Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No you didn't. You conveniently left off the part I said about blowing up a federal building "NEVER being an appropriate response for a US citizen." You went off giving examples like (and I quote): "By your logic, if the Soviet Union sent nuclear missiles to NYC, it would be inappropriate to send a retaliatory strike to Moscow." That is an apples and oranges comparison that has no relevance to a US citizen blowing up US federal property. Militia types and tea baggers who talk about "taking back the government" with force are talking treason.
What about the other arguments about blowing up, say, the Reichstag to protest the German government of the mid to late 30's, jailing political dissenters in concentration camps? This is the argument I am trying to make, but you've already stamped your foot on the ground and suggested that it is NEVER appropriate, no matter what, for a US citizen to attack a government building. The retaliatory argument is certainly applicable in spirit with the missile attack scenario, even though it is not involving a pro-vs-anti government battle. No matter how special you think America is and how much people stamp their feet and yell treason, there is a limit to what the government may do before the masses will not take anymore. Right now, it is a stalemate and hopefully it will remain so.
You do know that N Korea and S Korea are seperate countries right(and US forces report to neither)? A better example would be the Al Queda in Pakistan, except of course the US defense against such rebellion would much more competant and unified against the enemy.
The analogy of N. Korea holds IMO because it would take a government behaving like the N. Korea to justify an attack on Federal property and lives. I'm happy with my decision to use this analogy.
I spent the best part of five years on the DMZ, that has nothing to do with your plans to attack the United States
Well, this is my spin on it just as you have your "treason" and "domestic terrorist" spin. I'm happy with my decision to identify you pro-government folks in such a scenario as North Koreans Kim-Jong Il types.
You used the imposing morals argument to justify extraction of assets, so I just figured that I'd introduce the moral enforcement of not terminating imminent lives. Hypocrisy is very rich for both of us I suppose. Of course, you'll argue it's just rich for me, but that's ok.
I see your point, but the reason I don't see a link to abortion is because there is debate as to when life begins. It's a subjective morality. In contrast, the ending of a living person is more of an objective morality.
Perhaps morality is the wrong word, and I don't support abortion, for the record.
What about the other arguments about blowing up, say, the Reichstag to protest the German government of the mid to late 30's, jailing political dissenters in concentration camps? This is the argument I am trying to make, but you've already stamped your foot on the ground and suggested that it is NEVER appropriate, no matter what, for a US citizen to attack a government building. The retaliatory argument is certainly applicable in spirit with the missile attack scenario, even though it is not involving a pro-vs-anti government battle. No matter how special you think America is and how much people stamp their feet and yell treason, there is a limit to what the government may do before the masses will not take anymore. Right now, it is a stalemate and hopefully it will remain so.
We do not live in Germany in the 1930s. Our system of government has many checks and balances in it and legal ways for us to get rid of any politician in power who abuses that power. Not to mention the fact that no one person can do enough damage to our constitution or our government in four years to justify armed resistance.
Let's talk about the U.S. history if you want to give examples of reasons you'd approve of a U.S. citizen blowing up U.S. federal property. Was it okay with you that Bill Ayers tried to blow up a federal building and belonged to an underground group against what was going on in Vietnam? We certainly heard enough about him during the election. Why so silent about him now in your debate in this thread? Was it okay with you that Timothy McVeigh blew up a federal building because he didn't like what the government was doing? Many people didn't like what Bush was doing when he started the war. Were they wrong not to try to blow up a few buildings to get his attention? Or was voting his party out of office the right way to protest when they got too fed up with the man?
Last edited by Wayland Woman; 11-29-2009 at 08:56 AM..
seriously. When our currency fails? When the bureaucrats socialize healthcare? When the supreme court rules the DC gun ban constitutional? When the government defaults on social security and medicare benefits? How much longer will we take violations of state's rights, private property rights, privacy rights, and our nation's sovereignty?
