jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (45 posts)

Against government tyranny? You must be a terrorist and/or racist.

  1. innersmiff profile image79
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … cNVxaNhE#!

    Have you ever felt like your blood is actually boiling? That's what it feels like to be peace and freedom lovers these days - those who may have an issue with kill lists, drone strikes and illegal wars. According to the Southern Poverty Law Centre, 'right-wing extremist groups' like the Constitution Party and We Are Change who advocate secession and natural rights should be considered amongst terrorists. Those who warn against the decimation of civil liberties are now considered part of 'hate groups'.

    Part-government funded MSNBC Chris Matthews: "Yes, you're allowed to have a problem with the drone strikes, Obama's fiscal policy and gun control proposals, but if you voice those opinions in any consistent manner it must be because he's black".

    Then they have a 'hate expert' warn against those who have 'Opted out of our political process' - you mean those individuals who have realised that the game is rigged and time should be better spent building from the ground up? Finally, this gentleman attempts to paint anybody who does not fit within the narrow range of acceptable opinion, i.e Democrat or Republican, with the same brush. He goes from Alex Jones, to 9/11 truthers, to Donald Trump, to the Tea party in a space of about 4 seconds. It doesn't really matter WHO they are just so long as they're different from the government-worshipping serfs he wishes us to be.

    The principle message is: thinking for oneself is a symptom of terrorism/racism/fascism or anything bad.

    Arrest these people.

    1. bBerean profile image59
      bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      When the definition of terrorism becomes so loose and broad as to include those you've cited, the prospect of the POTUS being able to call out a drone strike at will on an American involved in "terrorism" becomes all the more ominous.

      1. innersmiff profile image79
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly! There's only so long people can wave these issues away.

    2. Barefootfae profile image61
      Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What's the difference between that and how people were treated who disagreed with King George?

    3. Jeff Berndt profile image91
      Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Funny, a lot of people said the same kinds of things about people who disagreed with the PATRIOT Act, Warrantless Wiretaps, and invading countries that hadn't attacked us (and in fact were completely incapable of doing so).

      Don't tell me you don't remember the Right questioning the patriotism of those who dared to point out that there was no good evidence of WMDs in Iraq? How short our memories are for inconvenient facts....

      The difference between the last decade's dissenters and this decade's rebels-without-a-clue, is that the people complaining about the Patriot Act, etc. weren't advocating violent revolution, "2nd Amendment Remedies" or illegal acts like  secession. And of course, the people who yelp the loudest about Obama's overreaches (and he's had a few, I recognize that) are the ones who cheered the loudest for W's overreaches. I'm sure they'll quiet down again when/if a Republican wins the Presidency someday.

      1. profile image59
        retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        " PATRIOT Act"  renewed and expanded under Obama
        "Warrantless Wiretaps"  renewed and expanded under Obama
        "invading countries that hadn't attacked us (and in fact were completely incapable of doing so)" invaded, perhaps not but let's remember that American's did a lot of killing in Libya and Yemen - and operations continue all over the world

        "no good evidence of WMDs in Iraq" this is not a factual statement(even wikileaks contained evidence of their presence) - though the hostility toward those espousing it is, though exaggerated, real

        "The difference between the last decade's dissenters ... weren't advocating violent revolution, "2nd Amendment Remedies" or illegal acts like  secession."  Perhaps not recommending secession but they were regularly advocating the assassination of GWB.

        Nicholas Baker's novella "Checkpoint"
        Krandall Krause's "The Assassination of George W. Bush:A Love Story
        ..in print

        "Death of a President" on film

        Malachy McCourt, politician, recommended capital punishment on "Hardball"
        Rich Hall, comedian, "Let's all get together and kill George Bush."
        Cindy Sheehan (deserving of our compassion as a grieving mother) was feted by liberal press,
                said she    wanted to travel back in time and kill George Bush as a baby.
        Mike Malloy, liberal radio talker, "When will the SEALs kill GWB?"
        Steveo, of Jackass ignominy, said he wanted to kill Bush
        Maurice Sendak, famous childrens author, discussed his desire to kill Bush

        There has never been a shortage of intemperate language regarding one's political opposition.


