RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Sirota writes: "Almost half (44 percent) of all self-described Republican voters say they believe 'an armed revolution might be necessary to protect our liberties.'"

Tea Party supporter William Temple of Brunswick, Ga. (photo: AP/David Goldman)
Tea Party supporter William Temple of Brunswick, Ga. (photo: AP/David Goldman)



Rise of the (Armed) Conservative Revolutionaries

By David Sirota, Salon

01 May 13

 

Almost half of Republicans think an armed revolution may be needed soon. What does it mean for guns and democracy?

here's plenty of proof of an authoritarian streak and animus toward democratic ideals in today's conservative movement. There was the movement's use of its judicial power to halt a vote recount and instead install a president who had lost the popular vote. There is the ongoing GOP effort to make it more difficult for people to cast a vote in an election. There is the GOP's record use of the Senate filibuster to kill legislation that the vast majority of the country supports. There is a GOP leader's declaration that what the American people want from their government simply "doesn't matter."

Up until today, you might have been able to write all that anti-democratic pathology off as a pathology infecting only the Republican Party's politicians and institutional leadership, but not its rank-and-file voters. But then this poll from Fairleigh-Dickinson University was released showing that authoritarianism runs throughout the the entire party.

Take a look at the cross-tabs on page 3 of the national survey - that's right, you are reading it correctly: almost half (44 percent) of all self-described Republican voters say they believe "an armed revolution might be necessary to protect our liberties." Just as bad, more Republicans believe an armed revolution might be necessary than believe one isn't necessary.

This poll raises two obvious questions, each of them more disturbing than the next.

The first question is about gun control and gun ownership - and more specifically, what the latter is all about.

Typically, GOP leaders typically say that their opposition to minimal gun regulations has nothing to do with helping arm those who want to commit acts of violence, and everything to do with wanting to make sure people can defend themselves. Based on the poll, of course, it is certainly likely that many are buying such weapons in an effort to defend themselves, both for day-to-day life and in the event of a sudden armed revolution. But here's the scary part: how many are buying weapons to arm themselves in order to foment an armed revolution? Maybe none, but maybe a lot. I don't have an answer - but this poll suggests the question should at least be aired.

The other question is about republican democracy: can it survive in an age when almost one half of one of the major parties seems to support the concept of violently thwarting it?

"Politics is war by other means" - that aphorism sums up the democratic theory undergirding the American idea for two centuries. Though we haven't always lived up to that ideal, it is a pretty simple one: a civilized society should solve disputes through a democratic process and democratic institutions, rather than through the barrel of a gun. And while our democracy has been corrupted by Big Money, it still functions better than autocracy. In that sense, Churchill had it right when he said "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

Incredibly, though, almost half of Republicans don't seem to necessarily see it that way. According to the Farleigh Dickinson poll, 44 percent of rank-and-file Republicans seem to believe that because they aren't getting their way through the ballot box, bloodshed may be justified to impose their will on everyone else. Think of it as sore loser-ism juiced by violence.

Of course, GOP apologists will say that the poll just asked specifically about armed revolution "to protect liberties" - the idea being that almost half of Republican voters don't support using violence to advance their own political agenda, they only support it in the face of a future dystopian nightmare whereby the population is terrorized by police-administered drone bombings and Waco-esque invasions of private homes.

But that's the thing: we can't be so sure that's really true when conservative media voices and politicians are using the broad and incendiary language they now regularly employ. Today, those voices often claim that almost everything in the Democratic/liberal agenda - from Obamacare to taxes to environmental regulations to contraception policy - is an assault on "liberty."

That means the poll might indicate something much more significant than understandable opposition to Big Brother turning our country into Oceania. It might show us that all the vitriolic language employed by the right is undermining the most basic non-violent democratic ideals that are supposed to define America.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+159 # CAMUS1111 2013-05-01 11:42
The GOP sold out to right wing extremists and now has been consumed and subsumed by them. Until some last remaining sane gop'er has the guts to call these fascists out, to exorcise them, in attempt to reclaim his/her party, the greatest existential threat to our country seems clearly to emanate from right-wing crazies within--meaning , to a large extent, from the GOP itself.
 
 
+99 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2013-05-01 14:50
I'm retired and a stock trader. I used to have an associate in another city whom I shared financial information with and who also is a stock trader. When I was single, I dated her "once." She is a Libertarian, her ideas on social justice were not in keeping with my ideals. When I first met her, I though her "views" on certain aspects of politics were not really serious until she spoke of how much she admired Glenn Beck when he was shoveling manure on Fox News. I no longer associate with her, sharing information as as I used to. She is dead serious about a U.S. violent revolution. And I again state, not a peaceful one. She essentially believes that Socialism and corporate welfare are to be enjoyed by the wealthy. And that the corporate employees and others are not to share in the fruits of production. And she, being a Ron & Rand Paul supporter literally to the position of fascism really does believe in a social revolution, that it will happen and it will be armed. When I used to speak to her about voter suppression, and voter suppression laws, she would say, "suppose the shoe were on the other foot." She believes that child labor laws should be repealed, "'cause kids know how to operate computers." The author who wrote this missive has valid points.
 
