Crazy Rep. Michele Bachmann Calls for Armed Revolution

reply to post by SGTChas


You aren't the only member in this discussion with prior service.
2nd line.

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II

 

Ferris.....I wish we'd get back to Michele Bachmann.

At the risk of a Mod coming down on me....Ferris....how can you support the Constitution, and write a post like that????

Is anyone else seeing the hyprocisy????

Because I do believe in the Constitution, and what it stands for. And also believe that the President and Congress are sworn to only act to benefit America, not harm it, like they are currently doing.

The only hypocrisy I'm seeing is coming from the pro "bankrupt the next 5 generations" Obama-buck spend-a-holics. Don't you see that?

Don't you see that's just your opinion? Besides, Bush had HUGE defecits in every single budget and managed to double the national debt in eight years. You republicans are really hysterical hypocrites who move the goalpost all the time. Where was the outrage about defecit spending when Bush was the Prez? Besides, most of the defecit in this current budget was from Bush because most of it was passed before Obama took office. Obama added the economic stimulus package, which nearly every economist, left and right, said was necessary. Most economists, in fact, said it was too little.

If you were really concerned about the deficit spending, you should have started screaming and shouting way back in the 1980s when the Reagan-Bush tax cuts were causing record defecits; when Clinton finally got us out of defecit spending, you should have voted for Al Gore, who said he wanted to use the surplus to pay down the debt and take care of the social security debt.

Now all of a sudden when a democrat is in charge, you republicans are screaming in horror about defecit spending.

You're good at moving the goalpost, labeling people, demonizing people, but obviously not governing.

reply to post by mental modulator


Welcome to my ignore list.

No, you just lack the mental capacity to understand that you can agree with points and certain views that people make while not towing a party line and remaining an independent and critical thinker. In fact you might want to try it sometime because your severe lack of intelligence shows.

I just happen to agree that we need a peaceful revolution because the route this country is going down is one of tyranny and oppression.

And before you spout off anymore irrational dribble about me, you have a right to free speech, but I also have the right to not read or listen to it.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by SGTChas

 

You aren't the only member in this discussion with prior service.
2nd line.

Never did I imply I was. To be sure, it can be safely assumed that such heated responses could only come from those with the preverbal ‘skin in the game’; especially those who are cautioning against hasty action, as we know what such actions cost.

Be that as it may, the point is that this Congress Woman has cryptically spoken the truth, touching a nerve among those who know if any more of the policies of this administration are enacted, ONLY much bloodshed will be the resulting cost of our freedom’s restoration. We stand now or our Republic is lost.


[edit on 3/28/2009 by SGTChas]

reply to post by matttheratt


Can you back up any of the baseless accusations you made against me? Or are you just trying to divert attention away from the current administrations record breaking spending bills and bad decisions the same way they are, by claiming all of their actions and inactions are the responsibility of the Bush administration?

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


I think you may be overlooking that this woman isn't CALLING for a peaceful revolution.
She was talking about guns and ammo, man.

PS - On a side note, not really directed to you, but in general.
Hitler's rise to power would be something to look at in this case.

Create a catastrophe and blame it on a group (in Hitler's case it was the communists) and everyone flocks to you.

It is NOT the Democrats who are at fault here. It is the entire corrupt system.



[edit on 28-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

If a Democrat had said this under bush minor's watch there would have been howls from the right to haul her off to gitmo... hell all but cruxified the Dixie Chicks for saying they were ashamed of having bush minor as president.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by mental modulator

 

Welcome to my ignore list.

No, you just lack the mental capacity to understand that you can agree with points and certain views that people make while not towing a party line and remaining an independent and critical thinker. In fact you might want to try it sometime because your severe lack of intelligence shows.

I just happen to agree that we need a peaceful revolution because the route this country is going down is one of tyranny and oppression.

And before you spout off anymore irrational dribble about me, you have a right to free speech, but I also have the right to not read or listen to it.

TRUE welcome sire - I shall write horrible things about you and you will be clueless

Anyhow you have not been a bed of daisies yourself honey socks. I really wonder in what ways have you been oppressed - what are not able to do today that you could five years ago? The nutty lady you applaud is not alluding to peaceful revolution, she is a extreme partisan apparently and seems to be coding violence.

BY the way you are towing a party line HYPOCRITE... HOPE you and Glen PECK have beautiful childrens,

adios!

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


I think that might be the real point that is a blurring the line.

Remember you can be armed and dangerous without actually firing a single round. JFK said it best, paraphrased in case I muck up the wording, "Take away the peoples right to a peaceful revolution, and the only thing you leave them is a violent one."

If people go marching to Washington DC armed to the teeth that sends the message that we are serious and prepared to use force if necessary, but we would rather this go down without blood shed. It is basically using our 2nd amendment right, in the capacity that it was written.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


And as I said earlier. If every single concerned American sent that email that I sent my representative, it would send the same message.
And that way you don't even have to threaten guns at all.

reply to post by grover


That is a great point.
Like I said before, this is hypocritical outrage.

How many people actually got riled up about the treatment of the Dixie Chicks? (goddamnit, that is my favorite country band... the best out there)

These same people that crucified people just a couple short years ago are now asking people to grab their guns and revolt.
It is disgusting.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

 

I think you may be overlooking that this woman isn't CALLING for a peaceful revolution.
She was talking about guns and ammo, man.

PS - On a side note, not really directed to you, but in general.
Hitler's rise to power would be something to look at in this case.

Create a catastrophe and blame it on a group (in Hitler's case it was the communists) and everyone flocks to you.

It is NOT the Democrats who are at fault here. It is the entire corrupt system.



[edit on 28-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

This fellow is a party member in denial - This lady was using code words - phrases and passages that rile up the rural cooters and wood shackers. Although in defense, this critter wants to believe they are beyond sides...

This lady wants to save AMERICA by destroying AMERICA!

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
reply to post by matttheratt

 

Can you back up any of the baseless accusations you made against me? Or are you just trying to divert attention away from the current administrations record breaking spending bills and bad decisions the same way they are, by claiming all of their actions and inactions are the responsibility of the Bush administration?

First of all, I don't have to. What I say is obvious. Look at how you characterize the Obama administration. Labels. Demonizing.

Nobody's trying to "divert attention" either. It's pure fact that Obama inherited the current mess and huge addition to the national debt brought about by Bush. End of story. Evidently, though, you know how to handle the recession we're in better than the majority of economists do.

You do just what the other republicans are doing: loudly criticize Obama but when asked to offer an alternative? Silence.

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


Your plan might work if the Congress and President were listening to the American populace concerning their actions representing us. But, they are not. They have their own playbook written up years ago they are going by, and not taking anything the American populace are telling them seriously, because they think we would never act on our convictions.

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


They have intelligence reports that are telling them the same thing. If calling mailing and emailing your representatives made a difference the first TARP wouldn't have passed.

The politicians don't care what we have to say. I'm sure they have already gotten thousands of letters just like the one you wrote.

They don't care.

This outrage started growing under Bush also. It seems people have a very short memory considering when Bush left office his approval rating was 22%.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by Jay-in-AR

 

I think that might be the real point that is a blurring the line.

Remember you can be armed and dangerous without actually firing a single round. JFK said it best, paraphrased in case I muck up the wording, "Take away the peoples right to a peaceful revolution, and the only thing you leave them is a violent one."

If people go marching to Washington DC armed to the teeth that sends the message that we are serious and prepared to use force if necessary, but we would rather this go down without blood shed. It is basically using our 2nd amendment right, in the capacity that it was written.

AND what will such a show of force achieve?
What are the specific goals?
If one person shots another what is to keep all the guns from going off?

You see the only revolution that seem to work are the ones where people get their heads kicked in for all to see, the million cooters in DC each will be waiting to dump a few hundred round in some flesh!

Great idea from a rabid hooker in Washington!!




[edit on 28-3-2009 by mental modulator]

reply to post by matttheratt


Yup. Just what I thought. Personal responsibility and you have never crossed paths, by the sounds of it.

Originally posted by Hx3_1963
..............
Government has no right under the Bill of Rights or Constitution to police the world tarnishing our reputation and squandering our hard earned capitol.

Government has no right to tell us who, what, where, when or why, we may or maynot do anything...except in the matters of intruding apon the Life, Liberty and Happiness of our fellow citizen.

Government was never ment to be a full time job...where lawyer gather for hours on end, litigating, inventing and passing laws, that only serve the purpose of enriching their powers.
.............

I agree with almost all you said, except a few things.

Our forefathers had to deal with terrorism in the past too, and they responded to it with war.

The largest conflict right after the Declaration of Independence of our Republic, was the Barbary Wars.

There were two Barbary Wars, the first one was fought from 1801-1805, and the second one was fought in 1815.

The barbay Wars were fought against Islamic countries which were pillaging, raiding, kidnapping, and killing Americans, immigrants and sailors who were sailing from Europe to the United States, and back.

The Barbary Coast, or Barbary, was the term used by Europeans from the 16th until the 19th century to refer to the middle and western coastal regions of North Africa—what is now Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya. The name is derived from the Berber people of north Africa. In the West, the name commonly evokes the Barbary pirates and slave traders based on that coast, who attacked ships and coastal settlements in the Mediterranean and North Atlantic and captured and traded slaves from Europe and sub-Saharan Africa.

"Barbary" was not always a unified political entity. From the sixteenth-century onwards, it was divided into the familiar political entities of Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripolitania (Tripoli). Major rulers during the times of the barbary states' plundering parties were the Pasha or Dey of Algiers, the Bey of Tunis and the Bey of Tripoli, all very good subjects who were anxious to get rid of the Ottoman sultan, but were de facto independent rulers.

