HCR: Threats of Violence

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Borrek,

The government changed the contract, which makes my obligation to abide by it null and void. When health care changed and “became a right”, as well as a law enforceable by penalty, I claim breach of contract. We signed up for a free market health care system, and your idea might hold water, for those born after this bill was signed. Our “contracts” are not negotiable and these changes cannot be enacted retro-actively.
[/quote]

You agree that the contract is renegotiable because you know that laws can be changed by a represented vote in congress and you continue to live here. Changing the rules is what the government does. I would even be willing to bet that you cannot find a single law which has not been modified, either directly or by enactment of some other law, in the course of your lifetime.

Also I get what you’re trying to say, but semantically the change could not be considered “retro-active”, otherwise it would be applied to health care claims that were submitted in the past.

And just to clarify, with all of this “you agree by staying here” talk, I am not saying get out if you don’t like it. I am saying that you can’t claim to not be bound by the laws when the laws don’t go the way you wanted.

[quote]Jeff R wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Jeff R wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
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. [/quote]

db,

I advocate a political solution. Win at the ballot box. Remove pelosi/obama/reid and their minions at the ballot box.

I want you to think through why this is a different. Let me help: It was passed using corruption against the stated wishes of the majority of the United States. Further, it forces you to buy a product.

The implications of that is mind-blowing. Next crisis, what’s next? Forcing us to buy Chrysler so that it doesn’t go under?

If the Government can force us to buy one product, why not another?

JeffR[/quote]

Obama received more votes than any other Presidential candidate ever. He defeated McCain by a wide margin. He ran on the explicit platform of universal healthcare. As ornamental as the changes are, there were changes to the bill to try to appease the opposition to it in a way. And I’m supposed to believe that this bill is so far removed from the wishes of the people that violence is justified?

And I’ll say this as well. I believe that the private sector is best equipped to enact social change, not the “coercive” way the govt does so. And I’m sure those who protest so vociferously against healthcare reform would agree. That being said, I donate a LOT of my time: I’ve been a volunteer coach for baseball teams of all ages, I donate regularly to the Salvation Army, my friend’s restaurant I mentioned earlier? I go there everyday and bring the day-old pastries down to a homeless shelter. I go to the county jail once or twice a month and work with inmates interested in the program of AA. I work with young adults whose lives have become destroyed by their alcoholism/addiction. I volunteer my time at foster children facilities. I go to a hospital once a week and pick up some real downtrodden people going through severe drug/alcohol withdrawals and I buy them dinner and take them to AA meetings. I don’t make a ton of money and I don’t ask to be reimbursed for any of this. I’m on the front lives representing the private sector all the time.

Are those who rant against taxes doing the same? Are those who rant against taxes and who believe in the private sector’s ability to enact social improvements going out there and doing so? I don’t think so, not enough of them are anyways. If you can answer yes to those questions, then fine. But I highly doubt anyone who would answer yes to those questions would turn around and advocate violence. I see what violence does to Americans; I see kids who come from horrific homes, abusive mothers and fathers, addicts, whores, deadbeats and so on. Some of these kids pull themselves up all by themselves, but a lot of them can’t. That’s where people like me come in. But it’s not enough. I’ve never been told “hey, we’ve got it covered next week, don’t worry about it”.

So if the govt wants to enact legislation to help fill this gap and if that makes me a bleeding heart liberal or if I’m living in some fantasyland version of what the govt does with some of our taxes, fine. I can live with that. I can’t live with people acting like violence is justified when they get taxed if they don’t turn around and help the poor and unfortunate with the resources they have. If you don’t give a shit about them, I can clearly see why the jump to violence against politicians isn’t a far one for some.[/quote]

db:

I’m not sure you are able to see the problem here. I’ll be clear here: This is an overreach by a willful majority.

I can’t say it any clearer. You may not like it, but, that is what it is.

You use obama’s election as a mandate for universal health care. I disagree. I know full well most people weren’t listening to him. Many people either didn’t care enough to listen or didn’t want to.

He misread his mandate. His mandate WAS/IS essentially to be the Anti-George W. Bush.

Now that people are paying attention, he’s being told CLEARLY that this is not his mandate.