 
+25 # robniel 2013-05-01 16:42
Quoting Eldon J. Bloedorn:
She essentially believes that Socialism and corporate welfare are to be enjoyed by the wealthy. And that the corporate employees and others are not to share in the fruits of production. And she, being a Ron & Rand Paul supporter literally to the position of fascism really does believe in a social revolution, that it will happen and it will be armed.


She seems to have the typical right-wing wet dream.
 
 
-17 # RLF 2013-05-02 05:32
She believes in the government we have right now! These right wingers are idiots...we only need to worry when the left decides we need violent revolution...re member the red army in Germany?
 
 
+17 # dkonstruction 2013-05-02 11:06
Quoting RLF:
She believes in the government we have right now! These right wingers are idiots...we only need to worry when the left decides we need violent revolution...remember the red army in Germany?


No matter what they're rhetoric, the Red Army were not leftists any more than the Red Brigades were in Italy and they were used to destroy the real new left (in Italy, Autonomia and the Italian "ultra left"was the biggest in Western Europe in the late 70s). There have always been agent provocateurs and that's essentially the role that these groups played in enbabling the state to implement brutal repression on the real left (in the same way the the red scare here in the 1950s was used as a cover to go after mainly New Deal liberals).
 
 
+33 # mdhome 2013-05-01 16:53
sounds like she is a candidate for the charge of treason.
 
 
+1 # restore2america 2013-05-02 17:26
mdhome think about what you are saying. it's irresponsible and legally incorrect. Belief is not action. Treason requires violent action, not violent beliefs. Unfortunately the current Dem administration is just as enthusiastic as the last GOP one to put people in jail for their beliefs - or for beliefs they are assumed to have. Let's be more smart and less smart ass here folks.
 
 
+29 # wwway 2013-05-01 17:05
Ron and Rand Paul really do believe in anarchy for the little guy and big government to ensure that anarchy exists. They want a dog eat dog world where there is no compassion or love.
 
 
+2 # DakotaKid 2013-05-03 09:57
Libertarians were once a respectable lot. Not more. Libertarianism - once a bastion against fanaticism and demagoguery - has now, sadly, gone off the rails. Thanks for this comment, EJB.
 
 
-129 # Depressionborn 2013-05-01 15:02
CAMUS1111 quote: "The GOP sold out to right wing extremists"

I'm just a old guy who thinks government is going nuts, and taxes gone too high. I value being left alone, safe from left-wing fruitcake morons who don't know better than to trust government.
You would probably call me a right wing extremist. It's OK, "sticks and stones" and all that, but I plan to keep my powder dry and my trust in the Lord.

And by the way, (For your elucidation), info you may have missed:

1)Fascism is a corporate interest in partnership with government.
2) Republican leadership has joined dems.
3) The bankers are robbing us blind.
4) Socialism sucks

And please, where do I go to buy some GOP, they need help and lots of it.
 
 
+79 # Saberoff 2013-05-01 16:07
I'm an old guy, too. And I think government has gone nuts, too. I value "being alone", my home and my privacy but....

We NEED government: for many, obvious reasons. So, if we do not "trust" ours then we need to get one that we DO trust.

Now, your points:
1) Exactly right definition of Fascism. But it is the Republican party that insists on doing corporate's business, to your own loss, Depressionborn citizen.
2) Right again! But BOTH parties, surely, are on the take!
3) Your brilliant: "The bankers are robbing us blind." But; so why is the Right always touting THEIR side?
4) This comment is HIGHLY debatable! Try it with someone who actually knows something about it, please. Everyone is longing to commune in this techno age; start a conversation with someone/anyone in the check-out line! It's called being "Social-able."
Continuing down your comments: Buying is about the only way you're going to get anywhere with the GOP. Money seems all they understand.
Oh, and, are you kidding? Have you never heard the term "Praise god and pass the ammo"? Pretty pathetic.
 
 
+18 # edge 2013-05-01 17:34
Quoting Saberoff:

3) Your brilliant: "The bankers are robbing us blind." But; so why is the Right always touting THEIR side?


LAUGHABLE!

Look who is running Obama's Treasury!

Actually I am not sure if this is an Obama administration or a Goldman Sachs administration!
 
 
+23 # theory≠opinion 2013-05-01 19:51
Sadly, this is true. But Obama is an old school Republican. He would have been right at home in Congress under Reagan, Nixon or Eisenhower.
 
 
+19 # dkonstruction 2013-05-02 07:49
Quoting edge:
Quoting Saberoff:

3) Your brilliant: "The bankers are robbing us blind." But; so why is the Right always touting THEIR side?


LAUGHABLE!

Look who is running Obama's Treasury!

Actually I am not sure if this is an Obama administration or a Goldman Sachs administration!


And, was Bush's administration any better given that his Treasury Secretary used to be the head of Goldman? I am not defending Obama's choice for Treasury Secretary by any means (the fact that he appointed Geithner and Summers who was directly responsible for doing away with Glass-Steagal and deregulating the financial industry) but it is not accurate or correct to simply blame democratic administrations on this one...both parties are equally beholden to the interests of Goldman and their ilk.
 
 
0 # RHytonen 2013-05-02 11:23
actually, it was RUBIN...
 
 
+5 # dkonstruction 2013-05-02 12:34
Quoting RHytonen:
actually, it was RUBIN...