Before then the territory was usually divided between Ifriqiya, Morocco, and a west-central Algerian state centered on Tlemcen or Tiaret. Powerful Berber dynasties such as the Almohads, and briefly the Hafsids, occasionally unified it for short periods. From a European perspective its "capital" or chief city was often considered to be Tripoli in modern-day Libya, although Marrakesh in Morocco was the largest and most important Berber city at the time. In addition, Algiers in Algeria and Tangiers in Morocco were also sometimes seen as its "capital".

The first United States military action overseas, executed by the U.S. Marines and Navy, was the Battle of Derne, Tripoli, in 1805. It was an effort to destroy all of the Barbary pirates, free the American slaves in captivity, and put an end to piracy acts between these warring tribes on the part of the Barbary states. The opening line of the "Marine's Hymn" refers to this action: "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli..."

en.wikipedia.org...

So, when it comes to defending Americans, and also our interests, our forefathers also fought wars similar to the war in Iraq.

A lot of people forget that Saddam was not only a despot against his own people. Even if he never had any WMDs, Saddam had actively given money, and even proclaimed it to the world, that he was in favor of suicide bombers, and paid large sums of monies to the families of those terrorists, and suicide bombers who killed Israelis, and Americans.

Many Americans had lost their lives because of suicide bombers, and other terrorists, and this did not start during, or after the Iraqi, or even the Afghan war.

Anyway, it was also Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison the ones to come up with the Democrat-Republican Party. Which was formed by them in response to the Federalist Party, which was created by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton.

At first the Democrat-Republican Party was one, and it's members saw themselves mostly as Republicans, but sometimes as Democrats.

Later on the party split into the Democrat Party, and the Republican Party.

However a Democrat-Republican Party is an oxymoron, because in a Democracy the "mob rules", which means no rights for minorities if the mayority wants it so, meanwhile a Republic stands against all forms of dictatorships, and represents all people in the Republic.

In a way the division that now plagues the United States of America was started by some of the same forefathers who founded the nation.

We all should see ourselves as Sons and Daughters of the Republic, which means we should all see ourselves as Republicans, and I am not saying that the current Republican Party is a good example of what Americans should see themselves, since both parties have become corrupted.

But instead of trying to create more confusion by making more parties, we should stand for what ALL of our forefathers agreed to when the nation was founded.

All of the forefathers of the Republic had different ideas on what the Republic should represent, so they had different views, but at the end they agreed on certain unalienable rights for all future generations of America, and they also agreed on the foundations which define this Republic, and it is written for all to see in the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution.

As for your statement that "the government should never be a full-time job", in a way I agree with you. Representatives are getting paid too much, same as the President, and every other office in government, which in itself is an open door for corruption, and an excuse for some of the wrong people to enter into politics.

The Republic is slowly being dismantled, and transformed into another National Socialist dictatorship, and we as Americans should not stand for that.

If every American were to demand for the government to uphold and defend the Constitution, the Bills of Rights, and in essence the Republic which this nation stands for, they have to listen to us.

Slowly both parties have implemented policies that are meant to suppress us, and to stop us from questioning the government, and that is not what this Republic was founded for.

[edited for errors]

[edit on 28-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


Many of the Special Forces and other vets have known and seen the 'hand writting on the wall'. We have written letters, tried to convince our fellow Americans of what really has been going on. We were demonized, ostracized and marginalized as ‘conspiracy nuts’. We have pled that other Americans would just READ the Report on Iron Mountain that detailed EXACTLY what is happening now, we were laughed at and left to prepare alone.

The WHOLE point of the on going ‘Tea Party’ demonstrations is that our fellow Americans are waking up to what many of us knew all along; Congress IS NOT LISTENING. They vote not for their constituents, but for their own economic gain, ignoring the rape of our Constitution while vying for positions in the ‘New World Order’. They will only respond when they have realized that armed insurrection is next, and maybe not even then as they have sold their American ‘souls’ for temporary gain. Republican and Democrat both are equally complaisant and guilty.

The time is NOW for unity; the time is NOW for an end to actions they have already proven they will ignore; time is now for patriots to act to ensure that our leaders get the point! March not with violent intent, but to demonstrate that we will not be ignored any longer.


[edit on 3/28/2009 by SGTChas]

[edit on 3/28/2009 by SGTChas]

I understand that they aren't listening.

They did listen, for about one week when all of the bailout talk began.

Anyone remember that they overwhelmingly voted it down initially?
That was because of the outrage. Then they were assured by a certain few that people really didn't care and put it up for vote again... and passed it.

It is time to send a stronger message. The problem is getting the people together to actually send the second message.

We need many, many MORE people to send the message with much stronger language.
They'll turn their heads.

Most likely they'll be reassured by the elitist scum in their ranks that it will be okay.
Then and only then, it would be time to take action.

We told them not to pass the bailouts. They didn't listen.
Now it is time to send the message that if they don't cease and desist that they will be forced out.
Give them an ultimatum.