        Following the abuses encouraged, approved of or permitted by the expansive Obama administration  Woe betide those who have pressed for the continued abuse of the Constitution if Republicans of an equally amoral bent ever regain political power.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
          Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          " PATRIOT Act"  renewed and expanded under Obama
          "Warrantless Wiretaps"  renewed and expanded under Obama

          And it's just as bad now as it was then; if you weren't complaining during the last administration, you're a hypocrite for complaining now.

          "invading countries that hadn't attacked us (and in fact were completely incapable of doing so)" invaded, perhaps not but let's remember that American's did a lot of killing in Libya and Yemen - and operations continue all over the world
          Operations continue because it would be irresponsible to precipitously withdraw all our troops from places like Iraq and Afghanistan, especially after we blew up their countries and haven't quite finished helping put them back together again.

          Nicholas Baker's novella "Checkpoint"
          Works of fiction are fiction, not political manifestos.

          Malachy McCourt, politician, recommended capital punishment on "Hardball"
          Capital punishment is not assassination; you have to be found guilty of something (you know, with due process?) to get sentenced to death.

          Rich Hall, comedian, "Let's all get together and kill George Bush."
          Yeah, because when comedians say things, they're meant to be taken seriously....

          Cindy Sheehan (deserving of our compassion as a grieving mother) was feted by liberal press, said she wanted to travel back in time and kill George Bush as a baby.
          Yes, that's worth taking seriously, because time travel exists in the real world.

          Molloy, Steve-o, and Sendak, however, can't be defended. They ought to know better than to say stuff like that. (Well, maybe not the Jackass guy....)

          Lemme ask you this: how many mass demonstrations were there during the W years where the demonstrators carried signs calling for violent revolution?



          You think this isn't a call for violent revolution? What tree do you imagine they want to water, and what do you imagine they want to water it with?

          http://s4.hubimg.com/u/5473723_f248.jpg

          http://s1.hubimg.com/u/4471336_f248.jpg

          http://s4.hubimg.com/u/4408215_f248.jpg

          1. profile image59
            retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            One need only search " protester kill bush" and the images of kill Bush signs are numerous.  Perhaps Jefferson should answer the tree question.  As I said, intemperate language regarding one's political opposition is not in short supply - regardless of the opposition.  After all , wasn't the Dalai Lama shuffled out the door next to the garbage to prevent Beijing's ire.  Hard to believe anyone would hate the Dalai Lama.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
              Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Surely you can provide several examples of protesters with signs calling for W's assassination, then?

              1. Barefootfae profile image61
                Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this
                1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                  Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, I stand corrected*: apparently several protesters did call for the assassination of W during his administration.

                  And you know what? Any call for the death of a public official is equally bad. Anyone who carried such a sign should be ashamed.



                  *See, here's where, if I didn't care about facts, I'd do some kind of rationalization or other rhetorical judo claiming the photos are doctored or taken out of context or whatever the Right does to make the Tea-Party signs okay. But I'm intellectually honest. So bad on anyone who called for W's assassination, cos apparently there were a lot of them.

                  1. Barefootfae profile image61
                    Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I would hope what you might take away from that is that no matter how we like to feel like it's not so we all leave an odor when we defecate.

                    There are right wing loons and unbelievably there are left wing loons.


                    Right?

              2. profile image59
                retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                As a hard hearted and vicious conservative I did more than enough for you by providing the search terms.  You appear to be comfortable with researching the one side but not the other or is it a lack of intellectual rigor?  Sad, there was a time when liberals were honestly interested in the truth, or is that apocryphal. 

                As for the secession argument, the number of state legislatures in the hands of Republicans is on the rise.  Once that number reaches 34 and the composition of those bodies becomes more disposed to the 10th Amendment, it is possible to dissolve the United States of America.  Possible, not probable and inadvisable, perhaps, but stranger things have happened.  Who would have believed in the amicable split between the Czechs and the Slovaks or that there would actually be such a place as East Timor.

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                  Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I did more than enough for you by providing the search terms.  You appear to be comfortable with researching the one side but not the other or is it a lack of intellectual rigor?
                  It's not my job to do your homework for you. At least barefootfae has enough self-respect and intellectual honesty to provide support for her assertions.