Rubin was Clinton's Treasury Secretary; Henry Paulson was Bush's (though both come out of Goldman (Rubin then goes to Citibank after he leaves the Clinton admin)...just goes to show this is not a problem with just republican admins but is also just as big of a problem with democratic administrations ...it was Clinton after all with the advice of Rubin and Larry Summers who decided to do away with Glass-Steagal and deregulate the financial industry (Summer wanted to fully deregulate derivatives)... then of course, there's Tim Geithner who also has connections to Rubin and as head of the NY FED prior to the economic meltdown seems to have none of this coming and then is a major architect of the bailout of the banks once the crisis hit.
 
 
-22 # Depressionborn 2013-05-01 18:17
I go along with [almost] everything you have said. Thank you.

But: 1) I am not repub. I think both parties have the same boss. If you have a good party let me know.

2) Your: "so why is the Right always touting THEIR side?" It's not? The RNC establishment is either actually the banksters or gets it's money there. The RNC is not the right to me.

3) Socialism: I accept Mises socialism critique. It is total and devastating. It is also a long and boring study.

I do appreciate you writing, it is just that I see government as the problem.

The thing is government is power and I believe lord action was quite right. Maybe that is why both factions are essentially the same and there appears nothing to do about it, at least not in my old and feeble brain.

PS,
"powder" in my circle of fiends [some are] is $. and your right again: the $ is pretty pathetic.
 
 
+11 # RLF 2013-05-02 05:38
Without a good government that we can control...we can't control the criminal banker...or any of the other corporate criminals hiding there profits overseas to avoid taxes....while lobbying to avoid import duties or VAT.
 
 
+8 # RHytonen 2013-05-02 06:46
[quote name="Depressio nborn"] I think both parties have the same boss. If you have a good party let me know.

quote]

Have you never heard of the GREEN party?
It's the ONLY NON CORPORATIST party, and no, it's NOT "Just" environmentalis t at all.

See jillstein.org/i ssues and read ALL of their platform. It uniquely happens to match most of OWS' positions, and coincidentally, ALL the polls of the American people, ON THE ISSUES. But of course, the root cause is corporatism and its hold on government, which must stop, for one good reason, before there is no water left.

Enviromentalism, a "sop" of radicals, and a "niche issue?"

Try holding your breath while you count your money.
 
 
-32 # Depressionborn 2013-05-01 18:25
Hi saberoff, forgot the sociable thing.

There's too much of it here, way too much. You should try unsociable, you would be good at it I think.

If you want trustworthy gov try the tooth fairy.
 
 
+3 # restore2america 2013-05-02 17:32
Wow are we self serving! Think about what you said:

1) Exactly right definition of Fascism. But it is the Republican party that insists on doing corporate's business, to your own loss, Depressionborn citizen.

REALLY? Hey, I despise Bush/Cheney, but is Obama any less a doer of corporate sponsors' business? Are we part of the Fox masses who think it's all the other guys - all them GOP'ers, kinda like all them gays and women and liberals?

Dispense with the partisan crap. The problem of corporate control of our government and society is not a partisan problem. It is a power and lawless government problem. We need to bring our government back to doing its job: serving the interests of the people as a whole, not just serving the interests of the 0.01%
 
 
+9 # DPM 2013-05-01 16:09
Wow! You're entitled to your opinion, but, wow!
 
 
+24 # DPM 2013-05-01 16:15
I would almost bet, as with the others that are so set against our government (which IS often pretty dysfunctional) you "love" government when it goes YOUR way.
 
 
+26 # RHytonen 2013-05-01 16:28
Quoting Depressionborn:
CAMUS1111 quote: "The GOP sold out to right wing extremists"

(For your elucidation):

1)Fascism is a corporate interest in partnership with government.
2) Republican leadership has joined dems.
3) The bankers are robbing us blind.
4) Socialism sucks

And please, where do I go to buy some GOP, they need help and lots of it.


All the "Left Wing Extremists" -I- know, (including myself) have been quoting your #1 through #3 more often than I bet you have.

And #1 completely refutes #4 - unless of course, you mean to say corporate rule through bribery and corruption, is a GOOD thing. (And there was a bunch of colonists in Boston who formed this country in disagreement with THAT mistake and later, 500,000 died for it.)Because Socialism is the opposite of Fascism, and is the ELEMENT of government that keeps it in check. And there is NO SUCH THING in the real world as "pure" Socialism, and never has been. It's only an ELEMENT of government, a term invented to DESCRIBE certain parts in THEORETICAL analysis. Just like Capitalism, all attemps at "pure' socialism -and even "communism," HAVE FAILED.

Our failure (attempting, or rather failing to STOP, "pure" Capitalism,)has proven the flip side of what the fall of the USSR proved about the opposite erroneous attempt to implement a REAL WORLD version of what was meant to be an analytic THEORETICAL TENDENCY or ELEMENT of a functioning, whole society.
 
 
-6 # Depressionborn 2013-05-01 18:47
RHytonen 2013-05-01 14:28


Yes,
capitalism has/is failing, and socialism doesn't work. So what do we do now?
 