The founding fathers were up in arms over a small tax on imported tea. Where's the civil disobedience at? Where are the protests? Where's our Boston Tea Party? Is America too apathetic and/or spineless to make a stand? Will we submit to fascism and totalitarianism of the federal bureaucracy? Or will we rally as our founding fathers did in an effort for our God given liberty? Who will make a stand with me?
Nope, the government has made it illegal for citizens to have the type of arms they do. You should join the Free State Project...then get NH to secede.
We're a long way from armed revolution.
For all our problems we have it pretty good. Look around you, people are not dying of starvation in the streets and 80% of the population is employed in good paying jobs.
If you really want revolution do it at the ballot box come November, 2010.
Armed revolution the government will control but they would have real problems with uncooperative majority. Imagine an income tax nobody paid? Imagine millions of census forms full of pure lies?
For all our problems we have it pretty good. Look around you, people are not dying of starvation in the streets and 80% of the population is employed in good paying jobs.
If you really want revolution do it at the ballot box come November, 2010.
Armed revolution the government will control but they would have real problems with uncooperative majority. Imagine an income tax nobody paid? Imagine millions of census forms full of pure lies?
Timothy McVeigh hated paying income taxes. Look where that got him. And census forms full of lies? What does that accomplish other than to give our descendants a hard time when they do genealogy projects?
We do not live in Germany in the 1930s. Our system of government has many checks and balances in it and legal ways for us to get rid of any politician in power who abuses that power. Not to mention the fact that no one person can do enough damage to our constitution or our government in four years to justify armed resistance.
The German government had plenty of checks and balances. Hindenberg told Hitler that he may only pass the enabling act with a majority in the Reichstag. Since the majority belonged to the freely elected Nazi party, Hitler used his influence within the majority party to bully the minority Freecorps, Social Democrats, etc into accepting the terms he outlined and threatened jail and death to those who would oppose the act in the event it eventually passed. These Reichstag legislators had a split second to decide their fate and being the predictable sheep they were, they signed onto Hitler's terms and conditions. Then, after Hindenburg died of natural causes, Hitler assumed the role of absolute ruler in Germany by combining the offices of Chancellor and President into an absolute dictator, as part of the enabling act. When the US had its civil war, southerners were seen by many not as domestic terrorists, but saviors of a free and independent half of America. They were certainly not seen as a form of Timothy McVeigh, except by a few pro-government Union psychopaths. Think about how the Traitor Act passed after 9/11 has changed our lives, and it passed without hesitation and with overwhelming bi-partisan support, without the deception of Iraq and other red herrings.
Quote:
Let's talk about the U.S. history if you want to give examples of reasons you'd approve of a U.S. citizen blowing up U.S. federal property. Was it okay with you that Bill Ayers tried to blow up a federal building and belonged to an underground group against what was going on in Vietnam? We certainly heard enough about him during the election. Why so silent about him now in your debate in this thread? Was it okay with you that Timothy McVeigh blew up a federal building because he didn't like what the government was doing? Many people didn't like what Bush was doing when he started the war. Were they wrong not to try to blow up a few buildings to get his attention? Or was voting his party out of office the right way to protest when they got too fed up with the man?
The war in Vietnam was not resulting in mass deportation of US citizens into concentration camps. Yes, there was a draft of forced military service and it should have been resisted peacefully by many more Americans, but the two situations are wildly different. Bush was also not herding US citizens into camps and ordering the military to execute Americans house-to-house.
The war in Vietnam was not resulting in mass deportation of US citizens into concentration camps. Yes, there was a draft of forced military service and it should have been resisted peacefully by many more Americans, but the two situations are wildly different. Bush was also not herding US citizens into camps and ordering the military to execute Americans house-to-house.
You're missing the point of me bringing up Timothy McVeigh and Bill Ayers. Each of them thought they had valid reasons to blow up government buildings just as you think you have valid reasons to blow up government buildings. Your reasons are no more valid to mainstream Americans than their reasons were valid to mainstream Americans. As a U.S. citizen you don't have the right to take the lives of other Americans to make a political point and you don't have the right to try to circumvent a duly elected administration with armed force.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course, you'll argue it's just rich for me, but that's ok. 