's comments are beyond the pale and indefensible. Calling for armed revolution in our free republic is wrong. Her conspiracy theories are not just kooky but also dangerous.

2. Rep. Bachmann is a first-class hypocrite given her calls last fall for investigations of liberals as Anti-American. Apparently it is anti-American for liberals to question the U.S. government, but patriotic for conservatives to call for armed revolution.

3. That said, Rep. Bachmann should not be censored. As always, I believe in the wisdom of the following two quotes:

First, the persuasive wisdom of Oliver Wendell Holmes in his dissent in Abrams v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/250/616.html ), 250 US 616, 630 (1919):

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

And Justice Brandeis, concurring in Whitney v. California (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=274&invol=357#377), 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927)(emphasis added):

Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. Every denunciation of existing law tends in some measure to increase the probability that there will be violation of it. Condonation of a breach enhances the probability. Expressions of approval add to the probability. Propagation of the criminal state of mind by teaching syndicalism increases it. Advocacy of lawbreaking heightens it still further. But even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on. The wide difference between advocacy and incitement, between preparation and attempt, between assembling and conspiracy, must be borne in mind. In order to support a finding of clear and present danger it must be shown either that immediate serious violence was to be expected or was advocated, or that the past conduct furnished reason to believe that such advocacy was then contemplated. Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution.

1. Rep. Bachmann's comments are beyond the pale and indefensible. Calling for armed revolution in our free republic is wrong. Her conspiracy theories are not just kooky but also dangerous.

2. Rep. Bachmann is a first-class hypocrite given her calls last fall for investigations of liberals as Anti-American. Apparently it is anti-American for liberals to question the U.S. government, but patriotic for conservatives to call for armed revolution.

3. That said, Rep. Bachmann should not be censored. As always, I believe in the wisdom of the following two quotes:

First, the persuasive wisdom of Oliver Wendell Holmes in his dissent in Abrams v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/250/616.html ), 250 US 616, 630 (1919):

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

And Justice Brandeis, concurring in Whitney v. California (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=274&invol=357#377), 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927)(emphasis added):

Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. Every denunciation of existing law tends in some measure to increase the probability that there will be violation of it. Condonation of a breach enhances the probability. Expressions of approval add to the probability. Propagation of the criminal state of mind by teaching syndicalism increases it. Advocacy of lawbreaking heightens it still further. But even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on. The wide difference between advocacy and incitement, between preparation and attempt, between assembling and conspiracy, must be borne in mind. In order to support a finding of clear and present danger it must be shown either that immediate serious violence was to be expected or was advocated, or that the past conduct furnished reason to believe that such advocacy was then contemplated. Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution.
One of these days I'm going to see if you can use case law to decide between the Hegelian Dialectic or a Fish Taco.

1. Rep. Bachmann's comments are beyond the pale and indefensible. Calling for armed revolution in our free republic is wrong. Her conspiracy theories are not just kooky but also dangerous.

2. Rep. Bachmann is a first-class hypocrite given her calls last fall for investigations of liberals as Anti-American. Apparently it is anti-American for liberals to question the U.S. government, but patriotic for conservatives to call for armed revolution.

3. That said, Rep. Bachmann should not be censored. As always, I believe in the wisdom of the following two quotes:

First, the persuasive wisdom of Oliver Wendell Holmes in his dissent in Abrams v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/250/616.html ), 250 US 616, 630 (1919):

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

And Justice Brandeis, concurring in Whitney v. California (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=274&invol=357#377), 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927)(emphasis added):

Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. Every denunciation of existing law tends in some measure to increase the probability that there will be violation of it. Condonation of a breach enhances the probability. Expressions of approval add to the probability. Propagation of the criminal state of mind by teaching syndicalism increases it. Advocacy of lawbreaking heightens it still further. But even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on. The wide difference between advocacy and incitement, between preparation and attempt, between assembling and conspiracy, must be borne in mind. In order to support a finding of clear and present danger it must be shown either that immediate serious violence was to be expected or was advocated, or that the past conduct furnished reason to believe that such advocacy was then contemplated. Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution.

Censured, not censored. When someone calls for a censure, that someone is calling for the person on the receiving end to be chewed out by whatever body is in charge of that (the HoR, in this case).

Censured, not censored. When someone calls for a censure, that someone is calling for the person on the receiving end to be chewed out by whatever body is in charge of that (the HoR, in this case).

Yah. In my experience, don't go to the place you are going to. You're about to unleash whole bolts arguing hell from which you'll never extricate yourself.

If you think Mr. Cat has a point, or conversely does not have a point, address those substantively.

But I'll tell you now, the scoring of the cheap shots aren't going to work in this instance.

(Actually, you'll never get Mr. Cat to admit he's wrong. But that's okay. It's his job to evince metaphysical certitude, and I wouldn't have him any other way).

Censured, not censored. When someone calls for a censure, that someone is calling for the person on the receiving end to be chewed out by whatever body is in charge of that (the HoR, in this case).

Thank you so very much for that completely unnecessary explanation of the meaning of two words I understand clearly.

Some in this thread were questioning the legality of Rep. Bachmann's statements and implying she should be censored. I was responding to that line of discussion.

Whether the House of Representatives should censure Rep. Bachmann for her reprehensible statements is different kettle of fish. Censure for statements made while a Representative is not on the floor of the House would be rather novel, but playing close to violations of the Smith Act might qualify one for censure.

Censured, not censored. When someone calls for a censure, that someone is calling for the person on the receiving end to be chewed out by whatever body is in charge of that (the HoR, in this case).

(Actually, you'll never get Mr. Cat to admit he's wrong. But that's okay. It's his job to evince metaphysical certitude, and I wouldn't have him any other way).

Thank you so very much for that completely unnecessary explanation of the meaning of two words I understand clearly.

See?

Yah. In my experience, don't go to the place you are going to. You're about to unleash whole bolts arguing hell from which you'll never extricate yourself.

If you think Mr. Cat has a point, or conversely does not have a point, address those substantively.

But I'll tell you now, the scoring of the cheap shots aren't going to work in this instance.

(Actually, you'll never get Mr. Cat to admit he's wrong. But that's okay. It's his job to evince metaphysical certitude, and I wouldn't have him any other way).

Hakuna matata. :)

1. Rep. Bachmann's comments are beyond the pale and indefensible. Calling for armed revolution in our free republic is wrong. Her conspiracy theories are not just kooky but also dangerous.

2. Rep. Bachmann is a first-class hypocrite given her calls last fall for investigations of liberals as Anti-American. Apparently it is anti-American for liberals to question the U.S. government, but patriotic for conservatives to call for armed revolution.

3. That said, Rep. Bachmann should not be censored.
Not censored, but she should definitely be censured.

EDIT: Okay, yes, I see that this was already raised and TCT treated it very snippily, but still. For others in this thread, who are not TCT, it needs saying.

3. That said, Rep. Bachmann should not be censored.

How about Rush Limbaughed? The next time elections in her state start up, throw a bunch of media attacks that use quotes from her about the armed revolution bit spliced with imagery of school shootings, American GIs being killed in combat and maybe even the Twin Towers collapsing. And then finish it with a blurb saying "That's what she stands for"

It'd be deliciously ironic.

How about Rush Limbaughed? The next time elections in her state start up, throw a bunch of media attacks that use quotes from her about the armed revolution bit spliced with imagery of school shootings, American GIs being killed in combat and maybe even the Twin Towers collapsing. And then finish it with a blurb saying "That's what she stands for"

It'd be deliciously ironic.

Holy shit I'm in.

How about Rush Limbaughed? The next time elections in her state start up, throw a bunch of media attacks that use quotes from her about the armed revolution bit spliced with imagery of school shootings, American GIs being killed in combat and maybe even the Twin Towers collapsing. And then finish it with a blurb saying "That's what she stands for"

It'd be deliciously ironic.

It sounds funny, but I'd feel to dirty playing things Rush's way.

Not censored, but she should definitely be censured.

As objectionable as Rep. Bachmann's comments are, I am not sure I agree that she should be censured by the House.

Theoretically, a Representative can be censured for anything, but, as this source (http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/rl31382.pdf) (pdf) explains, the precedents for censures in the House tend to be based on conduct on the floor of the House and/or much more egregious offenses:

In the House of Representatives there have been 22 “censures” of Members (21 Members and 1 Delegate), including two censures of former Members who, in 1870, had resigned just prior to the House’s consideration of expulsion motions against those Members for selling military academy appointments. While the majority of the censures in the House occurred in the 19th century and concerned issues of decorum, that is, the use of unparliamentary or insulting language on the floor of the House or acts of violence towards other Members, in more recent years instances of financial misconduct have appeared to have been a major issue. House Members
have been censured for various conduct, including insulting or other unparliamentary language on the floor, assaulting another Member, supporting recognition of the Confederacy, the selling of military academy appointments, bribery, payroll fraud where inflated staff salaries were used to pay a Member’s personal expenses, receipt of improper gifts and improper use of campaign funds, and sexual misconduct with House pages.

I think publicizing Rep. Bachmann's outrageous comments as broadly as possible so people can see the real face of the GOP and the conservatives and subjecting her comments to opposition and ridicule is the best solution here.

It sounds funny, but I'd feel to dirty playing things Rush's way.

Nah, you got it wrong. When I say Rush Limbaughed, I mean the current tactic of painting the GOP face as the same as Rush Limbaugh. Everything he says being representative of the GOP that is. The tactic here is similar, just a bit more personalized.

Ah, now who's making claims about something that was never said. Kindly show us where anyone said she should be hit with the Smith Act. Questions have been raised about whether what she did was legal or not, but I'm sure you can show us clear, definite, unmetaphorical words from at least one poster calling the Smith Act down on Bachman.

The Smith Act and ancillary judicial cases are the body of legislation that prevents people who advocate violent revolution against the United States from holding public office. That's a fact, and there is no other way to remove her from office or be otherwise administratively punished. She could resign on her own, or be censured by Congress, but she's not going anywhere unless you got her under the Smith Act.

So, either you guys have been making a meaningless demand that she resign from office or would want to get her out of office via the Smith Act.

It sounds funny, but I'd feel to dirty playing things Rush's way.

That is simple politics, my fellow.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/41719957.html



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGn1ruk7Xcs


So.

Is this even legal? Isn't there some kind of rule about government officials calling for violent revolution against elected presidents?

Its sedition, so no it is not legal.

One of these days I'm going to see if you can use case law to decide between the Hegelian Dialectic or a Fish Taco.

Nix v. Heden 149 US 304, 309 (1893) wherein Justice Gray established that a tomato can be botanically a fruit yet economically a vegetable, and that his mistress Eustace Kaye Millicent of the New England Millicents had a "lovely Fish Taco".

Given the choice, the Court voted unanimously to just call it a fucking vegetable, let the clerks write the decision, and adjourn over to chambers to "park the beef bus in tuna town".

As objectionable as Rep. Bachmann's comments are, I am not sure I agree that she should be censured by the House.

Theoretically, a Representative can be censured for anything, but, as this source (http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/rl31382.pdf) (pdf) explains, the precedents for censures in the House tend to be based on conduct on the floor of the House and/or much more egregious offenses:

In the House of Representatives there have been 22 “censures” of Members (21 Members and 1 Delegate), including two censures of former Members who, in 1870, had resigned just prior to the House’s consideration of expulsion motions against those Members for selling military academy appointments. While the majority of the censures in the House occurred in the 19th century and concerned issues of decorum, that is, the use of unparliamentary or insulting language on the floor of the House or acts of violence towards other Members, in more recent years instances of financial misconduct have appeared to have been a major issue. House Members
have been censured for various conduct, including insulting or other unparliamentary language on the floor, assaulting another Member, supporting recognition of the Confederacy, the selling of military academy appointments, bribery, payroll fraud where inflated staff salaries were used to pay a Member’s personal expenses, receipt of improper gifts and improper use of campaign funds, and sexual misconduct with House pages.

I think publicizing Rep. Bachmann's outrageous comments as broadly as possible so people can see the real face of the GOP and the conservatives and subjecting her comments to opposition and ridicule is the best solution here.
I disagree for two reasons:

1) I consider language that in another context could well be slander against members of Congress (for some reason I don't quite understand, public figure seem to be unable to protect against slander) to be conduct unbecoming a public official, and as such it should deserve censure at least as much as selling appointments or using profanity on the floor of the House.

2) There is far too much throwing around of wild accusations nowadays. Free speech is free of prior restraint, NOT free of subsequent consequence. Like all citizens, public officials have the right to express their opinions, but they have less freedom than private citizens to toss around brash words and false accusations because of their duty to the public. They are expected to set an example and are thus held to a higher standard in HOW they express themselves. It is time to start enforcing that standard.

Michele Bachman's accusations are false. That's the bottom line. Even here in NSG, a person will be called out to back up outrageous claims. Bachman should be called to account for her words, and she should be called out by those whom she has accused, right there on the floor of the House, where she claims the wrongdoing is happening. Let her back up her claims, or else let her be censured for her lies and insults.

What I'm saying is that I don't care if it would be unusual or even unprecedented to censure a Congressperson for precisely this kind of thing. I believe this kind of thing, although perhaps never encountered before, does fall squarely into the area of censurable conduct.

The Smith Act and ancillary judicial cases are the body of legislation that prevents people who advocate violent revolution against the United States from holding public office. That's a fact, and there is no other way to remove her from office or be otherwise administratively punished. She could resign on her own, or be censured by Congress, but she's not going anywhere unless you got her under the Smith Act.

So, either you guys have been making a meaningless demand that she resign from office or would want to get her out of office via the Smith Act.
Kindly point out where anyone has called for her to resign. Kindly point out where anyone has called for her removal from office.

Seriously, show me.

Because I have certainly never said any such thing, and I do not recall anyone else in this thread saying that.

Now this is the second time I have asked you to provide this information. You failed the first time. Will you fail again, and if so, is it because no one has made such an argument? And would that mean that you are trying to set up a strawman as justification for the weak argument you tried to make earlier, that people are out to get Michele Bachman?

Or will you actually try to back up your argument this time, and if so, will you succeed and actually find someone saying what you claim "we" have been saying? If you do, then you won't necessarily be setting up strawmen, but you will have been accusing many people of making the same argument as only one or a few people.

So a political revolution that advocates kicking Democratic officials out of office and replacing them with Republicans is against the law now? All I got from this is that she wants people to rise up and fight back against this legislation and to get the Democrats out of office in order to prevent it from being implemented.

I mean, if you interpret "people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back" as meaning anything else besides being politically active and ready to fight against this law, you're really reaching for straws in an attempt to purge her from office.

That's bullshit, and you know it.

Armed and dangerous is a loaded term, literally. It means carrying weapons, and being prepared to use them. Bachmann may be evil, but I don't think she's quite stupid enough to talk about being armed and dangerous, without realising that it would connect in some way with being, well, armed, and dangerous.

I think you are reaching at straws, in an attempt to explain her away, although I can't imagine why, for the life of me, anyone would want to.

She seems to be backpeddling pretty hard, and making like 'armed' didn't MEAN 'armed', 'dangerous' didn't MEAN 'dangerous', 'revolution' didn't MEAN 'revolution', etc... but that's a load of crap. Maybe she got caught up in the heat of the moment (well, the three days, or whatever it was that elapsed, overall) and spoke in an inadvisable fashion... but just stroking your beard and pretending it didn't happen is dishonest... and hypocritical, because anyone else would be held to a different standard.

In the context of the sentence:

"people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back"

It really does just seem like a strong bit of rhetoric to me, I see no reason to assume she meant it literally. It's no different from saying "the people will fight this legislation", nobody ever takes the word "fight" literally when that word is uttered.

And she didn't mean she literally felt like she was behind enemy lines, or that she literally feels like a foreign correspondant? She wanted people to get together and get not-literally armed and not-literally dangerous, so they can not-literally fight the Democrats, who she quite explicitly stated MUST NOT be allowed to succeed. Maybe she didn't mean that literally? She meant they metaphorically must fail? But - that doesn't make any sense.

And - if you're going to start holding different parts of the same sentence to different standards, then you can excuse anything. She could be talking about breaking into your mom's house and skullfucking her with a strap-on made out of an ice-pick, and, when the cops turn up, she's just going to say 'yeah, but not literally... The threat was made.

anyone else would be held to a different standard.

By her - you know, the woman who called for HUAC-style "anti-American" investigations.

Do you folks realize how hard this kind of crap makes it to stand staying on the moral high ground?

Kindly point out where anyone has called for her to resign. Kindly point out where anyone has called for her removal from office.

Seriously, show me.

Because I have certainly never said any such thing, and I do not recall anyone else in this thread saying that.

Now this is the second time I have asked you to provide this information. You failed the first time. Will you fail again, and if so, is it because no one has made such an argument? And would that mean that you are trying to set up a strawman as justification for the weak argument you tried to make earlier, that people are out to get Michele Bachman?

Or will you actually try to back up your argument this time, and if so, will you succeed and actually find someone saying what you claim "we" have been saying? If you do, then you won't necessarily be setting up strawmen, but you will have been accusing many people of making the same argument as only one or a few people.


Ill just save you the time. No one has said that. Vet is just being an apologist.

In the context of the sentence:

"people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back"

It really does just seem like a strong bit of rhetoric to me, I see no reason to assume she meant it literally. It's no different from saying "the people will fight this legislation", nobody ever takes the word "fight" literally when that word is uttered.

Again, thats a load of bullshit. All this 'metaphorical' crap that everyone has been arguing is just being an apologist or playing dumb. Which is it?

As objectionable as Rep. Bachmann's comments are, I am not sure I agree that she should be censured by the House.


she doesnt need to be censored or censured but she sure does need to shut the fuck up.

or more accurately to change the phrasing of her rhetoric. it is no more wrong for her to oppose the president's policies than it was for a democratic rep to oppose bush's policies when he was president.

but there are lots of nutcases out there who are only looking for a reason to start shooting. if they think that ms bachman and similarly minded republicans are hoping to start a armed revolt they may be more than happy to oblige.

but there are lots of nutcases out there who are only looking for a reason to start shooting. if they think that ms bachman and similarly minded republicans are hoping to start a armed revolt they may be more than happy to oblige.

Then let them. It'd bury the cursed GOP for good.

Again, thats a load of bullshit. All this 'metaphorical' crap that everyone has been arguing is just being an apologist or playing dumb. Which is it?

Neither, I have no reason to be. I'm completely neutral to this politician, I know very little about her, I'm not an American and so she does not affect me in any way. To me, it seem like a hyperbole. Nothing so far in this thread has shown me a compelling reason why it isn't.

She said there needs to be a revolution and said "watch out, we're armed and dangerous!"

Its obvious what she is saying. Denying it is either playing dumb or being an apologist.
Or being a dumb apologist :)

When you're not shooting each other, or violating the sovereignty of other countries, I love you guys. :fluffle:

So not very often?

Ill just save you the time. No one has said that. Vet is just being an apologist.
I know. I just enjoy chasing apologists around with that spotlight.

Then let them. It'd bury the cursed GOP for good.
No, thank you. I would very much rather not have people assassinated or places attacked by domestic terrorists just so you can prove a point.

I know. I just enjoy chasing apologists around with that spotlight.

Ah, Mur, like me, you have that slight sadistic streak. :D

Not that I dont love the word....But it seems to be getting thrown around alot...

Apologist is the new Counter-Revolutionary, lol...

Not that I dont love the word....But it seems to be getting thrown around alot...

Apologist is the new Counter-Revolutionary, lol...
We call 'em like we see 'em. They go around making excuses for these people and their philosophies, and they keep trying to tell us that it really isn't a bad thing at all, yet they have no foundation for such arguments. That makes them apologists as I understand the word. Perhaps I'm using it wrong?

We call 'em like we see 'em. They go around making excuses for these people and their philosophies, and they keep trying to tell us that it really isn't a bad thing at all, yet they have no foundation for such arguments. That makes them apologists as I understand the word. Perhaps I'm using it wrong?

Nah, I was joking, thou art using it correctly....Ive just never seen this sheer volume of apologists in one thread, lol...