 
+12 # Reyn 2013-05-01 21:35
In addition to which -- your grandchildren (I'm taking you at your word as to your age) will suffer in a world where there are no jobs as you now know them (or very few) and where the mass of power has migrated upwards to a small class of elites who will NOT be controllable EVEN BY FORCE (trust me on this, please, unless you do your own research on robotics and emerging weapons sy systems - in which case you already know that its true) by then.

What do we do? We determine a new paradigm, and we do it now, while we still can enforce our will. Soon enough we won't be able to, and those screaming for violent revolution from the extreme Right will find out how effective that is against their erstwhile benefactors on the Right.

Regards

Quoting Depressionborn:
RHytonen 2013-05-01 14:28


Yes,
capitalism has/is failing, and socialism doesn't work. So what do we do now?
 
 
+3 # Depressionborn 2013-05-02 02:58
Hi Reyn, Yep

1) Try "great" grandchildren, and they are in trouble as you say

2)It is all about jobs, always will be

3) Inordinate concentration of wealth is key. (How in heck did we let it happen?)

A new paradigm? Maybe, but what? Maybe we need to start by reading some history.

I don't think we can control the elites, certainly force is not the answer. We may be the problem. Look in the mirror.

I have grown too old to do much. Yur ball
 
 
+7 # RLF 2013-05-02 05:42
Yeah, Yeah, yeah...look how well all of our great fancy weapons systems did in Afghanistan and Iraq.
 
 
+5 # Charles3000 2013-05-01 21:41
How about the Mondragon approach?
 
 
0 # Depressionborn 2013-05-02 03:03
Yes on the Mondragon approach. Lots of empires would fall on that one. (They should) I heard Mondragon does poorly when plant size exceeds 500?

I spent my life at the plant thing, it needs funding and organization.
 
 
+4 # RHytonen 2013-05-02 06:49
Quoting Depressionborn:
RHytonen 2013-05-01 14:28


Yes,
capitalism has/is failing, and socialism doesn't work. So what do we do now?


Ever hear of the GREEN PARTY?
- Occupy Wall Street?

Two excellent answers.
Take your choice.
Or (come to think of it,)
choose both.
 
 
+2 # RLF 2013-05-02 05:40
And to be fair...most governments we think of in this country (US) as socialist are or were tyrannies and police states.
 
 
+8 # Oscar 2013-05-02 10:03
Quoting ... Quoting: "2) Republican leadership has joined dems."

Actually, I think a more correct statement is the other way around:
2) The Democrat leadership has joined the Republican.
 
 
-32 # egbegb 2013-05-01 17:44
RE: "Socialism sucks"
Every single experiment in socialism in human history has failed and most required a totalitarian government to enforce (Hitler,Mao,Sta lin,Ho Chi Mihn,...). Other voluntary socialist
societies have also failed.

It must be our excellent Government schools that have instilled such knowledge in leftists to believe that socialism is the way of the future. It certainly has been the failure of the past.
 
 
+29 # theory≠opinion 2013-05-01 19:54
What the heck are you talking about? There is pretty much no one advocating that we become a socialist country, least of all Obama. I don't understand why people keep bringing up socialism when it's not on the table. Why are you so scared of something that isn't remotely a threat?

However, there are some societies with socialist aspects that are quite successful and we could learn a lot from them. Life is not black and white.
 
 
+7 # RHytonen 2013-05-02 06:49
Quoting theory≠opinion:
What the heck are you talking about? There is pretty much no one advocating that we become a socialist country, least of all Obama. I don't understand why people keep bringing up socialism when it's not on the table. Why are you so scared of something that isn't remotely a threat?

However, there are some societies with socialist aspects that are quite successful and we could learn a lot from them. Life is not black and white.

Exactly.
 
 
+27 # MidwestDick 2013-05-01 20:57
Our economic environment includes a number of socialist institutions and entities. There are a small number of workers co-ops and many more growers co-ops. There are also consumer co-ops. We have the social security administration and we have medicare. What about the food stamp program. The internet is itself a co-operative agglomeration with both public and private bodies promulgating rules, standards, and technologies.
And of course we have a State Bank and many credit Unions. Socialists all. You want to opt out of socialism you oughta move to Somalia. Libertarians paradise.
 
 
+28 # Reyn 2013-05-01 21:39
I'm sorry -- England has a totalitarian government? Canada? Denmark? Sweden? What are you talking about?

They've all failed?

What?

I find that remarkable. Oh, you are only talking about a particular style of socialists, I see -- a style that apparently includes the extreme Right -- Hitler? Seriously, the socialist in the NAZI name was to placate a small group of voters, Germany was never a socialist state...

It must be those excellent private schools that instill knowledge in teh Right that tells them that pure Capitalism is the wave of the future - like it tells them that Hitler was a Leftist.

Regards.

Quoting egbegb:
RE: "Socialism sucks"
Every single experiment in socialism in human history has failed and most required a totalitarian government to enforce (Hitler,Mao,Stalin,Ho Chi Mihn,...). Other voluntary socialist
societies have also failed.

It must be our excellent Government schools that have instilled such knowledge in leftists to believe that socialism is the way of the future. It certainly has been the failure of the past.
 
 
-13 # Depressionborn 2013-05-02 03:08
Sorry Reyn, Europe is toast. Socialism is destroying it. Do your homework.

