Insane GOP Candidate of the Day

WingnutsOctober 2010 • Views: 5,259

And we have yet another Republican congressional candidate this morning who sounds for all the world like someone having a psychotic break, as Texas pastor Stephen Broden says violent overthrow of the government is ‘on the table’.

In the interview, Brad Watson, political reporter for WFAA-TV (Channel 8), asked Broden about a tea party event last year in Fort Worth in which he described the nation’s government as tyrannical.

“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.”

Jump to bottom

161 comments

Obdicut Fri, Oct 22, 2010 10:49:17am

Repost:

What’s annoying (besides how dangerous it is) is that people who say shit like this are taking a great philosophical premise and just using it for idiocy.

My right to self-determination is inalienable, meaning it is untransferable. Does that mean nobody can take away my right to do, well, anything? No. It means that, in engaging with the Democratic government and the social contract to provide laws and a society, that I am expressing my right to self-determination. It means I am exercising self-determination through the mechanism of democracy.

Whereas in Myanmar, where the junta controls elections, people have that right to self-determination violated. The right still exists, but it is temporally unavailable, violated, denied to them by the government.

The distinction between those two states is both obvious and interesting.

I’m not big into throwing around and sort of ‘traitor’ rhetoric, but Stephen Broden is skirting really, really close to advocating insurrection against the government.

lawhawk Fri, Oct 22, 2010 10:51:46am

It again bears repeating and extended remarks (from when I posted this in the pages). The local GOP chair said that the comments were inappropriate.

That was an inappropriate thing for the GOP chair to say.

Instead of saying that this guy had no business being a representative of the party and that the GOP will not tolerance such threats to violence (regardless of which number option it turns out to be), he merely said that it was inappropriate.

The right thing would have been to kick him out of the party. And given that this guy was in a race for a district where the GOP had no chance of winning, it would have been able to send a message that this kind of crazy will not be tolerated. The statement that it was merely inappropriate gives this kind of crazy cover. And it was wrong.

shutdown Fri, Oct 22, 2010 10:53:36am

re: #1 Obdicut

Repost:

What’s annoying (besides how dangerous it is) is that people who say shit like this are taking a great philosophical premise and just using it for idiocy.

My right to self-determination is inalienable, meaning it is untransferable. Does that mean nobody can take away my right to do, well, anything? No. It means that, in engaging with the Democratic government and the social contract to provide laws and a society, that I am expressing my right to self-determination. It means I am exercising self-determination through the mechanism of democracy.

Whereas in Myanmar, where the junta controls elections, people have that right to self-determination violated. The right still exists, but it is temporally unavailable, violated, denied to them by the government.

The distinction between those two states is both obvious and interesting.

I’m not big into throwing around and sort of ‘traitor’ rhetoric, but Stephen Broden is skirting really, really close to advocating insurrection against the government.

You are being too circumspect. Alluding to one’s willingness to support the violent overthrow of the government will definitely get the attention of the FBI and Secret Service. This is almost as close to secessionist and threatening the POTUS as you can get without actually showing up in DC with an armed gang of deranged militias.

Kragar Fri, Oct 22, 2010 10:55:32am

I love how people who live in the most free country on Earth see tyranny when ever they get their dander up. These assholes would be the first to buckle under a real tyrant they agree with, happily marching along as long as they get to beat the drum.

Soap_Man Fri, Oct 22, 2010 10:55:32am

It’s been said before, but I wonder what they plan on installing when they overthrow the democratically-elected government they despise so much.

That’s the question(s) any reporter should ask to a candidate repeating this violent revolution stuff. Is a revolution appropriate because you lost an election? And after this revolution is successful, who would be in charge? Would you have elections again, and do you have another revolt if you lose again in the future?

Political Atheist Fri, Oct 22, 2010 10:57:02am

re: #5 Soap_Man

That’s like feeding the troll. Reporter calls/textx it in-Seditious candidate-Film at 11:00

Lidane Fri, Oct 22, 2010 10:59:44am

re: #2 lawhawk

The right thing would have been to kick him out of the party.

Agreed.

And given that this guy was in a race for a district where the GOP had no chance of winning, it would have been able to send a message that this kind of crazy will not be tolerated. The statement that it was merely inappropriate gives this kind of crazy cover. And it was wrong.

Sadly, it’s just another sign of how far off the rails the GOP has gone since 2008. This kind of talk isn’t considered crazy anymore. It’s considered patriotic and even normal, particularly by the Tea Party types. I’d be shocked if the local GOP chair in this district isn’t tarred as a RINO for calling what this guy said inappropriate.

Decatur Deb Fri, Oct 22, 2010 10:59:46am

On-topic enough.

Here is the current list of anti-nominees on the Lizard Sanity Check page. I’ll update periodically until election day. I guess someone can anti-nominate this loon.

We have only a half-dozen names. I’m sure there are more out there.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

engineer cat Fri, Oct 22, 2010 10:59:48am

the government mysteriously becomes “oppressive” when democrats are in power. when a republican is president, it’s sean hannity saying “don’t you think it’s unpatriotic to criticize a president in time of war?”

RogueOne Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:00:23am

re: #5 Soap_Man

It’s been said before, but I wonder what they plan on installing when they overthrow the democratically-elected government they despise so much.

That’s the question(s) any reporter should ask to a candidate repeating this violent revolution stuff. Is a revolution appropriate because you lost an election? And after this revolution is successful, who would be in charge? Would you have elections again, and do you have another revolt if you lose again in the future?

I don’t see a revolution coming but I do wonder what is going to happen when 30 or 40 states decide they’ve had enough of the interference coming out of washington. I’d wager that in the next 25 years we’ll see the very first constitutional amendments come out of the states thereby completely bypassing their elected federal officials.

shutdown Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:00:58am

re: #5 Soap_Man

It’s been said before, but I wonder what they plan on installing when they overthrow the democratically-elected government they despise so much.

That’s the question(s) any reporter should ask to a candidate repeating this violent revolution stuff. Is a revolution appropriate because you lost an election? And after this revolution is successful, who would be in charge? Would you have elections again, and do you have another revolt if you lose again in the future?

They haven’t thought much past “Let’s take back America”. This sentiment has little to do with democracy, and everything to do with a deep feeling of having been left behind socially and intellectually, along with an apparent erosion of evidentiary support for American exceptionalism and the concept of manifest destiny. This is the revolution of vile people who have been courted by the GOP for their votes, regardless of their positions on issues. The GOP opened the door and invited the Devil into the house. Now there is no turning back.