                  Who would have believed in the amicable split between the Czechs and the Slovaks or that there would actually be such a place as East Timor.
                  Sure, and again, if Texas (or whatever state) wants to secede, AND the rest of the USA allows secession, then sure, Texas can go. Until that day comes, we're "one nation, indivisible," for better or worse.

      2. innersmiff profile image79
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Focussing on this left/right nonsense is what got us into this consistency of government agenda in the first place. In terms of civil liberties, Bush and Obama are essentially indistinguishable. Obama may even be worse. Many of the groups that the Southern Poverty Law Center take issue with, like We Are Change, are the same groups that were protesting Bush's abuse of power. Anybody who questions government, basically. The right are hypocrites for not recognising it sooner, but I'm going to spend my time persuading people to come together to fight injustice no matter who is President. I'm not sure how helpful your line of argument is.

        The right to bear arms and secede are moral and constitutional rights (go to TomWoods.com to see the expert at work on this issue), and those calling for violent revolution represent the minority.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
          Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "The right to bear arms and secede are moral and constitutional rights "
          You're half right.

          Secession is not a right, except at the individual level: any citizen has the right to secede from the US at any time. All he has to do is leave.

          He does not, however, get to take any of the USA's sovereign territory with him when he leaves. Sorry, but that's just reality.

    4. junkseller profile image90
      junksellerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Peace and freedom lover's blood has been boiling for a long time, and especially since 2001, but personally, as a peace and freedom lover, I've always appreciated the work that SPLC does. Are they right about WAC? I don't know. From what I can tell, SPLC only identified them as an anti-government Patriot movement. I'm not sure who, if any one, claimed that they were a hate group or a terrorist organization.

      As for the anti-government label, it is a bit tricky. I don't know much about them, but their main website seems pretty reasonable to me. However, part of their label seems to come specifically from WAC's LA chapter and its leader, Bruno Bruhwiler. The LA chapter and Bruno do, to me, cross that line into Wackyland. I'm not sure it's fair to impugn the entire organization based upon one group, but at the same time an organization, as a whole, has a responsibility to protect its name.

      The point I want to make is that labels are dangerous. In part because people tend to end up blowing the label out of proportion rather than addressing the content of why the label was affixed. So we end up in a discussion about how Chris Matthews wants us all to be government worshiping serfs and WAC is a terrorist hate-group, neither of which has anything to do with the actual label applied (anti-government Patriot movement) or the actual reasoning for the actual label (Bruno's affiliation with Oath Keepers, the sovereign citizens movement, redemption practices, etc.)

      I understand you are making a broader point, but we still can try and keep the discussion grounded and helpful. In part, I'd say you are right. Chris Matthews is a bit of a blowhard and he's using sensationalism to drive an agenda. But at the same time he, and SPLC, aren't entirely wrong either. There is pretty good evidence that these far-right types of movements are growing. The bulk of the people in these groups are probably mostly harmless, but all bell curves have fringes and as the total population of these groups grow, so too will the fringes. We've already seen violence committed by people from these groups, so it seems like a legitimate concern.

  2. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    The US is heading into very dangerous territory, and Americans don't care. I don't think there is anything that can be done at this point, if the people don't care, the people don't care.

    1. bBerean profile image59
      bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      We are so thoroughly distracted, some can't even look up long enough while texting to keep from falling in a fountain.  We're doomed!

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        http://www.totalbodyhs.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/WALL-E-Fat-People-300x225.png

  3. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 3 years ago

    I believe states should be able to secede, and any citizens who want to stay in the U.S. should be given a chance to do so before the secession legally occurs.

    I imagine a country which doesn't include Texas, Utah, Oklahoma (my state, which means I would be moving), Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, or Alabama.  That bothers me not one iota.

    On the other hand, real concerns (and not the people who are scared of the black man, which is the motivation of some) should not be silenced by labeling the dissenter a "racist" or "extremist."  Not everyone on MSNBC has been a let down, but Chris Matthews has recently.

    He was a vehement critic of the Bush administration, but since Obama got elected, he has been hesitant to turn his ire upon Obama's very real infringement of civil liberties.  Arrest without trial, drone strikes killing innocent Americans, eh?  He seems to "trust" Obama's intentions, more than he did Bush's, which is why I think he has been less critical.  Matthews finds himself in territory with Bill O'Reilly, who admits that the drones are killing innocent civilians, but claims that's the price of war.