Europe is socialism for the masses and class society for the "elite" You gotta talk to people who have been there for a while.
 
 
+17 # dkonstruction 2013-05-02 08:08
Quoting Depressionborn:
Sorry Reyn, Europe is toast. Socialism is destroying it. Do your homework.

Europe is socialism for the masses and class society for the "elite" You gotta talk to people who have been there for a while.


What is destroying Europe are the austerity policies that are being pushed by global financial capital (through the large banks and creditors such as the World Bank, IMF and Germany) and are precisely designed to destroy the European welfare state that was brought about largely due to socialist governments (though of course the original "welfare state" was really first initiated/creat ed in the 19th century by Bismarck who was hardly a socialist).

Also, it is primarily the Eurozone countries that are in deep trouble and that is because: a) they don't control and thus cannot borrow in their own currencies (i.e., they are beholden to the World Bank, IMF, Germany etc.) and because of the horrific austerity that have been imposed on them (particularly countries like Greece, Spain and Ireland).
 
 
+15 # RLF 2013-05-02 05:44
You're an idiot...France seems to be doing OK, Sweden...I was there recently and the quality of life is better than the US. Denmark too. You have this idea that only North Korea is socialist but there is a whole spectrum of success.
 
 
+3 # Depressionborn 2013-05-02 09:07
Hi RLF: An idiot, me, probably. Don't know about you though. Try this:

...curious about your thoughts: Values and beliefs for example. What exactly are they?

• Do you favor our going around the world killing and destroying? I don't.

• Or taxing workers and sending money overseas for work? Not me.

• Is it ok that the EPA can't regulate fracking? I think it needs to.

• Do you really want Monsanto to manipulate our food. No way for me.

• How about when gov gives monopoly rights to private enterprise???
(the big mistake gov is not supposed to make is being made.)

Specificity can be good for clarity, and Europe is going down the tube.
Sorry
 
 
+8 # dkonstruction 2013-05-02 07:58
Quoting egbegb:
RE: "Socialism sucks"
Every single experiment in socialism in human history has failed and most required a totalitarian government to enforce (Hitler,Mao,Stalin,Ho Chi Mihn,...). Other voluntary socialist
societies have also failed.

It must be our excellent Government schools that have instilled such knowledge in leftists to believe that socialism is the way of the future. It certainly has been the failure of the past.


Socialism at the very minimum is a system in which the workers own the means of production. This has never existed anywhere. Nazi Germany was a political form (fascism) of capitalism...th e others you mentioned are what theorists such as CLR James called state capitalism (i.e., the state took the place of private employers but it was still a system based on wage labor and the extraction of surplus value from the workers by the owners -- in this case the state -- who appropriated the workers surplus.
 
 
+4 # RHytonen 2013-05-02 11:47
Quoting egbegb:
RE: "Socialism sucks"
Every single experiment in socialism in human history has failed and most required a totalitarian government to enforce (Hitler,Mao,Stalin,Ho Chi Mihn,...). Other voluntary socialist
societies have also failed.

It must be our excellent Government schools that have instilled such knowledge in leftists to believe that socialism is the way of the future. It certainly has been the failure of the past.


No, it's just that terms like "Socialism" were never intended to be the COMPLETE description of a functioning government or society.

Neither was "Capitalism."
Attempts at such absolutism have ALWAYS failed, as you point out.
 
 
+30 # theory≠opinion 2013-05-01 19:49
Socialism doesn't exist in America. The bankers are supported by the people who you think are protecting you from fascism (you need to understand the ramifications of neoliberal free market ideas). The bankers are robbing us blind, but it's the anti-government people who are enabling it through hogtie-ing the government. The government is only possible way to keep the banks from robbing us blind, so you if you are anti-government , you must be pro-bank. Republican leadership hasn't joined the Dems, the whole thing has moved to the right so we get the spectrum from moderate Republican to full on wing nut. So, who are you going to shoot? The "liberals" who really want to keep the banks and big corporations well regulated so your air and water are clean and the banks don't rip you off? You are a bit confused as to who your real enemies are.
 
 
+5 # Depressionborn 2013-05-02 03:11
Re: theory≠opinion

Don't be ridiculous, the bankers are using the government. So are the large corps.
 
 
+17 # RMDC 2013-05-02 04:46
Socialism does exist in the US. It is social security, medicare, public schools, the post office and a lot of very large institutions that were created to insure the living standards of ALL people.

Socialism is under heavy attack from the fascist wing of american society and politics. Fascists have always been good at revving up a hate-filled minority which thinks that their rights are diminished if "others" get the same rights. These others are very often non-whites or other easily identifiable minorities.

Big banks and corporations have always been the supporters of fascisms. Corporate control of the government and of the whole society is what fascism is.

Most of the world's government are now fascists. Banks control whole governments like in the US. If governments did not exist, there would be no powerful banks.
 
 
+5 # RLF 2013-05-02 05:35
When a guy like this on the right and others on the left agree on so much...ie definition of fascism and that we are there, Dems and repubs are the same, and the banks and corps are robbing the taxpayers...we are living in a very scarey world!
 
 
+13 # Rita Walpole Ague 2013-05-02 06:15
Hi Depressionborn, it is so disturbing that 59% of all fed. taxes go to the MITC, military/indust rial/terrorism complex, of which great old Pres. Ike, great G.O.P.er, warned us re. a potential power grab coming.