DerekM Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:01:10am

Saying ‘revolution is on the table,’ for political disagreements is a lot like saying ‘suicide is on the table,’ as a cure for the common cold. While I have serious concerns about what is taking place in the government, I would never advocate insurrection or revolution over something as simple as health care. Death camps, true dictatorships, real life threatening issues, yeah, I can see revolution as being ‘on the table…’

To pretend we’re at that point right now, or will ever be at that point, is just silly, and shows the world that this man is an alarmist who shouldn’t be taken seriously… except that we should (to an extent) if he is already saying things like this. That’s a red flag in my mind when someone starts talking about our ‘violent roots.’

Kragar Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:01:42am

Democratically elected Government = Tyranny

Judicial Branch = Conspiracy

Publice Health and Education = Socialism

Xenophobia = Patriotism

Obdicut Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:02:18am

re: #10 RogueOne

Er.

Can you explain by what mechanism amendments to state constitutions will allow them to ‘completely bypass their elected federal officials’?

shutdown Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:02:29am

re: #6 Rightwingconspirator

That’s like feeding the troll. Reporter calls/textx it in-Seditious candidate-Film at 11:00

I disagree. These statements are not being made by a cranky deranged wino behind the Piggly Wiggly, but by an endorsed major party candidate.

Charles Johnson Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:03:07am

re: #2 lawhawk

The right thing would have been to kick him out of the party. And given that this guy was in a race for a district where the GOP had no chance of winning, it would have been able to send a message that this kind of crazy will not be tolerated. The statement that it was merely inappropriate gives this kind of crazy cover. And it was wrong.

Absolutely right — but outright denunciations of craziness just are not happening in the GOP these days. And I think the reason’s pretty obvious — the GOP is desperate to regain power, and they realize that the racists and the anti-government wackos are a very important part of their base.

Lidane Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:03:14am

re: #9 engineer dog

the government mysteriously becomes “oppressive” when democrats are in power. when a republican is president, it’s sean hannity saying “don’t you think it’s unpatriotic to criticize a president in time of war?”

It’s the consequence of a partisan mind:

[Link: www.gallup.com…]

In general, people’s perceptions change depending on whether or not their favored party is in power. The problem is, the insane are currently running the GOP asylum, so any perspective has been lost. People are seeing “OOGA BOOGA” everywhere they turn because that’s what they’re being told to see, and there’s no one strong enough on the right to really call them out on it. Anytime all the fear mongering is criticized, that person is called a RINO and smeared.

shutdown Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:04:26am

re: #17 Lidane

It’s the consequence of a partisan mind:

…

I like that. You turn a nice phrase.

Lidane Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:04:42am

re: #10 RogueOne

States can’t bypass federal laws.

3eff Jeff Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:05:19am

re: #3 imp_62

You are being too circumspect. Alluding to one’s willingness to support the violent overthrow of the government will definitely get the attention of the FBI and Secret Service. This is almost as close to secessionist and threatening the POTUS as you can get without actually showing up in DC with an armed gang of deranged militias.

Right, it is the job of the Secret Service and FBI to investigate and determine whether it is appropriate to make an arrest on treason. It is then the job of the courts to determine if someone is actually guilty of treason. Given that treason is the only crime called out explicitly in the Constitution itself (particularly given the listed punishment), it’s a pretty serious charge.

I would say good taste and rules of reasonable debate dictate that accusations of treason be left to Federal Law Enforcement and the Courts. So, they’ll look into this guy, and given that (to the best of my knowledge), Obdicut isn’t a fed, he’s right not to directly make the charge.

Major Tom Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:05:52am

re: #3 imp_62

“This is almost as close to secessionist and threatening the POTUS as you can get without actually showing up in DC with an armed gang of deranged militias.”

So how soon before we start seeing that?

Lidane Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:06:00am

re: #18 imp_62

I like that. You turn a nice phrase.

Thanks. I have my moments sometimes. :)

Lidane Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:06:58am

re: #21 Major Tom

So how soon before we start seeing that?

At the rate the GOP is going? November 2012, should Obama win a second term.

shutdown Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:08:33am

re: #20 3eff Jeff

Right, it is the job of the Secret Service and FBI to investigate and determine whether it is appropriate to make an arrest on treason. It is then the job of the courts to determine if someone is actually guilty of treason. Given that treason is the only crime called out explicitly in the Constitution itself (particularly given the listed punishment), it’s a pretty serious charge.

I would say good taste and rules of reasonable debate dictate that accusations of treason be left to Federal Law Enforcement and the Courts. So, they’ll look into this guy, and given that (to the best of my knowledge), Obdicut isn’t a fed, he’s right not to directly make the charge.

There is a difference between calling someone’s statements “treacherous” or “treasonous” and claiming that someone is “guilty of treason”. Guilt is a legal (or moral) operation. Qualifying someone’s comments or statements is a valid analytical tool. So, I will say it again: This guy’s statements are reek of secessionist and treasonous thinking.

shutdown Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:09:44am

re: #21 Major Tom

“This is almost as close to secessionist and threatening the POTUS as you can get without actually showing up in DC with an armed gang of deranged militias.”

So how soon before we start seeing that?

Haven’t we?
[Link: www.examiner.com…]

Now it’s just a matter of degrees.

Political Atheist Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:09:56am

re: #20 3eff Jeff

But it’s clearly (non criminal) sedition. So he can be called out if not arrested on that basis.

Headline-Trailing Republican Candidate Threatens Violent Revolution

Why not?

3eff Jeff Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:11:38am

re: #21 Major Tom

“This is almost as close to secessionist and threatening the POTUS as you can get without actually showing up in DC with an armed gang of deranged militias.”

So how soon before we start seeing that?

Well, fortunately, the Hutaree was rounded up by the FBI and the guy who decided to shoot up the ACLU in San Francisco was gunned down and arrested. It probably depends on how the election goes (which will at worst go ‘not well enough’).

Decatur Deb Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:12:15am

BBL

RogueOne Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:12:28am

re: #14 Obdicut

Er.

Can you explain by what mechanism amendments to state constitutions will allow them to ‘completely bypass their elected federal officials’?

[Link: lmgtfy.com…]

First link.

darthstar Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:12:58am

Sounds like this guy’s watched too many Chuck Norris and Steven Seagal movies.

3eff Jeff Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:13:31am

re: #24 imp_62

There is a difference between calling someone’s statements “treacherous” or “treasonous” and claiming that someone is “guilty of treason”. Guilt is a legal (or moral) operation. Qualifying someone’s comments or statements is a valid analytical tool. So, I will say it again: This guy’s statements are reek of secessionist and treasonous thinking.

Fair enough. The short version of what I was trying to say was, outright calling him a traitor is dropping to their level. Saying his ‘statements reek of … treasonous thinking’ is probably still on our side of the line. And you’re right, it’s hard to describe it as anything else.

RogueOne Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:13:34am

re: #19 Lidane

States can’t bypass federal laws.

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

lawhawk Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:14:15am

re: #8 Decatur Deb

FYI I think you’re referring to Rick Santorum from PA.