He chooses not to listen.

Again, I advocate a political solution.

I thank you for your service to the poor. Sincerely.

What about those of us who believe we shouldn’t have this tax burden AND provide similar help to the poor?

How do you pigenhole us?

JeffR
[/quote]

I don’t pigeonhole you at all, because I am the same way. I don’t like taxes any more than you do. I feel that my actions outlined above are a much more effective way to enact change than what the govt does. But the govt can help, and their actions are better than inaction on the part of the private sector.

Look, it’s simple. If you believe that taxation is coercive but you believe that what taxes ostensibly go toward should be funded privately by people, thereby making clear the wishes of the people, fine. But don’t say that and then not contribute privately whatsoever. If you feel that taxation is coercive and that it is up to the downtrodden to pull themselves up all by themselves and you refuse to use any of the time or money that you have to help them, I think that’s wrong.

To those who are against healthcare reform in its current status: what steps have you taken personally to bring about a positive change in the lives of those who need help from others? If the private sector should be doing what the govt is “coercing” us to do, then as a member of the private sector, what have you done? Have you gone down and voluntarily spent time handing out soup at a homeless shelter on Christmas Eve? Have you donated blankets to homeless shelters? Have you helped show drug addicts and alcoholics a path to sobriety? Have you ever bought simple things like coffee beans and mailed them to soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan? Have you donated to charities that support the children and wives of soldiers KIA? Or do you simply not give a shit?

To those who support violence as a means of enacting change: do you support the actions of Che Guevara? John Brown? The Black Panthers? The Weather Underground? What steps have you taken to fight against healthcare reform or other forms of “unfair” taxes and coercion? Have you written letters to your Congressmen/women? Have you written letters to the editors of your local newspapers? Have you organized or participated in any grassroots campaigns against coercion? Have you organized or participated in peaceful protests? Do you refuse to buy the products of companies that donate to politicians that do not represent your beliefs? Or do you simply dismiss this sort of behavior and jump right onto the violence bandwagon and call it the spirit of American revolution?

Remember, our FF’s exhausted all other means of change to no effect before they revolted. Unless you can answer yes to all of the above questions and you have utterly exhausted all other means of change, then and only then can you even begin to equate your actions or the actions you justify with those of our Founding Fathers.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

Everyone here has massive reading miscomprehension… the original post was NOT advocating violence against children, it was saying that if a man perceives your actions (or the Congress’s actions) as threatening his children, that man is more likely to consider violence than otherwise.

I’ll re-post the quote:

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

[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][/quote]

Hmmm… didn’t he clarify though, let’s see…

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

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?[/quote]

Now this lacks a bit of eloquence, certainly; but anyone who says that threatening children " makes sense to me " and then clarifies " people who say violence is not the answer are close minded fools " [sic] is worthy of scorn, not the " explanations " you and others are trying to provide.

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

I never signed this “contract” you speak of and I would bet you didn’t either.

Your statement has no basis in reality.

[/quote]

Don’t be silly. This is rudimentary stuff…

Your “signature” is implied in the fact that you remain in the country. If you feel I’m out of touch with reality though, make sure to go down to the IRS office on April 15th and ask for a refund on all of the taxes you’ve paid. Make sure to tell them that you didn’t sign any agreement to pay taxes.
[/quote]

This all boils down to property rights, which, judging by your defense of the state, I’d say you aren’t too familiar with their importance.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
That’s how the pigs behave. They can’t stand they lost this game, so now they’re kicking over the board. And it’s not just the extremists, they’re egged on by the regular republican party.
What we now need is a couple of liberals that will arm up and declare “an eye for an eye”. That’s from the bible they pretend to love so much.
[/quote]

Wow look! Who knew shit could type…

if you don’t want violence, don’t pick a fight or steal peoples money.

