HCR: Threats of Violence

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…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.

Mufasa [/quote]

Mufasa:

I’m curious to hear how opposition to the health care takeover ISN’T the will of the people?

What further empiric polling/election results do YOU need before your confusion is cleared up?

I’m not trying insult you, I’m seriously interested.

Even though you are left leaning, I still believe that you aren’t beyond hope.

It’s people like YOU who have to be fully convinced of the danger of the bill, before it can be totally and irrevocably revoked.

JeffR

62

[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]

The superseding contract between the people and the government is the constitution. Which side in this debate is trying to change that contract?

63

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Correct, and the consent for changing the health care contract happened at the last election. The people voting for Obama didn’t think he was joking when he said “we’re gonna do something about healthcare.” If the tea-partiers want something different than what they just got, they can do it the American way at the polls.

64

There is way too much “noise” and polls that are questionable at best to come to any firm conclusion…NOT about whether it’s a “bad” bill are not…but about whether something in fact does or does not represent “the will of “the” people”. With this debate, you simply pick a side and go for it.

That’s it.

In terms of Bills…my feeling was that way too much was being tackled at one time and way too many “deals” were made to pass it. I don’t need a Poll to tell me that it is a “bad” bill (much like many coming out of Washington).

(By the way…a “vocal minority” can be VERY powerful and influential when it comes to change).

Mufasa

65

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[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]

The superseding contract between the people and the government is the constitution. Which side in this debate is trying to change that contract?[/quote]

Violence as a political process goes directly against the Constitution. Any party who still has constitutional avenues yet shortcuts those avenues is very directly ignoring their agreed to political contract.

66

[quote]espenl wrote:
I thought americans didn’t like terrorism, yet they are doing it themselves, in their own country. Fantastic.[/quote]

Exactly. We respect our civil liberties so much, we’re willing to violate the civil liberties in the most egregious of manners (death) so we won’t have to pay taxes. We respect the democratic process so much we’re willing to completely forego it in order to protect it. And as far as our Founding Fathers go, in some way they fought for our freedom from an oppressive foreign power and set up a new form of govt through violence, but I’d like to think they set up the new govt with the idea that we wouldn’t have to continually resort to violence to enact change.

67

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Correct, and the consent for changing the health care contract happened at the last election. The people voting for Obama didn’t think he was joking when he said “we’re gonna do something about healthcare.” If the tea-partiers want something different than what they just got, they can do it the American way at the polls.[/quote]

If things like mandates (essentially charging someone for living) violate a basic human right, NO amount of popularity gives anyone the authority. That is the contention of many tea-partiers I know. You cannot vote to take away rights. 51% cannot democratically enslave the other 49%. Just because something is popular does not make it allowable.

68

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[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]

The superseding contract between the people and the government is the constitution. Which side in this debate is trying to change that contract?[/quote]

Violence as a political process goes directly against the Constitution. Any party who still has constitutional avenues yet shortcuts those avenues is very directly ignoring their agreed to political contract. [/quote]

I agree. Point?

69

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[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]

The superseding contract between the people and the government is the constitution. Which side in this debate is trying to change that contract?[/quote]

Violence as a political process goes directly against the Constitution. Any party who still has constitutional avenues yet shortcuts those avenues is very directly ignoring their agreed to political contract. [/quote]

Once one side has decided that it can willfully break the contract (i.e., the Constitution), why should the other side feel bound by it?

70

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[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]

The superseding contract between the people and the government is the constitution. Which side in this debate is trying to change that contract?[/quote]

Violence as a political process goes directly against the Constitution. Any party who still has constitutional avenues yet shortcuts those avenues is very directly ignoring their agreed to political contract. [/quote]

I agree. Point?[/quote]
You asked which side is trying to change that contract, and given that you agreed with my last point, it obviously follows that any party (perhaps generically called Revolutionaries) using violence as a means is the party trying to change the contract. It was a pretty straightforward answer to your pretty straightforward question.

71

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
There is way too much “noise” and polls that are questionable at best to come to any firm conclusion…NOT about whether it’s a “bad” bill are not…but about whether something in fact does or does not represent “the will of “the” people”. With this debate, you simply pick a side and go for it.

That’s it.