Fat Bastard Vegetarian Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:14:40am

re: #30 darthstar

WOLVERINES!

shutdown Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:15:00am

re: #31 3eff Jeff

Fair enough. The short version of what I was trying to say was, outright calling him a traitor is dropping to their level. Saying his ‘statements reek of … treasonous thinking’ is probably still on our side of the line. And you’re right, it’s hard to describe it as anything else.

There is a saying on German: Wehret den Anfängen. Loosely translates into: Nip trouble in the bud as soon as you notice it.

Major Tom Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:15:19am

re: #25 imp_62

How many people showed up to that… the article doesn’t say…

re: #27 3eff Jeff
I predict the Republicans will barely take the House, not the Senate, and will declare victory… However, there is a chance they won’t even take the House. If that happens, they will tout their minor electoral victories in an attempt to keep the base together, without violence, awaiting 2012. If that happens, and they don’t win big in 2012. There could be violence. By the way they talk now, another two years of right wing propaganda, and incitement could push them over the edge.

RogueOne Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:16:08am

re: #36 Major Tom

I say the over/under number for the house is 50. I say over, barely.

Obdicut Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:16:36am

re: #29 RogueOne

Oh, I see. So by saying:

I’d wager that in the next 25 years we’ll see the very first constitutional amendments come out of the states thereby completely bypassing their elected federal officials.

You meant that the states will start passing federal constitutional amendments willy-nilly, not that they’ll pass state amendments.

So you think the states will call constitutional conventions? You realize what the bar for that is, right?

3eff Jeff Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:17:22am

re: #26 Rightwingconspirator

But it’s clearly (non criminal) sedition. So he can be called out if not arrested on that basis.

Headline-Trailing Republican Candidate Threatens Violent Revolution

Why not?

I was speaking to us being tasteful here on LGF. I’m with lawhawk on the proper remedy, but that headline is technically factual. (And my comments about taste and reasonable debate are pretty much restricted to places where they might be enforced, like here, on LGF. I don’t expect much out of the media, as much as I wish I could.)

Lidane Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:17:44am

re: #32 RogueOne

The sentence after the ones you bolded is the key:

This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

If we’ve never done it in the entire nation’s history, what the hell makes you think it would happen anytime soon, or that it would go the way you want it to?

A convention like that wouldn’t be convened lightly, and there is nothing going on in this country — all idiotic hyperbole aside — that would precipitate such a thing happening. Nobody’s freedoms are in that much danger that the states have to band together like that, unless you actually believe all the Tea Party idiocy that is being spread out there.

Obdicut Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:18:01am

re: #32 RogueOne

Heh. Well, why do you think that’s going to happen, Rogue? Can you give an example of an amendment that you think that 3/4 of all the states will agree to ratify?

shutdown Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:18:24am

re: #36 Major Tom

I don’t know; that is a good question. However, arguably any one armed man standing on a hill overlooking my capital is one too many.

RogueOne Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:19:39am

re: #38 Obdicut

Oh, I see. So by saying:

You meant that the states will start passing federal constitutional amendments willy-nilly, not that they’ll pass state amendments.

So you think the states will call constitutional conventions? You realize what the bar for that is, right?

Yeah, that’s why I said 30 or 40 states. If 33 of the states go totally blue in the next few years, and there’s a chance (albeit small), what’s to stop them from saying they’ve had enough and start convening a convention.

Major Tom Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:21:09am

re: #42 imp_62

Absolutely. I agree.
I was reading the article and it occurred to me that if it was just a couple of weekend warriors playing pretend revolutionary, it would be much less intimidating. But if it was a couple of hundred or even a thousand people, that would begin to scare the crap out of me.
Sometimes It’s difficult to judge the size and efficacy of these movements.

3eff Jeff Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:21:50am

re: #36 Major Tom

I predict the Republicans will barely take the House, not the Senate, and will declare victory… However, there is a chance they won’t even take the House. If that happens, they will tout their minor electoral victories in an attempt to keep the base together, without violence, awaiting 2012. If that happens, and they don’t win big in 2012. There could be violence. By the way they talk now, another two years of right wing propaganda, and incitement could push them over the edge.

I hope you’re right. (And it seems like a reasonable assessment.)

Our Precious Bodily Fluids Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:22:20am

WFAA’s article is better than the DMN one. It has video and complete quotes.

Like this one:

“Let me tell you that is something that happened in Germany when the Jews were walking into the furnaces and they didn’t even try to stop or fight their way. They walked in because they did not believe that this was happening. They didn’t believe that humanity could be so evil. I am submitting to you tonight that is where America is right now. They are our enemies and we must resist them.”

lawhawk Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:22:22am

re: #32 RogueOne

Bear in mind that hundreds upon hundreds of amendments to the US Constitution have been proffered in the US history, and only 27 have been enacted. Four are still technically pending for approval, though their chances for ratification are practically nonexistent or the conditions for their original intent are no longer present. The ERA and DC voting rights amendments both expired and are no longer pending.

iossarian Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:22:23am

Non-toxic “white powder” mailed to Democratic candidate (with bonus swastikas):

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com…]

Obdicut Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:22:33am

re: #43 RogueOne

Yeah, that’s why I said 30 or 40 states.

Well, that doesn’t make much sense— it’d take 34 states to call the convention, and then 37 to ratify them. So 30 states wouldn’t be enough.

If 33 of the states go totally blue in the next few years, and there’s a chance (albeit small), what’s to stop them from saying they’ve had enough and start convening a convention.

Remind us again what an independent you are while we engage with your fantasy about 33 states going ‘totally blue’ in the next few years and amending the constitution.

RogueOne Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:23:01am

re: #40 Lidane

The sentence after the ones you bolded is the key:

If we’ve never done it in the entire nation’s history, what the hell makes you think it would happen anytime soon, or that it would go the way you want it to?

A convention like that wouldn’t be convened lightly, and there is nothing going on in this country — all idiotic hyperbole aside — that would precipitate such a thing happening. Nobody’s freedoms are in that much danger that the states have to band together like that, unless you actually believe all the Tea Party idiocy that is being spread out there.

That’s why my previous statement said “the very first….”//

I don’t know what issue that will finally break the camels back but I can see the blue states deciding that the federal government (with the help of the judiciary) has overstepped its bounds. It could be HCR, It could be out of control spending by both parties, who knows. I’m just making the prediction, I don’t have all the details just yet.//

iossarian Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:24:28am

re: #48 iossarian

I wonder if there will be as much coverage in the MSM of this, as there was of the stray bullet through Eric Cantor’s unused window.

Major Tom Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:24:28am

re: #45 3eff Jeff

That’s funny, I hope I’m wrong…. (I assume you were referring to the simple House victory scenario… Though I even hope that one is wrong… I secretly hope the Dems have a massive unforeseen comback and the Gop and teabaggers are discredited, and reduced to a fringe minority.)

Obdicut Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:25:32am

re: #51 iossarian

Cue Huckabee saying that any attempts to get this guy to shut up amount to censorship.

