Texas Tea Party/Republican Candidate or Congress advocates violence.

Texas Republican candidate or congress advocates violent revolution if the Republcians/Tea Partiers cannot win at the election booth...only in America.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/102210dnmetbroden.1b2338185.html

"We have a constitutional remedy," Broden said then. "And the Framers say if that don't work, revolution."

Watson asked if his definition of revolution included violent overthrow of the government. In a prolonged back-and-forth, Broden at first declined to explicitly address insurrection, saying the first way to deal with a repressive government is to "alter it or abolish it."

"If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to get rid of it by any means necessary," Broden said, adding the nation was founded on a violent revolt against Britain's King George III.

Watson asked if violence would be in option in 2010, under the current government.

"The option is on the table. I don't think that we should remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms," Broden said, without elaborating. "However, it is not the first option." - Dallas News

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sadly, millions of Americans feel that the middle class engine that drives the nation will continue to be exploited, degraded and eventually destroyed unless there is deliberate action against the current batch of policy makers, their staff and the support structure that enables the abuse of power that is so prevalent in US politics today.
The answer is NOT a violent revolution. It's far more simple. Make these fools in DC live by the same set of laws, rules and policies that they set for others. Start with term limits, make them part of the social security system, take away there publicly funded health care, retirement and self made pay scales and require that they've actually held a job with taxable income.
At that point you will see a renewed approach to governing.
Now, maybe the question is, if these changes were to be shown to be what the majority of people wanted, would the current DC goons abide? Or would they rather go out in a blaze of glory?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And exactly how do you do that, if voting them out of office doesn't work?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, joe how about the sentiments of our Founding Fathers who ensconced the Second Amendment into the Bill of Rights for the purpose of Americans removing a government that no longer answers to the People?

Thomas Jefferson Quote

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...

And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms.

The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify
them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the
blood of patriots and tyrants.

It is its natural manure."

So what about the sentiments of Thomas Jefferson?​

 

On this I agree.

On this I would agree also.

If you can show which laws the fools in DC are exempt from, I would agree. But as I see it, they are playing under the same laws and are not exempt from the laws of the land.

Are their compensation systems out of whack? Yeah, I am in total agreement on that issue. Should compensation for public employees be reviewed and adjusted to make them more comperable to those found in the private sector? Yes, I think so.

They are now part of the Social Security System. As previously stated, performanced based compensation would be a much better compensation system versus the one currently in place if properly applied. But then you still have the real issue of corruption which remains untouched.

Why should a congressman care about his/her compensation when you have special interests dumping huge sums of cash into their camapaign war chests and funding family interests or offering congressmen multimillion dollar a year jobs in private industry after they deliver sweet heart deals in congress (e.g. Medicare Prescription Drug).

Well goon is probably too good a word to describe many of our representatives in Congress. Any man or woman who would put their personal interests above those of the nation is the lowest form of pond scum in my book.

Our kids are sacrificing their lives in foriegn lands and many of these folks in Washington don't have the courage or moral integrity to cast their vote in a forthright manner...in the interest of the nation.

What is needed in Washington is an amendment to the Constitution that takes special interest money out of our political system. We need a government that acts in the interests of its people and not in the interests of the monied few with agendas that are not in line with the health of the nation or its people.

 

A couple of those pesky little facts that keep getting in your way mr. roam, one the Constitution was written by more than one man. Jefferson by the way was a contrarian. He wanted a weak central government...as opposed to a strong central government as advocated by our founding father George Washington.

Two the comments made by Jefferson which you quoted were written in November of 1787 to a diplomat in reference to the Shay's Rebellion. The Constitution was drafted in September of 1787 and did not become the law of the land until March of 1798.

Jefferson went on to say about the Shay's Rebellion, "founded in ignorance ... The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive." I believe that describes you and those like you mr. roam.

Jefferson also referred to the delegates who had finalized a draft of the U.S. Constitution in September 1787, stating, "Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order." - Josh Horowitz

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/thomas-jefferson-and-the_b_273800.html

Jefferson was saying saying the Constitution is an over reaction to the Shays Revolt. Jefferson was just fine with the Articles of Confederation and did not believe in a strong central government as did George Washington and the other signers of the Constitution.

When put in context you can clearly understand that Jefferson was clearly not an advocate of the Constitution. He was happy with the Articles of Confederation. Additionally, Jefferson did not attend the Constitutional Convention nor was he a signer of the Constitution.

And this gets back to the strong central governent versus weak central government. George Washington and the signers of the Constitution along with the assemblies of the founding states were advocates of the Constitution and for a stronger central government and did ratify the Constitution. Jefferson was not an advocate of a stronger central government and did not sign the Constitution.

As our resident self proclaimed Constitutional expert and advocate of the Constitution, you should know this mr. roam.

This is just yet another in your long line of selective recall of our history and our governing foundations.

* Kite = a bird of prey similar to a falcon.

 

The idea that governments that are hostile to the rights of citizens and/or will of the people are fair game for revolutions is hardly new or uncommon. That sort of shit happens all over the world on a somewhat regular basis.

That said; it probably wasn't a smart thing for this guy to say from the standpoint of getting elected.

 

Who is currently working against the middle class? It's Republicans and Tea Party people with their radical pro-business agenda that would kill the middle class. They don't even want a minimum wage. And they think they can help the country by going to war against the US Army? They are ignorant, violent people driven by irrational fear and corporate interests that expoit them.

 

I think the people getting attention are in favor of bringing back some of the outsourced jobs. I think that would help the middle class.

I'm not sure anyone thinks that. First, ask yourself were the majority of the US soldiers would sit on many of these issues. That said it's not entirely left field to imagine foreign trained "security" contractors being implemented for such an event, is it?

 

If voting them out of office doesn't work--in the present case--that means that a majority of the voters do not agree with your position. If a majority of the voters do not agree with you, why should you be able to enact your minority viewpoint through the use or the threat of violence?

What happens after the insurrection? Do you deny people who disagree with you the right to vote? Do you intimidate them into agreement? If not those, then why would you expect them not vote into power people with the same policies they voted for before the rebellion?

Rebellion is justified NOT when people elect politicians you dislike, but when the government makes fair elections impossible.

 

Very well put, Pandaemoni.
But this sentence I think could be looked at a few ways:

Most of the middle class people that I've talked to that usually DO NOT vote say that this has already happened. They say the system is broken and there is no sense because, as jopistole pointed out, big money dictates the candidates and the policies.


In 2000 many people were outraged saying that it was fixed to elect Bush when he did not truly win the election.
In 2008 people went to Barack Obama for "change and hope" and got the same policies Bush promoted. Expanding war, massive spending and bitter bipartison rhetoric.


So here were are. the people that talk the loudest about change, however radical, are gaining momentum. It's no surprise really.

Infact, like so many before them, most these loud mouthed dissenters would probably go to washington and almost overnight be transformed into the same type of politicians that we distrust without somehow insulating themselves from the culture of questionable favors and incentives.


But the fact remains that for America as a sovereign country, everything is on the line when you've been bought up and sold out by people who see themselves as global governors and multi-national elitists first and American's second.

 

The contentious issue here is not the suggestion that oppressive governments should be unseated by their citizens, but that the US government as it is currently constituted falls into that category (or, will if the GOP doesn't do well enough next month).

 

Mr. joepistol, Thomas Jefferson was in France as the Ambassador, (did you know that fact) or in all probability He would would have been a delegate to the Convention, so yes you are correct, He wasn't a Delegate to the Constitutional Convention or the drafting of the Bill of Rights, but by His statement, which I quoted, it is very clear what His sentiments on that subject were, even you can't spin that.

And lets see some other thoughts of Mr. Jefferson from that same letter;

"Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honorably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion."

"And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms"​

Now one other little point.....Thomas Jefferson was elected to the Presidency, and as such He took the Oath of Office in the Senate Chambers, a pesky little detail......

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." ​

So President Thomas Jefferson took a Oath freely, that supported and affirmed the Constitution of the United State.

A Pesky Little Fact.

It was James Madison who wrote the II Amendment, and lets hear his thoughts;

"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

And one of those pesky little facts is that the reason for the II Amendment as writen by those Great Men was to enable the People to Control the Government when and if it became unresponsive to The Peoples wishes, yes a pesky little fact.

Federalist Paper #46;

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

So it would seem from the Federalist Paper #46 the reason and rational for the II Amendment was not limited only to defense of self, of the nation, but also defense from the Federal Government

 

More chaff mr. roam.

This is not about the right to bear arms. This is not about state militias. This is about armed insurection because a minority failed to become a majority through the ballot box.

Two, the references you make to Jefferson are not relevant either. The papers in which you quote Jefferson preceed the acceptance of the ratification of the Constitution and reflect Jefferson's opinion on the Constitution.

And Jefferson was not supporter of the Constitution. He did not draft it and was staunchly in favor of a weaker central government...even during his time in office as president.