In terms of Bills…my feeling was that way too much was being tackled at one time and way too many “deals” were made to pass it. I don’t need a Poll to tell me that it is a “bad” bill (much like many coming out of Washington).

(By the way…a “vocal minority” can be VERY powerful and influential when it comes to change).

Mufasa [/quote]

Mufasa:

The health care takeover bill IS the dems’ REFORM. As of now, it’s the law.

I do not agree with you stating that there is too much “noise.” With Scott Brown and the overwhelming polls (of all political stripes) showing opposition, one side can claim to be representing the will of the people.

That would be the Republicans.

JeffR

72

I wish I could be like many of you, in thinking that violence is not the answer. But what does one do when they impose their will on you, with no regard for your thoughts, concerns, or outcome? What choice is left. We cannot just let someone take us off the map.

Sometimes, a proverbial ass-whoopin does wonders, and if telling someone that we will not go quietly into the night without them knowing how much we hate this insinuates a threat, then yes I am a threatening individual. You can call me a savage or a barbarian, but I really don’t give a shit after seeing this kind of tyranny.

Closed mouths don’t get fed, we will not get what we want if we stay quiet.

73

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[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]

The superseding contract between the people and the government is the constitution. Which side in this debate is trying to change that contract?[/quote]

Violence as a political process goes directly against the Constitution. Any party who still has constitutional avenues yet shortcuts those avenues is very directly ignoring their agreed to political contract. [/quote]

Once one side has decided that it can willfully break the contract (i.e., the Constitution), why should the other side feel bound by it? [/quote]

If the contract we’re talking about is the Constitution specifically, just keep in mind that regardless of anyone elses behavior, if one is willing to trash it to achieve an end then it is not the Constituition that one is trying to preserve.

Let’s assume that 150 million Americans are party A, and 150 million Americans are party B. (we have a very accurate Census in this America) If party A decides to throw out the governing contract, that does not mean that the contract becomes null and void for Party B. The contract only becomes null and void for party B, if party B themselves choose to ignore it to deal with party A.

I know you think the health care act is in violation of the constitution, but I disagree. If the USSC upholds the act, do you concede its constitutionality?

74

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[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]

The superseding contract between the people and the government is the constitution. Which side in this debate is trying to change that contract?[/quote]

Violence as a political process goes directly against the Constitution. Any party who still has constitutional avenues yet shortcuts those avenues is very directly ignoring their agreed to political contract. [/quote]

I agree. Point?[/quote]
You asked which side is trying to change that contract, and given that you agreed with my last point, it obviously follows that any party (perhaps generically called Revolutionaries) using violence as a means is the party trying to change the contract. It was a pretty straightforward answer to your pretty straightforward question.
[/quote]

I agree that all established means of reconciliation should be used prior to violence. However, there are 2 other issues.

  1. If the government breaks the contract, the contract is null. The other party is no long bound to a contract that the other party has violated. If I sign a contract with you to pain your house for 300$, with half upfront, and you don’t pay me, I don’t have to paint your house.

  2. There are provisions in the constitution for resistance of the federal government with violence if necessary.

75

Even notice how when someone says, " Im not trying to _________, but " they are almost invariably trying to do that very thing?

Gambit_Lost:
I hope everyone on PWI can condemn this…

Far from condemning it, this thread started with a few, " well I don t condone violence but " then denigrated to a discussion as to when violence is appropriate (wink, wink whether or not it is now time for an armed revolution). It reminds me just how extreme this website is, and just how fragile democracy, and the American way of life, truly is.

You who are advocating violence are rather overtly supporting terrorists.

[quote] United States Law Code
the term â??terrorismâ?? means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents[/quote]

Are the following posters supporting terrorists?

[i]FormerFatboy:
After all the personal intrusions with this bill, I think our founding fathers would be ashamed if we didn’t revolt. Violence

Orion:
You tell me how to stop them without resorting to violence. â?¦ 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.

Legendaryblaze:
Maybe some people feel that if this man gets his way, that their children will be threatened, and that is just as bad. â?¦Threaten his kids, and he’s more likely to consider it. â?¦Makes sense to me. â?¦ People who say violence is not the answer are close minded fools. â?¦Things are not black and white, they are gre/ay.
Sometimes(key word) violence is the answer.[/i]

These are just three quickly found examples. Note how in the last poster actually advocates threatening children.