Lidane Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:25:44am

re: #41 Obdicut

Heh. Well, why do you think that’s going to happen, Rogue? Can you give an example of an amendment that you think that 3/4 of all the states will agree to ratify?

What’s interesting is when you look at the Amendments that have been passed. The idiocy of Prohibition aside, all of the subsequent Amendments after the Bill of Rights are about clarifying Constitutional issues — sovereign immunity, Presidential elections, citizenship, ending slavery, voting rights, Presidential term limits, the election of Senators, etc.

I can’t think of anything going on right now that would cause the states to bypass normal channels and convene on their own. It’s just not going to happen.

RogueOne Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:26:11am

re: #49 Obdicut

Well, that doesn’t make much sense— it’d take 34 states to call the convention, and then 37 to ratify them. So 30 states wouldn’t be enough.

Remind us again what an independent you are while we engage with your fantasy about 33 states going ‘totally blue’ in the next few years and amending the constitution.

Right now the red is located on the coasts and it’s getting worse. How is any of that my fault? I look at what is happening in europe and I see the possibility of the same kinds of scenarios here…state governments broke, the federal government broke, wild changes having to take place and it’s easy for me to see 33 of the blue states decide they’ve had enough. I’m not rooting for it, who knows what amendments they’ll come up with, but I can see it being a possibility.

Major Tom Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:26:19am

damn. gotta run an errand…bbl

iossarian Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:26:22am

re: #53 Obdicut

I expect the Huckster to be way out in the vanguard of this./

3eff Jeff Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:26:26am

re: #52 Major Tom

That’s funny, I hope I’m wrong… (I assume you were referring to the simple House victory scenario… Though I even hope that one is wrong… I secretly hope the Dems have a massive unforeseen comback and the Gop and teabaggers are discredited, and reduced to a fringe minority.)

Maybe I should have been more clear. I hope you’re right about no violence after the election. I hope it doesn’t happen.

webevintage Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:26:28am

re: #36 Major Tom

How many people showed up to that… the article doesn’t say…

re: #27 3eff Jeff
I predict the Republicans will barely take the House, not the Senate, and will declare victory… However, there is a chance they won’t even take the House. If that happens, they will tout their minor electoral victories in an attempt to keep the base together, without violence, awaiting 2012. If that happens, and they don’t win big in 2012. There could be violence. By the way they talk now, another two years of right wing propaganda, and incitement could push them over the edge.

If they do not take the House Dick Army has already let us know what the strategy will be.
ACORN!
EARLY VOTING + INNER CITY = VOTER FRAUD!11!

shutdown Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:27:09am

In the spirit of Semper Fi and Dragon Lady, I will now remove myself to the gym for some (hopefully) life prolonging exercise.

BBL

Amory Blaine Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:27:54am

The GOP has open traitors on ballots.

Lidane Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:28:16am

re: #50 RogueOne

I’m just making the prediction, I don’t have all the details just yet.

So basically, you’re just saying words and hoping someone agrees with you.

Our Precious Bodily Fluids Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:29:00am

re: #51 iossarian

I wonder if there will be as much coverage in the MSM of this, as there was of the stray bullet through Eric Cantor’s unused window.

Pat Buchannon’s thinking, “Hell, I get fan letters covered in swastikas all the time. What’s the big deal?”

RogueOne Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:29:25am

re: #62 Lidane

So basically, you’re just saying words and hoping someone agrees with you.

The question was about revolutions, I extrapolated. Our constitution gives the states a way to make changes without resorting to violent revolution.

sagehen Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:30:06am

Funny how when Bush had an approval rating of 23% and Cheney was barely cracking double digits, not a single prominent Democrat suggested any other remedy than registering voters and getting them to the polls.

Our Precious Bodily Fluids Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:30:13am

re: #63 negativ

And then he says, “oh, white powder! I thought they said white power.”

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:30:26am

Man, yokels are awesome

Obdicut Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:30:45am

re: #55 RogueOne

Your scenario is crazy-pants, and it’s kind of transparent, dude. Do me the favor of not thinking I’m an idiot.

When you talk about 33 states going blue because they’ve ‘had enough’, you’re not being independent.

Sheesh.

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:31:57am

re: #10 RogueOne

I don’t see a revolution coming but I do wonder what is going to happen when 30 or 40 states decide they’ve had enough of the interference coming out of washington. I’d wager that in the next 25 years we’ll see the very first constitutional amendments come out of the states thereby completely bypassing their elected federal officials.

Wheee more anti-government crazy rhetoric, just with the volume turned down

creepy

Wozza Matter? Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:40:22am

re: #21 Major Tom

“This is almost as close to secessionist and threatening the POTUS as you can get without actually showing up in DC with an armed gang of deranged militias.”

So how soon before we start seeing that?

i shudder to think.

Image: tpm-20090912-protest4.jpg

sagehen Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:40:28am

re: #43 RogueOne

Yeah, that’s why I said 30 or 40 states. If 33 of the states go totally blue in the next few years, and there’s a chance (albeit small), what’s to stop them from saying they’ve had enough and start convening a convention.

Members of Congress are not entirely disconnected from the States they hail from, and they’re elected by the same people who voted on their State Legislatures.

If there’s enough mood in the States for anything even vaguely close to what you’re suggesting, the same mood will induce Congress to already have done whatever it is the States would be agitating for.

RogueOne Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:40:33am

re: #68 Obdicut

Your scenario is crazy-pants, and it’s kind of transparent, dude. Do me the favor of not thinking I’m an idiot.

When you talk about 33 states going blue because they’ve ‘had enough’, you’re not being independent.

Sheesh.

Your projecting your liberal bias on the majority of the country, stop it. 50% of independents and the same amount of repubs/dems (depending on who is in charge) believe the federal goverment is too large and dangerous. More and more people are getting disillusioned by the national parties and if the economic situation doesn’t get better over the next decade it could get vitriolic and ugly.

I can easily see a scenario where the states get together and say “the federal government doesn’t have the authority to force us to abide by ……, and we’re going to do something about it”. How many states are suing over HCR? 22? That’s getting close to the magic number isn’t it?

RogueOne Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:41:15am

re: #69 WindUpBird

Wheee more anti-government crazy rhetoric, just with the volume turned down

creepy

Why do you hate the constitution so much? If the people who founded the nation didn’t want the states to have the ability to make changes on their own they wouldn’t have put it in writing.

RadicalModerate Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:41:58am

Dammit to hell, I’m really getting fed up with the nutballs here in Texas.

Just a brief (and not all-inclusive) rundown - from just THIS YEAR:

Governor gives lip service to secession.
Texas Board of Education forces creationism into science class and Dominionism into history books.
Racism runs rampant in Tea-Party sponsored events.
Assassination threats against Obama - “Please visit Dallas soon, Mr. Obama- my guns and ammo welcome you” (paraphrased)
Terror Babies!
The 2010 state GOP platform (gay marriage is a felony).
Voter suppression/intimidation during early voting in 2010 elections.
Attempted arson of Arlington mosque.
Advocating violent overthrow of government.