A little interesting bit of early Boston history…

The Sons of Liberty

In Boston in early summer of 1765 a group of shopkeepers and artisans who called themselves The Loyal Nine, began preparing for agitation against the Stamp Act. As that group grew, it came to be known as the Sons of Liberty. And grow it did! These were not the leading men of Boston, but rather workers and tradesmen. It was unseemly that they would be so agitated by a parliamentary act. Though their ranks did not include Samuel and John Adams, the fact may have been a result of a mutually beneficial agreement. The Adams’ and other radical members of the legislature were daily in the public eye; they could not afford to be too closely associated with violence, neither could the secretive Sons of Liberty afford much public exposure. However, amongst the members were two men who could generate much public sentiment about the Act. Benjamin Edes, a printer, and John Gill of the Boston Gazette produced a steady stream of news and opinion. Within a very short time a group of some two thousand men had been organized under Ebenezer McIntosh, a South Boston shoemaker.

The first widely known acts of the Sons took place on August 14, 1765, when an effigy of Andrew Oliver (who was to be commissioned Distributor of Stamps for Massachusetts) was found hanging in a tree on Newbury street, along with a large boot with a devil climbing out of it. The boot was a play on the name of the Earl of Bute and the whole display was intended to establish an evil connection between Oliver and the Stamp Act. The sheriffs were told to remove the display but protested in fear of their lives, for a large crowd had formed at the scene. Before the evening a mob burned Oliver’s property on Kilby street, then moved on to his house. There they beheaded the effigy and stoned the house as its occupants looked out in horror. They then moved to nearby Fort Hill were they built a large fire and burned what was left of the effigy. Most of the crowd dissipated at that point, however McIntosh and crew, then under cover of darkness, ransacked Oliver’s abandoned home until midnight. On that evening it became very clear who ruled Boston. The British Militia, the Sheriffs and Justices, kept a low profile. No one dared respond to such violent force.

By the end of that year the Sons of Liberty existed in every colony. Their most popular objective was to force Stamp Distributors throughout the colonies to resign. The groups also applied pressure to any Merchants who did not comply with the non-importation associations. Wherever these groups existed they were either directed in secret by leading men in the community or actually lead by them. However, there were opportunists everywhere, too, who would use the name Sons of Liberty to carry out acts of revenge and other violence not related to the cause. For example, in South Carolina a group of sailors, calling themselves The Sons of Liberty, formed a mob to coerce money from people on the streets*. Such behavior could certainly undermine the cause, so the Sons spent a great deal of time policing themselves and pretenders. This was the origin on names such as “True Sons,” and “True-born Sons” of Liberty.

The success of these movements in undermining the Stamp Act cannot be attributed to violence alone. Their most effective work was performed in newsprint. A great many of the Sons were printers and publishers themselves and even those who were not, were sympathetic to the cause. It was they who would pay the most in duties, after all. Nearly every newspaper in the colonies carried daily reports of the activities of the Sons. Accounts of the most dramatic escapades spread throughout the colonies. In one most remarkable incident, an account of the Virginia Stamp Act Resolutions was printed far and wide. It is not certain how many of the editors who reprinted it were aware of the status of the resolutions, but seven were printed, while only five actually passed (the fifth was in fact rescinded the day after adoption.) The ultimate effect of such propaganda was to embolden both citizens and Legislatures in every colony. When the Stamp Act became effective on the 1st of November, 1765, nearly all of these papers went right on publishing without the required Stamp.

In the early months of 1766 there was such chaos that many of the royal governors had gone into hiding. The Sheriffs and Militia that they might have counted on to keep the peace were mostly members of the Sons of Liberty. Governors were afraid to unlock the weapons stores. Few royal troops were available and they were vastly outnumbered in any case. The Sons of Liberty had displaced the royal government in nearly every colony. The Stamp Act Congress had concluded its business, but there was little hope that its petition to Gr. Britain would be heard. Correspondence between the various groups began, toward the mutual support and defense of the cause. It was expected that eventually British troops would land and attempt to reassert control. So it was that the first efforts to unite the colonies were not undertaken by their respective legislatures, but by these independent radical groups. The various Sons throughout the colonies began to correspond and develop a larger organization.

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Dustin 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. [/quote]

You may find it funny, but this bill is a violation of property rights.

I never signed this “contract” you speak of and I would bet you didn’t either.

Your statement has no basis in reality.

[/quote]

how is it a property issue?[/quote]

Paying for another individuals health care with your own money (taxation)?[/quote]

so all taxation is a property issue?