76

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
then denigrated to a discussion as to when violence is appropriate [/quote]

I fail to see why this is not an interesting, relevant, and legitimate topic of discussion.

Exactly.

77

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Even notice how when someone says, â??Iâ??m not trying to _________, butâ?¦â??
they are almost invariably trying to do that very thing?

Gambit_Lost:
I hope everyone on PWI can condemn this…

Far from condemning it, this thread started with a few, â??well I donâ??t condone violence butâ?¦â?? then denigrated to a discussion as to when violence is appropriate (wink, wink whether or not it is now time for an armed revolution). It reminds me just how extreme this website is, and just how fragile democracy, and the American way of life, truly is.

You who are advocating violence are rather overtly supporting terrorists.

[quote] United States Law Code
the term â??terrorismâ?? means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents[/quote]

Are the following posters supporting terrorists?

[i]FormerFatboy:
After all the personal intrusions with this bill, I think our founding fathers would be ashamed if we didn’t revolt. Violence

Orion:
You tell me how to stop them without resorting to violence. â?¦ 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.

Legendaryblaze:
Maybe some people feel that if this man gets his way, that their children will be threatened, and that is just as bad. â?¦Threaten his kids, and he’s more likely to consider it. â?¦Makes sense to me. â?¦ People who say violence is not the answer are close minded fools. â?¦Things are not black and white, they are gre/ay.
Sometimes(key word) violence is the answer.[/i]

These are just three quickly found examples. Note how in the last poster actually advocates threatening children.
[/quote]

So?

I mean try to get for a second what you are asking here, that people are to swallow anything that his sanctioned by a democratic majority.

That is not going to happen and I do not see people like Pelosi backing down. They will push and push and push until someone pushes back.

If a people that is frightened of its government is tyranny and a governments that is frightened of its people is freedom, how do you think that freedom is achieved?

By writing angry letters?

Ultimately political power comes from the barrel of a gun and there is a reason why Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.

And it is not to shoot squirrels.

78

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Even notice how when someone says, " Im not trying to _________, but " they are almost invariably trying to do that very thing?

Gambit_Lost:
I hope everyone on PWI can condemn this…

Far from condemning it, this thread started with a few, " well I don t condone violence but " then denigrated to a discussion as to when violence is appropriate (wink, wink whether or not it is now time for an armed revolution). It reminds me just how extreme this website is, and just how fragile democracy, and the American way of life, truly is.

You who are advocating violence are rather overtly supporting terrorists.

[quote] United States Law Code
the term �¢??terrorism�¢?? means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents[/quote]

Are the following posters supporting terrorists?

[i]FormerFatboy:
After all the personal intrusions with this bill, I think our founding fathers would be ashamed if we didn’t revolt. Violence

Orion:
You tell me how to stop them without resorting to violence. �¢?�¦ 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.

Legendaryblaze:
Maybe some people feel that if this man gets his way, that their children will be threatened, and that is just as bad. Ã?¢?Ã?¦Threaten his kids, and he’s more likely to consider it. Ã?¢?Ã?¦Makes sense to me. Ã?¢?Ã?¦ People who say violence is not the answer are close minded fools. Ã?¢?Ã?¦Things are not black and white, they are gre/ay.
Sometimes(key word) violence is the answer.[/i]

These are just three quickly found examples. Note how in the last poster actually advocates threatening children.
[/quote]

My original post notes that there are threats of violence in the legislation.

79

This condoning of violence is absolutely mind-boggling. There are at least a dozen states that have already filed lawsuits to block the HC bill and the GOP has forced Congress to re-examine the reconciliation bill, or something along those lines. There are people who are managing to protest loudly and are getting the attention of the govt without resorting to violence. THIS is how the American political process works.

Killing people because they don’t have the same political views and then calling it a defense of your civil liberties is more akin to how shit gets done in the Middle East. If these taxes are a violation of your civil liberties, then why haven’t the same who advocate it now been advocating it this entire time against ALL taxes? Why this tax and why now?

If those who support violence want to call me a pussy or disillusioned or idealistic or whatever, fine. I can certainly handle it. But don’t try to make me believe that the actions of those who threatened violence against these legislators are acting in the spirit of America.

80

In the “spirit of america?” Hell no, these threats (especially against children) are as un-American as it gets.