RogueOne Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:42:48am

re: #71 sagehen

Members of Congress are not entirely disconnected from the States they hail from, and they’re elected by the same people who voted on their State Legislatures.

If there’s enough mood in the States for anything even vaguely close to what you’re suggesting, the same mood will induce Congress to already have done whatever it is the States would be agitating for.

You would think. I don’t see any, or much difference, in the parties. Repubs say they’ve learned their lessons but I won’t believe it until I see it.

Wozza Matter? Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:43:04am

re: #72 RogueOne

50% of independents and the same amount of repubs/dems (depending on who is in charge) believe the federal goverment is too large and dangerous

check your cupboards and under your bed…………

Wozza Matter? Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:44:41am

re: #74 RadicalModerate

Dammit to hell, I’m really getting fed up with the nutballs here in Texas.

Just a brief (and not all-inclusive) rundown - from just THIS YEAR:

Governor gives lip service to secession.
Texas Board of Education forces creationism into science class and Dominionism into history books.
Racism runs rampant in Tea-Party sponsored events.
Assassination threats against Obama - “Please visit Dallas soon, Mr. Obama- my guns and ammo welcome you” (paraphrased)
Terror Babies!
The 2010 state GOP platform (gay marriage is a felony).
Voter suppression/intimidation during early voting in 2010 elections.
Attempted arson of Arlington mosque.
Advocating violent overthrow of government.

how many times do you have to be told that they are all isolated incidents and nothing to be unduly concerned about?????. honestly - it’s like you are trying not to pay attention to what you are being told.

Obdicut Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:44:44am

re: #72 RogueOne

50% of independents and the same amount of repubs/dems (depending on who is in charge) believe the federal goverment is too large and dangerous.

Yeah. Which is why 33 states will go blue.

Dude, again: do me the courtesy of not treating me like I’m a moron. You’re not an independent, and you show so very clearly.

How many states are suing over HCR? 22? That’s getting close to the magic number isn’t it?

No. That’s very far from the ‘magic number’.

I’m not going to waste any more time on your crazy-pants threadjack.

Kragar Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:44:52am

When these assholes talk about Civil War, they’re thinking they’re talking about a grand army sweeping away the evil Federal Government. In reality, what they’re talking about is waging a war against their neighbors who don’t think the same way as they do.

lawhawk Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:44:58am

re: #72 RogueOne

22 isn’t 36.

Moreover, the way that Congress was set up by the founders, it’s quite easy for the House to get into a frothing mass of anger because its elected officials are constantly up for reelection every two years and will stick their fingers in the air and blow back and forth depending on the electorate’s whims. That will likely happen this year with Democrats losing control after winning it in a big way in 2006 and expanding that control in 2008.

The Senate, with its longer electoral cycles and cyclical voting schedule means that turnover is far less, shifts don’t happen nearly as often, and its members can take a longer view - as well as one that can moderate the actions of the House.

sagehen Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:45:13am

re: #44 Major Tom

Absolutely. I agree.
I was reading the article and it occurred to me that if it was just a couple of weekend warriors playing pretend revolutionary, it would be much less intimidating. But if it was a couple of hundred or even a thousand people, that would begin to scare the crap out of me.
Sometimes It’s difficult to judge the size and efficacy of these movements.

I don’t know if you’ve seen this essay, it made the rounds a few months ago

Imagine if the Tea Party was Black

RogueOne Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:46:45am

re: #76 wozzablog

check your cupboards and under your bed…

Read a book.//

[Link: www.gallup.com…]

Image: govthreat.jpg

Major Tom Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:47:08am

Back.
re: #81 sagehen
Yeah I read that. It’s so true.

re: #59 webevintage

ACORN has been replaced by the NBPP, and the Tides foundation.

iossarian Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:47:14am

re: #72 RogueOne

50% of independents and the same amount of repubs/dems (depending on who is in charge) believe the federal goverment is too large and dangerous.

Not “too large and dangerous”, just “dangerous”. There is a big difference.

I can oppose the government tapping my phone and carting people off to torture camps without due process, while also thinking that it would be nice if the government actually did a proper job of providing healthcare.

The “dangerous” thing has little to do with government size and everything to do with government priorities.

Wozza Matter? Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:47:57am

re: #82 RogueOne

Read a book.//

[Link: www.gallup.com…]

Image: govthreat.jpg

Touche………

subsailor68 Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:48:03am

re: #68 Obdicut

Hi Obdicut! Read your post about “inalienable” rights earlier on in the thread. Aha, I thought - the Declaration of Independence uses the term “unalienable” - not “inalienable”.

But then I remembered that the Declaration carved into the Jefferson Memorial uses the term “inalienable”, not “unalienable”. What’s up with that I thought?

So I did a little digging. It appears from this source:

unalienable vs inalienable

that Jefferson originally used the term “inalienable”. According to this source, that was the draft version that was actually signed by the delegates. IOW’s the original Declaration of Independence.

So what happened? That pesky old John Adams, it would seem, substituted the word “unalienable” in the version used for the printing and handwritten reproductions - one of which is the one in the National Archives.

And the term “inalienable” in the Jefferson Memorial is actually the one he used, and the one in the master document.

So, you used the term correctly - and that must mean you’re a Jefferson man, not an Adams man.

(Heh, just kidding, but thought ya might like the trivia. Hope this explanation turns out to be right - cause it’d be another cool example of Adams tweaking Jefferson a bit.)

RogueOne Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:48:04am

re: #78 Obdicut

Yeah. Which is why 33 states will go blue.

Dude, again: do me the courtesy of not treating me like I’m a moron. You’re not an independent, and you show so very clearly.

No. That’s very far from the ‘magic number’.

I’m not going to waste any more time on your crazy-pants threadjack.

22 is 66% of the number needed to convene, that is’t very far in my book. If you don’t want to discuss the possibility of a constitutional convention that’s fine.

jaunte Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:49:05am

re: #74 RadicalModerate

Dammit to hell, I’m really getting fed up with the nutballs here in Texas.

Just a brief (and not all-inclusive) rundown - from just THIS YEAR:

Governor gives lip service to secession.
Texas Board of Education forces creationism into science class and Dominionism into history books.
Racism runs rampant in Tea-Party sponsored events.
Assassination threats against Obama - “Please visit Dallas soon, Mr. Obama- my guns and ammo welcome you” (paraphrased)
Terror Babies!
The 2010 state GOP platform (gay marriage is a felony).
Voter suppression/intimidation during early voting in 2010 elections.
Attempted arson of Arlington mosque.
Advocating violent overthrow of government.