And what you fail to pick up on here is that the Constitution and indeed the government of the United States is the product of many men...not just one or two men that you like to quote. There were many other men like George Washington who had a much different vision of the country and the roll of a central government and those men were in the majority during the formation of this nation and its founding documents.

 

Mr. joepistol tell that to your Democrats and Liberals......

Mr. joepistol....

Mr. joepistol, I even said you were correct, and told you why Mr. Jefferson couldn't have taken part.

But President Jefferson took a Oath, some thing considered sacred at those times, Something the liberals of today have failed to comprehend, to;

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." ​

And guess what, the Constitution is exactly about limiting the power of the Federal Government.......

Again some thing that Liberals of today fail to comprehend, wish to end with a living interpretation of the Constitution to suite the populist whim of the day.

And Mr. joepistol you are right about a small minority, but when the elections are conducted with illegal aliens voting, the men and women of the military serving overseas denied their right to vote, and voter fraud encouraged by Democrat supported and supporting agencies like ACORN, were is the majority?

A lie of majority committed by fraud? what then?, as Jefferson said;

"God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion."


"And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms"​

Yes, Mr. joepistol we know who is the expert at chaff....actually being from the farm we call it spreading manure......I bow to the expert...Mr. joepistole.

 

Rightwing violence this year

 

lol, mr. roam...it seems you are suddenly having trouble typing. All of a sudden you don't know how to type my name. If you want your name typed correctly, you should give others the same courtesy.

Two, do you have any proof of election fraud? No you don't. You have unsupported allegations of your masters. Those are not proofs. You have proof of voter registration fraud. But you have no proof of actual election/voting fraud.

Do you have any proof of illegal aliens voting? No. You don't. You just have unsupported allegations of your masters. Those in disagreement with your agenda have more cause for claim that their votes were not represented than you do.

The conservative activist supreme court in the presidential 2000 election issued a series of orders that prevented Florida from properly counting all votes...giving the election to your boy...george II. And then we have the 2004 election where there were substancial voting irregularities in Ohio favoring your boy again, giving him the presidency.

Bottom line you have no evidence or real reason to believe your allegations.

"And guess what, the Constitution is exactly about limiting the power of the Federal Government......." - mr. roam

Wrong again, as previously pointed out to you on numerous occassions. The Constitution was drafted to form a stronger central government in order to fix the problems associated with a weak central government. It was not created to limit the power of an already weak central government...wake up mr. roam.

The Constitution does contain constraints on government power and contains a Bill of Rights....added later. But that is not the real reason for replacing the weaker Articles of Confederation.

Finally, it doesn't matter if Jefferson years latter took an oath to defend the Constitution when he became president. It was the law of the land then. It did not change his opinion and belief in a weaker central government. And it did not change his roll in the creation of this country.

As put to you many times, this country was created by many men who held very different views of government than those held by you and Jefferson.

 

Yes, and each of us must decide for ourselves when politics have become so slanted that fair representation is no longer possible. That said, from my perspective even though money influences elections, it does so by influencing the voters and they can, if they desire, vote against the monied interests. If that money was used to actually "rig" an election, hat would be a different story.

Similarly 2001 was a very peculiar case, not really susceptible of being easily repeated, and to the best of my knowledge, Bush in the end really did win Florida, so no harm no foul.

That Obama either dissembled about his policies or was roped into following Bush II is also an issue, but it is likely a artifact arising form a combination of (i) Obama's personal proclivities to govern from the center-left and (ii) the power of the two-party system.

On point (i), perhaps that is what people wanted, or perhaps Obama tricked them, but the voters still had a choice to elect a third-party candidate or to put Hillary or someone else into the office. At the end of a long, choice-filled process, they chose Obama. Point (ii) is really a variation of the "Big Money" argument in that both are manifestations of political power that one would need to overcome to field a different candidate. The tea party started putting up candidates that beat the GOP hand-selected candidates in some cases. It may be easy to go along with the existing political machine, but it's by no means impossible to defy it.

That people are generally too apathetic to defy it is evidence that the system generally works to people's satisfaction.

 

joe, I have stopped reading most of your post past the first insult, all you demonstrate is the panic mode you are in, and the spin that you hope will support your collapsing little world.

And a nice long example of "Tu quoque" yes anything to shift the focus off the Liberals and Democrats for their sins.

joe in case you don't get it, the Tea Party Holds the RNC just as responsible for the mess we and the country are in, as the Democrats.

The choice is between the fast road to Hell with the Democrats, or the High Road to Hell with the RNC, the only difference is the speed with which we get there.