    Fortunately, not everyone on MSNBC has been unwilling to take Obama to take over civil liberties.  Rachel Maddow has been much more of a critic of Obama's expansion of executive power,  She doesn't disagree with drones per se, but has questioned the Obama administration over the unaccountability of the drone program and kill list.

    I wish pundits from all sides of the aisle would stand up for civil liberties.

    1. innersmiff profile image79
      innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Me too.

      "He seems to "trust" Obama's intentions"

      This is a problem seeing as executive powers and expansion of government are not reversed as soon as the next President comes in. Presumably there will be another Republican president at some point, and all of those powers will still be there. Tyranny is bi-partisan.

      1. profile image0
        Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly.  I don't "trust Obama's intentions," but even if I did, I would never want anyone to have that kind of power.

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
      Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "I believe states should be able to secede, and any citizens who want to stay in the U.S. should be given a chance to do so before the secession legally occurs."

      Well, I can't agree with that. Any individual who wants to leave the US may do so at any time: we don't have a Berlin-style wall to keep people in: we're more focused on keeping people out.

      But a citizen who wants to secede doesn't get to take any of the USA's sovereign territory with him, nor does any group of citizens who wish to secede get to take US territory with them.

      1. Barefootfae profile image61
        Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So it's only sovreign if you are worried about secession?

        Doesn't ever seem to be that way in any other case.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
          Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "So it's only sovreign if you are worried about secession? "

          What? Seriously, are you just saying stuff at random now?

      2. innersmiff profile image79
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "Any individual who wants to leave the US may do so at any time"

        This does not in any way indicate respect for the sovereign right of the individual. The government claims a monopoly over all the land of the country, which in turn means they claim a right over each individual within it. To further prove this point: the government explicitly claims right over the individual in the collection of expatriation taxes, which often nullify the potential financial gain of moving. But the idea is absurd: why is it that I have to leave if it is the government violating my rights?

        I won't get into the potentially complicated constitutional aspect of it (TomWoods.com), but secession is a moral right as one cannot say that an individual is free if he cannot claim full ownership of the land he is on. What you are saying is that even if every single citizen of Texas wished to leave the US, secession would be immoral. How, exactly? The citizens are the ones that own the land, work on it and produce from it. The federal government, then, is simply a parasite on that product.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
          Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "why is it that I have to leave if it is the government violating my rights? "
          That presupposes that your rights are in fact being violated.

          "What you are saying is that even if every single citizen of Texas wished to leave the US, secession would be immoral."
          What? Nope. If a single citizen wasn't to leave, he may do so. He just can't take his land with him Otherwise the government wouldn't be able to enforce the law within its own borders, 'cos all I'd have to do to hide from them is go over to my friend Bob's house (or as you might have it, the Sovereign Nation of Bobadonia?). That's absurd, right there.

          1. Barefootfae profile image61
            Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You can't secede if the land doesn't go with you. Thai's the point.

          2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
            Jeff Berndtposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "why is it that I have to leave if it is the government violating my rights? "
            That presupposes that your rights are in fact being violated.

            "What you are saying is that even if every single citizen of Texas wished to leave the US, secession would be immoral."


            I need to retract part of the above. I read the post I was responding to too quickly, and misread "every single citizen" as "even a single citizen." So that was sloppy on my part.

            If a majority (or even every single citizen) of Texas wants to secede, then they need to get a majority of the rest of the US to agree to part ways. Agreements are binding.

            It's (a little bit) like if two individuals had a contract whereby they jointly farmed their adjoining land. If one farmer wants out, he needs to get the other farmer to agree. Otherwise, breach of contract.

            So if Texas wanted to leave the USA, if they could get the USA to agree to terms of secession, then Texas could go. If not, then Texas must stay. The same would apply if the rest of the USA was fed up with Texas and wanted to kick Texas out: the USA couldn't kick Texas out (not legally anyway) without Texas's consent.

      3. profile image0
        Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Well with regards to land, I think a treaty could be worked out that could help determine how a scarce natural resource, like oil in Oklahoma, would be used.

        But for a regular state that doesn't have anything special, I'm still in favor of secession through a legal process if a state's inhabitants so desire.  It would need to be something like 70% of the population voting in a referendum to decide.

  4. Zelkiiro profile image84
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    OP, don't even try to pretend that right-wingers give any measure of a damn about social freedoms and civil liberties. Right-wingers are just mad that their man isn't the one doing the oppressing.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Only in as much as they like to restrict them!

      They may claim to support them but that isn't the only hypocrisy of the right.

    2. innersmiff profile image79
      innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The Southern Poverty Law Center is not necessarily concerned with 'the right wing'. They don't care about Mitt Romney fans, but specifically focus on groups that are inherently fans of liberty and skeptical of government. This can account for anybody across the political spectrum. They only add 'right-wing' for rhetorical effect. 'We Are Change', for instance, were just as active during the Bush administration.

  5. PrettyPanther profile image83
    PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago

    "That's what it feels like to be peace and freedom lovers these days - those who may have an issue with kill lists, drone strikes and illegal wars."

    Surprise!  I have an issue with all of those things, as do a large percentage of the American population.  I'm not worried that government thugs are going to arrest me for what I think, though.  However, should I decide to start advocating secession or taking back our government using 2nd Amendment remedies, and organizing people to do so, then I would expect to end up on a government watch list.  Should I carry it so far as to plan an actual violent attack or overthrow, then I would expect I might be arrested.

    1. Barefootfae profile image61
      Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Surprise again! I actually agree with you!

      Now maybe we can agree that trying to paint the picture that the only folks that have ever engaged in such activity are right wing types? Do we remember the sixties?
      And that link I posted previously has eveidence that in recent years assassination from the left has been a discussion.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image83
        PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, I can agree that it isn't only right-wing types who have ever engaged in that activity.  Who said it was?

        1. Barefootfae profile image61
          Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Implications above in thread.
          Please don't go circular on me here.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image83
            PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Okay, just because I question your assumptions does not mean I am "going circular."  Are you referring to Jeff's post? 

            There is a difference between an individual spouting hate language (i.e., Kill Bush) and an organized group of armed citizens advocating 2nd amendment remedies, as they like to call them.

            Any left-wing group that arms and organizes around the idea of overthrowing the government would be under the same scrutiny as a right-wing group.

            1. Barefootfae profile image61
              Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Agreed....and the best way to not have the activity you are referring to is not threaten the right's of the citizens. It's simple.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image83
                PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Unfortunately, not everyone agrees about what constitutes "threatening the rights of the citizens."  Gun control is a good example.  I have no problem regulating guns including requiring licensing and background checks and don't consider it an infringement upon my rights.  Why?  Because if I am a law abiding citizen, I can still get a gun.  Others believe that any regulation of guns is an infringement upon their rights.

                Remember when seat belt laws were first instituted?  Motorcycle helmets?  We heard the same protests about "my rights" from some people.

                That said, I am as appalled as you are about what our government officials do in the name of security, not only here but across the world.  However, I am not advocating secession or overthrow of the government.  Not yet, anyway.  ;-)

                1. innersmiff profile image79
                  innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Motorcycle helmet and seat belt laws do not, as far as I'm aware, extend to what you do on your own private property. Gun regulation does.

                  1. profile image0
                    Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I still think motorcycle helmet and seat belt laws are stupid.  Not that it isn't wise to wear a helmet or buckle up, but there's no compelling reason why the state should be able to fine me if I decide not to.

                    Once a wreck occurs, the laws are only in place to mitigate the damage, not to prevent the wreck in the first place.

                  2. PrettyPanther profile image83
                    PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, you are right about that.  But, just like you can let a car sit on your property with expired registration and broken taillights, you can have a gun in your home that is not properly licensed.  Just like a car, though, if you decide to use it, it better be legal unless you are ready to pay the penalty for getting caught.

  6. profile image59
    retief2000posted 3 years ago

    I did my homework,  I even told you how to find the answer for yourself.  I will not give you a copy of my homework.  If you are too lazy to work it out for yourself, so be it.  I wish you were honest enough to bother.

 
working