Don’t forget the nutball Texas Air Force:
[Link: www.nytimes.com…]

Obdicut Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:49:29am

re: #86 subsailor68

Thanks, man, that’s really interesting.

John Adams is actually my absolutely favorite founding father, even above Jefferson. I wonder if there is any significant at all to the change.

iossarian Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:50:17am

I wonder what the relationship would be between the variables “votes for constitutional convention” and “receives positive net financial support from federal government”.

RogueOne Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:50:23am

re: #80 lawhawk

22 isn’t 36.

Moreover, the way that Congress was set up by the founders, it’s quite easy for the House to get into a frothing mass of anger because its elected officials are constantly up for reelection every two years and will stick their fingers in the air and blow back and forth depending on the electorate’s whims. That will likely happen this year with Democrats losing control after winning it in a big way in 2006 and expanding that control in 2008.

The Senate, with its longer electoral cycles and cyclical voting schedule means that turnover is far less, shifts don’t happen nearly as often, and its members can take a longer view - as well as one that can moderate the actions of the House.

I agree, that’s why I said 25 years. I come up with 50 x 2/3rds (66%) is 33. Am I making an error somewhere? It takes 3/4’s to get it to pass but only 2/3rds to convene, right?

3eff Jeff Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:51:20am

re: #89 Obdicut

John Adams was convinced he was right, so made an end run to the printer. I think it was just a case of him being ornery. (Big Adams fan here too.)

subsailor68 Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:53:31am

re: #89 Obdicut

Thanks, man, that’s really interesting.

John Adams is actually my absolutely favorite founding father, even above Jefferson. I wonder if there is any significant at all to the change.

LOL! Then ya ought to be an “unalienable” guy.

;-)

Caveat on this link: I have no idea who Adask is, but he wrote a pretty interesting comparison of the difference (in his opinion) in definitions between “inalienable” and “unalienable”. To be fair, part of his conclusions seem to be a little “conspiratorial” to me, but you might find it kind of interesting overall.

Inalienable versus Unalienable Definitions

Kragar Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:54:40am

Why all this talk of Jefferson and Adams when we know Calvin was more important than both of them?
///

subsailor68 Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:55:22am

re: #94 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Why all this talk of Jefferson and Adams when we know Calvin was more important than both of them?
///

LOL! More important than Hobbes?

;-)

Wozza Matter? Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:55:33am

re: #94 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Why all this talk of Jefferson and Adams when we know Calvin was more important than both of them?
///

different country, but i prefer Hobbes.

Decatur Deb Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:55:35am

re: #33 lawhawk

Yes. Thanks.

Major Tom Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:55:49am

I was just thinking, if the republicans do take the House, besides being against everything that Obama stands for, what will they do to pacify their base? They will have to come up with something… repeal of The Affordable Heath Care for America Act? Impeachment? Repeal of Constitutional amendments?

Won’t the teaparty demand some red meat victories between now and 2012?

American-African Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:55:54am

So, after your insurrection, does the opposition then begin to accumulate weapons and ammunition so that they can violently overthrow the “tyrants” or do you suddenly realize something is wrong and deny them their 2nd amendment rights?

Someone should ask this ‘patriot’ that question.

100

RadicalModerate Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:56:52am

re: #88 jaunte

Don’t forget the nutball Texas Air Force:
[Link: www.nytimes.com…]

Didn’t put him in with the others because he didn’t seem to have any specific political leanings, just seemed to be a loon who happened to have a beef with the IRS (among other things).

101

Major Tom Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:57:14am

re: #99 American-African

I don’t think so, won’t they just elect Jesus to supreme leader?

102

Wozza Matter? Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:57:16am

re: #98 Major Tom

I was just thinking, if the republicans do take the House, besides being against everything that Obama stands for, what will they do to pacify their base? They will have to come up with something… repeal of The Affordable Heath Care for America Act? Impeachment? Repeal of Constitutional amendments?

Won’t the teaparty demand some red meat victories between now and 2012?

they will slash taxes for the large corporations and highest earners - and run up an even bigger structural deficit.

103

Obdicut Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:57:19am

re: #93 subsailor68

After looking around on that guy’s site, he’s a nutter.

[Link: adask.wordpress.com…]

104

Wozza Matter? Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:58:52am

re: #102 wozzablog

they will slash taxes for the large corporations and highest earners - and run up an even bigger structural deficit.

which they will then blame democrats for. simples.

105

b_sharp Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:59:03am

re: #87 RogueOne

22 is 66% of the number needed to convene, that is’t very far in my book. If you don’t want to discuss the possibility of a constitutional convention that’s fine.

34% isn’t very far, but .07% is almost insurmountable as you claimed in a prior thread? Where is your consistency?

Remember, context doesn’t matter.

106

iossarian Fri, Oct 22, 2010 11:59:37am

re: #93 subsailor68

Interesting. I would have made roughly the same distinction before reading the linked article - unalienable meaning that the impossibility of removing the right is somehow a feature of the way the world works (in essence a tautology), and inalienable being a bit less strong, meaning that the right cannot be removed under the world’s current configuration.

107

Amory Blaine Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:00:12pm

re: #104 wozzablog

which they will then blame democrats for. simples.

Who will be easy to identify by their required blue star…

108

sagehen Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:00:18pm

re: #89 Obdicut

Thanks, man, that’s really interesting.

John Adams is actually my absolutely favorite founding father, even above Jefferson. I wonder if there is any significant at all to the change.

Just that Adams and Jefferson didn’t like each other much, and they were always looking for things to snipe at each other about.

109

sagehen Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:01:11pm

re: #92 3eff Jeff

John Adams was convinced he was right, so made an end run to the printer. I think it was just a case of him being ornery. (Big Adams fan here too.)

Franklin’s my favorite.

110

subsailor68 Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:01:22pm

re: #103 Obdicut

After looking around on that guy’s site, he’s a nutter.

[Link: adask.wordpress.com…]

Yeah, I took a quick look and agree with ya. I did think his take on the difference between the two terms was interesting, so worth passing along - but when you get to the part about the Jefferson Memorial he goes all conspiratorial and such. But the good news is, that’s what led me to look for why the Jefferson Memorial version was that way - and ultimately to the link I posted about Adams making the change.

111

Wozza Matter? Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:02:02pm

re: #107 Amory Blaine

well, if they really want to mimic Obama policies 180degrees - they could close down majority democrat businesses.

112

Big Steve Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:02:41pm

re: #65 sagehen

Funny how when Bush had an approval rating of 23% and Cheney was barely cracking double digits, not a single prominent Democrat suggested any other remedy than registering voters and getting them to the polls.

I do remember a certain prominent liberal television anchor who tried to influence an election using fraudulent information. Not the same as advocating an violent overthrow of the government but pretty darn stupid and unethical as well.

113

Obdicut Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:03:15pm

re: #112 Big Steve

Not even vaguely related, really.