Speaking as another (like you) old timer from far better times, I joined friends to volunteer at the 1960 Republican National Convention, then, about to be a senior in college in 1964 , I sat with my dear, now departed mother in a front row at the G.O.P. National Convention in San Francisco (her father was a most respected by both parties judge, with Pres. Andrew Jackson hanging in his family tree), and heard pres. nominee Barry Goldwater speak on extremism being o.k..

Those days are now gone, the time when millionaires were often full of noblese oblige, when ethics, rule of law, and respect/co-oper ation between pols. from both major parties was in place. Today, there has been a coup d'etat, with evil greed and power over all addicted villainaires now running the show, literally and figuratively. Ethics, rule of law, basic Constitutional rights and so much else now gone bye bye. Fascism and corruption prevail, and God must be waiting for those brave and determined among us to act as did His beloved son, Jesus, when kicking the money grabbers out of the temple.

Lots and lots we've gotta do (peacefully, please) to restore liberty and justice for all, and.....

UNDO THE COUP!
 
 
+5 # Depressionborn 2013-05-02 09:25
Yes ritaague,


It is sad, especially so when my gen had it so good. We speak of it here with some guilt. We could have stopped it and didn't.

Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth, for being correct, for being you. Never apologize for being correct. or for being years ahead of your time. If you're right and you know it, speak your mind. Speak your mind even if your a minority of one. The truth is still he truth. Mohandas Gandhi.
 
 
+3 # RHytonen 2013-05-02 06:34
Quoting Depressionborn:
CAMUS1111 info you may have missed:

1)Fascism is a corporate interest in partnership with government.
2) Republican leadership has joined dems.
3) The bankers are robbing us blind.
4) Socialism sucks

.

ONLY #4 is incorrect.
But OH, HOW incorrect!

The list is also self-contradictory.
#4, "Socialism," is the ONLY cure for #1.

Incidentally, "Socialism" is a term for an analytical ELEMENT of EVERY (surviving, FUNCTIONING) government.

And as such, it is as impossible to affect as its ONLY element IN THE REAL WORLD - as BTW, is Capitalism.

Yhe failure of the USSR proved the former, we have proven the latter.
 
 
+3 # dkonstruction 2013-05-02 07:46
Quoting Depressionborn:
CAMUS1111 quote: left-wing fruitcake morons who don't know better than to trust government.

And by the way, (For your elucidation), info you may have missed:

1)Fascism is a corporate interest in partnership with government.
2) Republican leadership has joined dems.
3) The bankers are robbing us blind.
4) Socialism sucks

And please, where do I go to buy some GOP, they need help and lots of it.


Being someone who you would no doubt consider to be a "left-wing fruitcake moron" I don't know a single one of us "morons" that "trust government." Sounds like you are talking about some very confused folks who don't know what they believe in. All the "left-wing fruitcake morons" I know wouldn't trust this (or for the most part any other) government at all.

As for your 4 points:

1) Fascism is a corporate interest in partnership with gov't (i.e., it is a form of capitalist rule)

2) Republican leadership has joined the dems (or the other way around but the basic point that there is less and less difference between i agree with you)

3) The Bankers are robbing us blind (again, an indictment of capitalism)

4) Socialism Sucks (Since socialism is at the very minimum a system in which the workers own the means of production, no such system has ever existed so how do you know it sucks and what about it do you disagree with?)
 
 
+2 # robcarter.vn 2013-05-01 18:54
What will happen far easier is the whole Republican Party will disappear as Democrats move further Right (NB defectors from GPOP 1 now Obama Minister, senators changing sides etc. Then as the 44% GOP now say armed revolution Professor Kondratiev forecast it for 2030-2050, when an OWS type move will form a leftist labour to save USA. Russian Kondratiev saw that 80 years ago.
 
 
0 # restore2america 2013-05-02 17:24
Quoting CAMUS1111:
The GOP sold out to right wing extremists and now has been consumed and subsumed by them. Until some last remaining sane gop'er has the guts to call these fascists out, to exorcise them, in attempt to reclaim his/her party, the greatest existential threat to our country seems clearly to emanate from right-wing crazies within--meaning, to a large extent, from the GOP itself.


Unfortunately many in the GOP think exactly the same of progressives, gays, liberals, women who seek abortions, etc.

Let's not be so arrogant as to label "them" fascists when government of by and for the corporations and wealthy runs amok in the Dem party as well. Look at Obama and his minions passing laws to repeal every right we have?

the problem is power and money out of control. The problem is not one or the other political party. It is both. It is US and THEM.

By spending our energies denigrating "them" fascists, we turn a blind eye to our part in the problem in the same way that "they" do with respect to their part in the problem.
 
 
-1 # Depressionborn 2013-05-04 08:04
Quoting CAMUS1111:
The GOP sold out to right wing extremists and now has been consumed and subsumed by them. Until some last remaining sane gop'er has the guts to call these fascists out, to exorcise them, in attempt to reclaim his/her party, the greatest existential threat to our country seems clearly to emanate from right-wing crazies within--meaning, to a large extent, from the GOP itself.


Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. ~ Mark Twain
 
 
+85 # tswhiskers 2013-05-01 13:27
I sincerely think one major root cause of Republican voter disaffection must be the proliferation of far right "news" sources. The chief of these is Fox News. Fox is a major propaganda outlet for the Tea Party and other Far Righties. With the exception of Stewart/Colbert on Comedy Central, no one in the press calls them out for their inaccuracies and outright lies. One question: does Fox News purport to be a genuine source of news and information or does Mr. Ailes claim to be merely a source of entertainment? It seems to me that the FCC could do something about its effect on an ill-informed public. If Fox News claims to be a news source, then they should be required by the FCC and the other networks to report every news story with as much accuracy as do those other networks. If FN claims to provide entertainment and opinion rather than factual news, they should be required by the FCC to issue disclaimers before each broadcast as to the lack of factual information in their reports. This should also apply to all news outlets regardless of political bias. Then the FCC should ENFORCE that ruling for all news outlets. Would it be easy? Of course not. But many BELIEVE what people say on Fox; it's not entertainment to them. Yes, the 1st Amendment is important, but Fox et al come dangerously close to shouting "Fire" in the fabled crowded theater. We all need accurate information and the FCC and broadcasters have a responsibility give it to us.
 
 
+7 # Rain17 2013-05-01 16:55
These right-wing conspiracies were around well before before Fox News began broadcasting. The initial events that spurred these movements was Ruby Ridge tragedy, which happened in 1992. Coupled with the Branch Davidian Siege and the Assault Weapons ban, both of which occurred in 1993, it laid the groundwork for these groups to take off. Fox didn't come on the air until 1996.

Talk radio and Rush Limbaugh were around and came into their own in the early 1990s. So talk radio was already there, but Fox was a pretty latecomer to the right-wing media. And arguably the militia movement was around well before then.
 
 
+13 # mdhome 2013-05-01 16:57
FOX won a lawsuit a few years ago that had tried to get them to tell the truth, result they now have a courts permission to lie as much as they like.
 
 
+11 # Nominae 2013-05-01 23:23
Quoting mdhome:
FOX won a lawsuit a few years ago that had tried to get them to tell the truth, result they now have a courts permission to lie as much as they like.


Yeah, but FOX was barred from entering the Canadian market simply because Canada *still* has a law that prevents lying when presenting ostensible "news". Large market, that ! Kudos to the Canucks for keeping their sensible laws intact much longer than we have.
 
 
-42 # egbegb 2013-05-01 17:46
FoxNews is closer to the center than
NBC,CBS,ABC,MSNBC,CNN,NPR, al Jezeera,
WaPo,NYT,LATimes,...

Watch Shep Smith for news if you watch anything on TV.
 
 
+12 # theory≠opinion 2013-05-01 19:55
Please share. Whatever you're smoking must be some good stuff.
 
 
+4 # RHytonen 2013-05-02 11:53
Quoting egbegb:
FoxNews is closer to the center than
NBC,CBS,ABC,MSNBC,CNN,NPR, al Jezeera,
WaPo,NYT,LATimes,...

Watch Shep Smith for news if you watch anything on TV.


Nope.
Watch DemocracyNOW!
And you don't need a TV.
We're just fine without it.
 
 
+104 # Farafalla 2013-05-01 14:26
Interesting, when the Black Panthers used the 2nd amendment to protect the liberties of black people, the Feds took them down with brutal fire power. The BPs only had shot guns.

But when fevered white males arm themselves to the teeth, spewing their racism and hatred of government, they get respect.

The NRA is a fascist organization that is whipping up the violent tendencies of their supporters. Why are they not investigated for sedition and promoting violence? Occupy got a more brutal treatment, infiltration and repression than any of these whackjob Tea Party pricks have ever gotten. And Occupy is unarmed.

As alarmist as it sounds, we are seeing the evolution of a truly fascist movement in this country. The GOP has become their party.
 
 
+11 # brux 2013-05-01 15:47
Good points. I wonder if if would have been any different if the Black Panthers had not had a certain noble motive but then draped it in the most scary symbols to most Americans. It's almost like {???) we have a group looking at what is on the American people's minds and then devising ways to manipulate them in the media, in the news, in reality ... in prearranged ways. Why would the Black Panthers - if they were thinking about their goal - go out of their way to seem aggressive and belligerent?

Now ... does America respond or even pay attention to well-behaved Black civil rights groups? I am not sure, and I am also not sure if our media leaves anyone any room to think about anything since they create their own reality - by echo chamber ... and includes all the news.

To really have news we need to widen our views to many many many more people, and not just the people who want to ham and lollygag for the camera, but people with thoughful coherent views.
 
 
+13 # theory≠opinion 2013-05-01 19:57
Why did the Panthers appear aggressive and belligerent? I would argue that those two qualities are in the eye of the beholder. They might have just thought they were being strong and proud of their heritage. The real question is why white America was so afraid of a guy who organized school lunches for inner city kids.

RIP Fred Hampton.
 
 
+15 # Nominae 2013-05-01 23:50
Quoting theory≠opinion:
.... aggressive and belligerent? I would argue that those two qualities are in the eye of the beholder.....