We call 'em like we see 'em. They go around making excuses for these people and their philosophies, and they keep trying to tell us that it really isn't a bad thing at all, yet they have no foundation for such arguments. That makes them apologists as I understand the word. Perhaps I'm using it wrong?

The only other word I can think of is a flame, so 'apologist' works.

Nah, I was joking, thou art using it correctly....Ive just never seen this sheer volume of apologists in one thread, lol...

The only other word I can think of is a flame, so 'apologist' works.
Okey-dokey, then. :)

I was bored and was randomly googling/wikiing Flags...

And I stumbled on this one I thought was rather fitting, lol...

http://bearingdrift.com/wp-content/uploads/rnc_pirate_flag.jpg

An orderly revolution; it is a metaphor sort of thing. I know, it is hard for some people to grasp, this whole "nonliteral speech"-thing, but it happens sometimes.

Glad to know I wasn't the only one who could see the word 'orderly' there.

Glad to know I wasn't the only one who could see the word 'orderly' there.

But you seem to be one of the few who missed this:

we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country..."

"...people in Minnesota armed and dangerous..."

Which seems to give that "orderly" more of a Plausible Deniability ring to it...

Given the contradictory nature of her comments I'd say its pretty hard to determine what she really thinks. Maybe it would be prudent to wait for clarification?

Given the contradictory nature of her comments I'd say its pretty hard to determine what she really thinks. Maybe it would be prudent to wait for clarification?

And that would allow me to pounce on Conservatives how? ;)

Given the contradictory nature of her comments I'd say its pretty hard to determine what she really thinks. Maybe it would be prudent to wait for clarification?

The quotes aren't all taken from the place, or the same time - although they WERE in rapid succession. The comment that inserts 'orderly' was from Hannity's radio show, and seems to be an attempt to start trying to backpeddle on what had gone before.

Analyse the first snippets independently, then the next set - that's why I didn't put them all in one bubble, and that's why I sourced them separately.

My personal thought is - if she was really trying to clear up what she'd said earlier, and make sure everyone knew she wasn't making a call to arms, she'd have avoided her OTHER comments (like the 'behind enemy lines' stuff), and she'd have picked a better way of wording her later interview. To me, then, her continued use of the kind of words she did use... suggests that THAT is the point she's trying to make, and any 'moderation' of the phrasing is a token gesture to gain - as someone already said - plausible deniability.

Glad to know I wasn't the only one who could see the word 'orderly' there.
I fail to see how her remarks are redeemed by her also wanting her angry rednecks to be neat as well as dangerous.

I fail to see how her remarks are redeemed by her also wanting her angry rednecks to be neat as well as dangerous.

See: Apologist.:p

http://www.startribune.com/politics/41719957.html



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGn1ruk7Xcs


So.

Is this even legal? Isn't there some kind of rule about government officials calling for violent revolution against elected presidents?

I do not read anything about violent revolution in that excerpt. Revolutions do not need to be violent. I am pretty darn conservative and I know that I do not want a civil war against the Democrats again. I also want to point out that although the Republicans beat the Democrats in the last civil war, the Democrat soldiers individually were better than ours in a per capita kind of way. This probably had more to do with their officers though.

Given the contradictory nature of her comments I'd say its pretty hard to determine what she really thinks. Maybe it would be prudent to wait for clarification?
You will be waiting a long time. The problem in your suggestion lies in your application of the word "thinks" to Michele Bachman.

I fail to see how her remarks are redeemed by her also wanting her angry rednecks to be neat as well as dangerous.

Holy shit... :D

Okay, Mur, you have me lying on my chair laughing like nuts at midnight. Is that what you wanted? :D

Oh great one more hick shouting about rising up against the oppresive liberals with their high ideals of equality and economic stability.

a lot of things do need to change here, but with the culture inside of most people's heads, where there to be violent revolution it would most likely end up going in almost exactly the wrong direction. not that anyone can ever be absolutely sure about such things, but that, to me, would seem the greater likelihood.

i do believe there may be some kind of fall of business as usual, and very ardently pray it will, if and when it does, occur in as peaceful a manor as it possibly can.