114

iossarian Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:04:17pm

re: #112 Big Steve

Are you really holding up that one example against what Fox does on a daily basis?

Wow.

115

Decatur Deb Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:04:41pm

re: #87 RogueOne

22 is 66% of the number needed to convene, that is’t very far in my book. If you don’t want to discuss the possibility of a constitutional convention that’s fine.

Discussing a possible constitutional convention is fine. What my non-lawyerly mind knows of it includes the notion that, once called, a CC has the power to rewrite the entire constitution, not just some favorite part. Do you want to go into a CC with our current crop of Founding Fathers and Mothers?

116

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:04:42pm

re: #112 Big Steve

I do remember a certain prominent liberal television anchor who tried to influence an election using fraudulent information. Not the same as advocating an violent overthrow of the government but pretty darn stupid and unethical as well.

blah blah blah whatever

117

lawhawk Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:05:04pm

re: #109 sagehen

I’m a Hamilton guy… though Madison and Jefferson aren’t that far behind.

What’s most depressing is that when you read their correspondence and their writings, you wonder where political philosophy and debate has gone in the US in the following decades.

After all, this current political debate isn’t even in the same ballpark as the Federalist v. Antifederalist papers. Not the same sport. In fact, it’s not even in the same universe.

118

Major Tom Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:05:40pm

re: #117 lawhawk

I’m with you Hamilton was the man… Looks the best on money too ;)

119

Amory Blaine Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:05:55pm

re: #112 Big Steve

I do remember a certain prominent liberal television anchor who tried to influence an election using fraudulent information. Not the same as advocating an violent overthrow of the government but pretty darn stupid and unethical as well.

Good thing Rather never ran on the democratic ticket for public office.

120

b_sharp Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:07:01pm

I kinda liked Trudeau. He was a smart PM.

Sorry.

I just wanted to play too.

121

3eff Jeff Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:09:21pm

re: #108 sagehen

Just that Adams and Jefferson didn’t like each other much, and they were always looking for things to snipe at each other about.

Well, yes and no. My understanding is that during the Continental Congress years and the Revolution, they got along pretty well. When it came time to reform the original confederacy, their disagreements put a wedge between them, and that foreshadowed the gold-standard smear campaign run by Jefferson during his presidential bid against Adams.

But, years later, after both had retired from politics, Adams sent Jefferson a letter to try and reconcile their friendship, which rekindled their friendship and led to a long exchange of letters. They never agreed with each other, but they were friends at the end (and even died on the same day, 4 July 1826).

122

Big Steve Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:09:27pm

re: #114 iossarian

Are you really holding up that one example against what Fox does on a daily basis?

Wow.

Sagehen’s comment was “not a single”……so yes one example does invalidate.

123

Decatur Deb Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:09:42pm

re: #117 lawhawk

…snip

What’s most depressing is that when you read their correspondence and their writings, you wonder where political philosophy and debate has gone in the US in the following decades.

…snip

I saw a comedian/historian do a bit in which he read letters home from Civil War soldiers and emails back from Desert Storm. I don’t think they were real, but they were depressingly credible.

124

Big Steve Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:09:56pm

re: #116 WindUpBird

blah blah blah whatever

very mature

125

Obdicut Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:10:39pm

re: #122 Big Steve

Except it has nothing to do with advocating the violent overthrow of the government.

126

sagehen Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:11:23pm

re: #117 lawhawk

I’m a Hamilton guy… though Madison and Jefferson aren’t that far behind.

What’s most depressing is that when you read their correspondence and their writings, you wonder where political philosophy and debate has gone in the US in the following decades.

After all, this current political debate isn’t even in the same ballpark as the Federalist v. Antifederalist papers. Not the same sport. In fact, it’s not even in the same universe.

We’re playing checkers, they’re playing beer pong?

127

Decatur Deb Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:11:37pm

re: #125 Obdicut

Hated you there for a white-hot second.

128

Amory Blaine Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:14:44pm

More Texas Tea Patriotism

129

iossarian Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:15:16pm

re: #122 Big Steve

Sagehen’s comment was “not a single”…so yes one example does invalidate.

OK, Mr. Pedantic, explain how “prominent Democrat” Dan Rather was advocating for people doing anything other than vote against Republicans (which he wasn’t even doing - he was presenting bogus information that might lead people to decide to do that).

130

Eclectic Infidel Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:16:52pm

Religion and firearms. Dangerous combination in the wrong hands. Not that I actually believe that creationists with guns could ever pose a threat to the sovereignty of the U.S., but local authorities could be challenged I suppose.

131

b_sharp Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:18:58pm

re: #130 eclectic infidel

Religion and firearms. Dangerous combination in the wrong hands. Not that I actually believe that creationists with guns could ever pose a threat to the sovereignty of the U.S., but local authorities could be challenged I suppose.

Religion, firearms and a persecution complex. I don’t think the religion and firearms are enough.

132

lostlakehiker Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:24:37pm

re: #14 Obdicut

Er.

Can you explain by what mechanism amendments to state constitutions will allow them to ‘completely bypass their elected federal officials’?

The States, if two-thirds of the legislatures so desired, could call another constitutional convention, and that convention could rewrite the constitution from top to bottom. They couldn’t quite “completely bypass” federal officials, because the Congress “shall call” a convention, but it would be Congress that “called” it.

But once that hypothetical new convention is up and running, it can amend the constitution almost any way it likes. About the only thing it can’t do is deprive states of their two senators each. The amendments would be ratified if and when 3/4ths of the state legislatures ratified it.

That would simply be the new constitution.

The option to do this is in the current constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

133

HappyWarrior Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:26:06pm

What a dipshit.

134

Obdicut Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:26:10pm

re: #132 lostlakehiker

Read the thread next time.

135

theheat Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:33:12pm

If he’s a pastor, I have to wonder how different his sermons might be than, say, those other religions we’re supposed to fear for preaching hate and violence.

This is closer to domestic terrorism. Because we don’t need no stinkin’ foreign terrorists.

136

Varek Raith Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:33:28pm

re: #10 RogueOne

Right.
So, they’re gonna be SOL without Federal funds.
Ridiculous.

137

apox Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:33:38pm

“You liberial scumbags should be hung by the neck in public ! We are on to your voter fraud. Keep it up you MOTHER FUCKERS and you will soon be put down for a long dirt nap! Your nothing but a bunch of white guilt ridden assholes, n*****S and greasy mexican spics! The WAR is comming and we are going to dispose of each and every one of you while we take OUR (White) nation back.”
-signed the king street tea party in response to “liberal voter fraud” clearly non racist freedom lovers

138

Romantic Heretic Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:39:39pm

re: #102 wozzablog

they will slash taxes for the large corporations and highest earners - and run up an even bigger structural deficit.

Which will be the bigt spending Democrats fault.