Indeed. People need to understand the time period. Had the Black Panthers done nothing *BUT* wear black berets, leather jackets and stand there with a shotgun, they were *still* the first organization ever to TOTALLY CHANGE the image of the black man in America, and foremost in eliciting from others an attitude of previously unheard-of respect.

Until they were attacked by police, they were not BEING "violent and belligerent", they were only making the white man apoplectic by dressing in a way that the White Man would INTERPRET as "violent and belligerent" out of *pure fear*.

Prior to the Panthers, the *prevailing* image of the Black Man in America was the grinning, servile, shuckin' and jivin' Mr. Step-'n'-Fetch- It. Boy did THAT image disappear with the Panthers !

The image of a proud black man standing up ramrod straight in leather, back beret, shades, and totin' a gun just about made white people at the time wet their collective pants.

*That* was the sole provocation for the state of "total war", (wildly out of proportion to the actual threat), perpetrated against the Black Panthers by authorities in charge of making white people feel "safe". Panthers then backed their position to the death.

How DARE those Panthers stand up to the white man looking as if they thought they were some kind of an equal ?
 
 
+2 # brux 2013-05-03 00:42
> they were *still* the first organization ever to TOTALLY CHANGE the image of the black man in America,

I don't agree with that, but I will agree that they were the first mass produced image to he public over the TV of the black man ... and I think it got out of it exactly what they wanted it to do.
 
 
0 # brux 2013-05-03 00:41
Fred Hampton was a hero, for sure, murdered by certain parts of our government. They will kill anyone, you or me, if we seem to be making a little bit of headway, they have just slathers it over with BS from the movies and music and consumerism.

It is not white America that is afraid, it is the corporatocracy. Most white Americans don't hate or want to be scared of blacks, but blacks have been made poor and desperate to make them do things that make them seem scary.

The "corporatocracy " as so scared because they know an idea can catch fire and in the wrong/right atmosphere can blow up like a nuke, even an idea like school lunches.

That is why they never miss and opportunity to push the genocide envelope on all of us ... and how in the hell can we even think to miss this.

Look at our food, our work, our wages, our culture ... it has turned to shit, and shit is not nutritious enough to live on.
 
 
+8 # dkonstruction 2013-05-02 08:15
Quoting brux:
Good points. I wonder if if would have been any different if the Black Panthers had not had a certain noble motive but then draped it in the most scary symbols to most Americans. It's almost like {???) we have a group looking at what is on the American people's minds and then devising ways to manipulate them in the media, in the news, in reality ... in prearranged ways. Why would the Black Panthers - if they were thinking about their goal - go out of their way to seem aggressive and belligerent?

Now ... does America respond or even pay attention to well-behaved Black civil rights groups? I am not sure, and I am also not sure if our media leaves anyone any room to think about anything since they create their own reality - by echo chamber ... and includes all the news.


Malcolm X used to say that if he had not been out there seeming much more radical than King that King and the "mainstream" civil rights movement would never have gotten the civil rights legislation that it did.

I also don't think it was coincidental that both King and Malcolm are killed after they expand their perspective to say that it was not just about race in this country but also about class. The same was true for the Panthers which is why they were also such a threat (as well as the fact that they understood the need to build autonomous, alternative "self-help" institutions.
 
 
+2 # brux 2013-05-03 00:46
> it was not just about race in this country but also about class

Truer words were never spoken, it is all about class, and that is why we see such race baiting and so much racial provocation.

Class is the issue. That is also why Marx is so vilified, because his ideas on class are brilliant and have never been refuted. All we have to do is give up fighting for the stupid symbolic consumer trinkets that are poisoning us anyway, and set a minimal guaranteed level of existence for everyone that can lead to cooperation,and this system will fall over and be supplanted by a more democratic dream that all people want.
 
 
+2 # dkonstruction 2013-05-03 09:46
Quoting brux:
> it was not just about race in this country but also about class

Truer words were never spoken, it is all about class, and that is why we see such race baiting and so much racial provocation.

Class is the issue. That is also why Marx is so vilified, because his ideas on class are brilliant and have never been refuted. All we have to do is give up fighting for the stupid symbolic consumer trinkets that are poisoning us anyway, and set a minimal guaranteed level of existence for everyone that can lead to cooperation,and this system will fall over and be supplanted by a more democratic dream that all people want.


Brux, I agree with you more or less. While I certainly agree with Marx that as an economic system, Capitalism is based on class (including wage labor and the private ownership of the means of production) being a man of his century Marx does not really deal at all with racial or sex/gender oppression and distinct forms of power/social control.

At the same time, I think that the turn towards "identity politics" with no class analysis has been for the most part a disaster and so I agree with you that class is still the issue under capitalism but at the same time we need to be mindful of and include at least race and sex into the analysis (otherwise it is hard to learn the lessons from the mistakes made by the labor movement for example when it came to dealing with racism within the white working class).
 
 
+2 # brux 2013-05-03 17:07
> Capitalism is based on class

I don't think so. There are things that capitalism implies and doesn't imply - some are even contradictory depending on the context of what aspect of capitalism you are discussing.

Class is a byproduct of capitalism, but there needs to be a more nuanced definition to the word capitalism, and that's why there is so much arguing.

Just a quick contrast: CAPITALISM

1. Capitalism where I develop some product or service and accumulate profit to gain wealth, power and influence.

2. