[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Was there some singular alignment of people and contexts in early 18th century pre-Revolutionary colonies that will never be repeated? Why do we believe that?
[/quote]
The contexts will certainly never be repeated in this country. We all know the history. Political leanings will wax and wane, but we’ll never be under the rule that the revolutionaries were.
In my opinion, violence should always be the very last possible option, but you can never rule it out.[/quote]
If you compare todays America to Britains colonies then, you are right, they are not comparable.
Compared to the US of today those colonies were a libertarian nirvana, infinitely more free and the only federal agent you saw in your lifetime was working for the post office.
And yes, Id rather give 5% of my income to a king, though it is complete nonsense that that fonanced a lavish lifestyle because monarchies need an army too, than giving over 50% to a democratically elected government.
Also, there seem to be people that think that you can force anything on your fellow citizens if you have a slight majority, no matter how you obtained it and even if it is only enough because of procedural trickery.
You tell me how to stop them without resorting to violence.
Also, they have no problems sending men with guns into your home to make you bow to their demands.
We all know why exactly there is a second ammendment and to claim that violent resistance against a government is completely unthinkable is more dangerous than the occasional murdered congressman.
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.
Our system is set up the way it is so that we don’t have to resort to violence to get things done. For everyone romanticizing the revolutionaries, keep in mind that they were part of totally different political system at the time of revolt and had no option other than violence. We have an option in the voting booth. Any pussy can grab a gun, or post an address hoping someone else will do the easy work. If the American system is really what these protesters want to protect, then they need to use that system, not short-circuit it.[/quote]
Our system was also to set up to limit the federal government’s powers. Obviously the current “constitutional expert’s” interpretations aren’t working out to well.
After all the personal intrusions with this bill, I think our founding fathers would be ashamed if we didn’t revolt. Violence [/quote]
Fair enough. But if someone had shot and killed George Bush for alleged civil liberties violations regarding the Patriot Act or something along those lines, would he be called a revolutionary or a murderer? There were quite a few people who were against the PA when it was issued. How many people must be against a specific policy that is a violation of our civil liberties before any violent action to end said policy is justified? And what if a certain policy is NOT a violation of our liberties, but a ton of people THINK it is?
Also, at some point don’t we respect the democratic process more than violence? If violence is the best or only way to enact change, then doesn’t it come down to this: whoever is capable of killing their opponents in the most effective way gets to make the rules? Killing someone is a CLEARCUT violation of that person’s civil liberties as well.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Well John, I agree that fighting for our liberties is never wrong, but don’t you agree that the method currently being pursued by these rogues within the TP are overboard? And I am still a bit miffed at what these people are fighting against. Look, I support healthcare reform in any fashion as long as it is effective and does not come at the cost of our civil liberties.
But the reality is that we will always “be forced” to pay taxes in this country. How much we pay can ebb and flow from administration to administration, but it will always happen to a certain extent. So we have the ability to stand up and fight against what we perceive to be an unjust use of our taxes. In a way, that is the essence of Americanism. But in my own personal opinion, I think these people are wrong to stand up so forcefully against taxes for healthcare. I mean look, there is some amount of ambiguity as to whether or not this bill will fail in the long run or else the debate wouldn’t be happening. But to me, it seems as if there is much less ambiguity concerning whether the taxes we are spending in Iraq or Afhganistan or the war on drugs or green technology or bailouts/stimulus packages and so forth are worth it.
Am I making any sense here? I guess what I’m getting at is this: if people are going to protest against where taxes go, why not protest against taxes being spent to rebuild Iraq instead of healthcare? And I’m sure that there are some who have protested against both, but I suspect there are very few in the TP who protested against the war in Iraq or the war in Afhganistan or the war on drugs. There are some people who protest against taxes period, no matter where they are spent, but I think those people are fighting for something that will NEVER happen.
I suppose protesting against certain taxes and govt policies is a matter of opinion, and I understand to a certain extent why they protest against healthcare reform, but I don’t understand why they protest against that INSTEAD of something else that, to me, seems to be a much more clearcut waste of our money.[/quote]
We don’t need taxes, at the very least not an income tax. And besides social programs are reserved for the state not the federal government.
You want to see the government controlling costs go take a look at the school system. You will see the money saving ability of the government working in health care much like it does in public schools.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Violence is part of the debate. Won’t armed men get sent into my home if I don’t pay the taxes? I actually believe civil disobedience and even physical resistance may be called for.
That being said, I completely condemn any vandalism or threats of violence or murder. Certainly anyone that would bring children into this is the lowest form of individual. And that includes the posting of an address where children sleep.[/quote]
Maybe some people feel that if this man gets his way, that their children will be threatened, and that is just as bad.
Threaten his kids, and he’s more likely to consider it.
Makes sense to me.
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
If your forefathers never thought that, then your country wouldn’t exist right now.
[/quote]
They where being attacked, now if you view this bill as an attack then they have every right to take up arms. But to threaten the children is wrong. They must keep those who are not involved out of this.
Violence unfortunately at this stage would only serve to kill this movement.
Maybe some people feel that if this man gets his way, that THEIR CHILDREN will be threatened, and that is just as bad.
THREATEN HIS KIDS, AND HE’S MORE LIKELY TO CONSIDER IT.
Makes sense to me.[/quote]
Reread that.
And yes, they were being “attacked” for insubordination.
People who say violence is not the answer are close minded fools.
Things are not black and white, they are gre/ay.
Sometimes(key word) violence is the answer.
If some politician was passing something that would put my kids in danger, you could bet your ass I’d do something about it. Who wouldn’t?
Do you put other people’s kids before your own?
It is the ability of individuals to physically fight back that allows them to attain political power. Remember what one of Obama’s minions said when quoting Chairman Mao: Political power is attained at the barrel of a gun (or something like that).
Armed insurrection is justified if and only if the following conditions are present:
that the “will of the people” is no longer represented because elected bodies are: 1. no longer responsive to their constituents, and 2. the election process has been co-opted, corrupted, and reduced to merely a an empty ritual;
that their natural rights are being violated, disgregarded, and permanently abrogated;
that they are an organized group with a serious and well-thought out plan for insurrection; that they do not simply commit random acts of violence; that they have a well-thought out plan for “what happens next.”
that a huge majority of the people are on their side and are committed to the insurrection; that is, that they are reflecting the true will of the people;
that every available means of addressing their concerns has been tried and found wanting; that there is no hope that any “process” - be it democratic, legal, bureaucratic - will bring about the desired result: the people’s will being represented.
Perhaps if these conditions are met, armed insurrection is justified?
Armed insurrection is justified if and only if the following conditions are present:
that the “will of the people” is no longer represented because elected bodies are: 1. no longer responsive to their constituents, and 2. the election process has been co-opted, corrupted, and reduced to merely a an empty ritual;
that their natural rights are being violated, disgregarded, and permanently abrogated;
that they are an organized group with a serious and well-thought out plan for insurrection; that they do not simply commit random acts of violence; that they have a well-thought out plan for “what happens next.”
that a huge majority of the people are on their side and are committed to the insurrection; that is, that they are reflecting the true will of the people;
that every available means of addressing their concerns has been tried and found wanting; that there is no hope that any “process” - be it democratic, legal, bureaucratic - will bring about the desired result: the people’s will being represented.
Perhaps if these conditions are met, armed insurrection is justified?
[/quote]
If these conditions were necessary the American revolution would have never happened.
“…That a huge majority of the people are on their side and are committed to the insurrection; that is, that they are reflecting the true will of the people…”
This is where it’s gets, at the very least, debatable.
Often times, we have more of a “vocal minority” than a “huge majority”.
You have to always ask:
Is something “the will of the people” OR " the will of SOME of the people"?
You have to seriously ask these questions before one starts talking about armed insurrection, revolution, etc.
Armed insurrection is justified if and only if the following conditions are present:
that the “will of the people” is no longer represented because elected bodies are: 1. no longer responsive to their constituents, and 2. the election process has been co-opted, corrupted, and reduced to merely a an empty ritual;
that their natural rights are being violated, disgregarded, and permanently abrogated;
that they are an organized group with a serious and well-thought out plan for insurrection; that they do not simply commit random acts of violence; that they have a well-thought out plan for “what happens next.”
that a huge majority of the people are on their side and are committed to the insurrection; that is, that they are reflecting the true will of the people;
that every available means of addressing their concerns has been tried and found wanting; that there is no hope that any “process” - be it democratic, legal, bureaucratic - will bring about the desired result: the people’s will being represented.
Perhaps if these conditions are met, armed insurrection is justified?
[/quote]
If these conditions were necessary the American revolution would have never happened.
[/quote]
Probably you’re right. Let’s back into it this way then: what conditions above were not met prior to the American Revolution? I’m thinking #3 and #4 were only barely met.
What I find funny is that the same groups talking about revolution are the ones that are also saying this bill has destroyed their property rights. The rules of American government are well known, and by choosing to live here you are agreeing to that contract. Who are they to make the deciscion for me that the agreed upon system gets changed? Any revolutionary is just setting the example that contracts are okay to destroy when you’re on the raw end of one.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
While I don’t condone death threats, I’m glad that these fuckers are scared of their constituents.
It’s exactly why we have the setup we do.[/quote]
Exactly, this is what I said in the other thread. This exact stuff used to happen more often (and people would get beat up a lot more) back when states had the power. This was because people’s representatives lived in close proximity to them, this put a different kind of ‘checks and balances’ on the politicians to not only follow what was right, but not to think they can go around throwing away people’s freedom and liberty for a pay check.
[quote]borrek wrote:
What I find funny is that the same groups talking about revolution are the ones that are also saying this bill has destroyed their property rights. The rules of American government are well known, and by choosing to live here you are agreeing to that contract. Who are they to make the deciscion for me that the agreed upon system gets changed? Any revolutionary is just setting the example that contracts are okay to destroy when you’re on the raw end of one. [/quote]
Wow. This is bizarre. The whole point of a “contract” is that it’s not subject to change without consent.