139

Romantic Heretic Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:41:35pm

re: #112 Big Steve

I do remember a certain prominent liberal television anchor who tried to influence an election using fraudulent information. Not the same as advocating an violent overthrow of the government but pretty darn stupid and unethical as well.

Link please. As a Canadian I didn’t hear of this.

140

Romantic Heretic Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:44:39pm

re: #120 b_sharp

I kinda liked Trudeau. He was a smart PM.

Sorry.

I just wanted to play too.

I didn’t particularly like him. But there’s no denying he was a smart, tough politician.

Never forgave him for implementing the War Measures Act during the October crisis.

141

APox Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:44:44pm

My iPhone can’t copy offensive tea party comments and the article link at the same time…. [Link: tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com…]

I love the photoshopped black man they spoke about who held a sign that said “too bad I can only vote once” evidence they are clearly rational fact finders that want honest government. Pfft.

142

Jadespring Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:54:06pm

re: #139 Romantic Heretic

Link please. As a Canadian I didn’t hear of this.

I’d like to know what’s being referred to as well.

Racking my brain and I can’t come up with what or who it might have been.

143

Decatur Deb Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:54:57pm

Live one down in the NAACP thread.

144

Jadespring Fri, Oct 22, 2010 12:56:07pm

re: #142 Jadespring

I’d like to know what’s being referred to as well.

Racking my brain and I can’t come up with what or who it might have been.

Oh wait. Never mind. I got confused while reading.

145

b_sharp Fri, Oct 22, 2010 1:14:07pm

re: #140 Romantic Heretic

I didn’t particularly like him. But there’s no denying he was a smart, tough politician.

Never forgave him for implementing the War Measures Act during the October crisis.

I wasn’t thinking of that. At the time I think most people thought it was a necessary evil and it was repealed within 4 months I believe. I really got a kick out of him giving farmers the finger. It was honest, it was spontaneous and it was effective.

146

Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Oct 22, 2010 1:24:34pm

As to violent overthrow of the government… That, is actual sedition. The man should be put in prison.

147

[deleted] Fri, Oct 22, 2010 1:45:31pm

148

jamesfirecat Fri, Oct 22, 2010 3:43:31pm

re: #73 RogueOne

Why do you hate the constitution so much? If the people who founded the nation didn’t want the states to have the ability to make changes on their own they wouldn’t have put it in writing.

What if I was to raise the same argument about abortion?

Or immigration?

149

Romantic Heretic Fri, Oct 22, 2010 3:48:42pm

re: #145 b_sharp

I wasn’t thinking of that. At the time I think most people thought it was a necessary evil and it was repealed within 4 months I believe. I really got a kick out of him giving farmers the finger. It was honest, it was spontaneous and it was effective.

I much preferred Bob Stanfield, the best Prime Minister we never had. Unfortunately he wasn’t nearly as telegenic as Trudeau, at a time when television was really starting to affect elections.

Either is a step up from the losers leading the political parties of Canada now.

150

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Oct 22, 2010 7:50:56pm

re: #5 Soap_Man

It’s been said before, but I wonder what they plan on installing when they overthrow the democratically-elected government they despise so much.

That’s the question(s) any reporter should ask to a candidate repeating this violent revolution stuff. Is a revolution appropriate because you lost an election? And after this revolution is successful, who would be in charge? Would you have elections again, and do you have another revolt if you lose again in the future?

And what is the distinction between a ‘revolution’ and a dictatorship cancelling elections, in that case?

151

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Oct 22, 2010 7:52:55pm

re: #23 Lidane

At the rate the GOP is going? November 2012, should Obama win a second term.

ACORN will, of course, be blamed.

152

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Oct 22, 2010 7:59:01pm

re: #46 negativ

WFAA’s article is better than the DMN one. It has video and complete quotes.

Like this one:

Oh great. The myth of Jews led like sheep to the slaughter finds another supporter.

“If only they’d been ARMED…”

Fucker.

153

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Oct 22, 2010 8:01:04pm

re: #58 3eff Jeff

Maybe I should have been more clear. I hope you’re right about no violence after the election. I hope it doesn’t happen.

We’ll be fine. Despite the desperate fantasies of the TPers, the vast majority of Americans are not that angry.

154

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Oct 22, 2010 8:06:37pm

re: #76 wozzablog

check your cupboards and under your bed…

Hide your kids, hide your wife, hide your kids, hide your wife…

155

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Oct 22, 2010 8:09:25pm

re: #101 Major Tom

I don’t think so, won’t they just elect Jesus to supreme leader?

Savonarola did that—declared Jesus King of Florence. Mysteriously, His Divine Majesty’s will was interpreted by Girolamo Savonarola.

156

ClaudeMonet Sat, Oct 23, 2010 2:43:14am

re: #112 Big Steve

I do remember a certain prominent liberal television anchor who tried to influence an election using fraudulent information. Not the same as advocating an violent overthrow of the government but pretty darn stupid and unethical as well.

Another nut Texan, although a rare (for Texas) liberal nut.

157

RogueOne Sat, Oct 23, 2010 4:12:01am

re: #148 jamesfirecat

What if I was to raise the same argument about abortion?

Or immigration?

That’s entirely possible. If enough of the states got together and decided abortion should be completely legal/illegal and managed to get a convention held and an amendment passed then they would be following what the founders envisioned. I don’t see the problem.

Some of you are acting like this is some kind of radical separatist ideal when it’s something the constitution works out for us.

158

RogueOne Sat, Oct 23, 2010 4:20:29am

re: #136 Varek Raith

Right.
So, they’re gonna be SOL without Federal funds.
Ridiculous.

I’m not sure I understand your argument. A constitutional convention isn’t an act of civil war, it’s a perfectly legitimate, constitutionally granted way for the states to have their say. I’m really surprised that the idea of the states pushing a constitutional amendment is such a radical idea to people. If not for constitutional amendments we’d still have slavery and women/minorities wouldn’t be allowed to vote.

….And the feds don’t have any real money of their own, most of their money comes from the individual states.

159

tnguitarist Sat, Oct 23, 2010 7:28:57am

re: #147 SpaceJesus

As a good conservative American, I’m all for invoking the preemptive use of force doctrine against any and all potential terrorist threats.

…fuel up the gunships, outfit em with hellfire missiles then lay waste to the every state that belonged to the CSA immediately.

Did you forget your sarc tags or are you advocating the murder of every citizen in every southern state?

160

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sat, Oct 23, 2010 11:29:46am

re: #159 tnguitarist

Did you forget your sarc tags or are you advocating the murder of every citizen in every southern state?

I think he’s being funny ;-)

161

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Sat, Oct 23, 2010 11:32:01am

re: #73 RogueOne

Why do you hate the constitution so much? If the people who founded the nation didn’t want the states to have the ability to make changes on their own they wouldn’t have put it in writing.

Stop hitting yourself!

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Insane GOP Candidate of the Day

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud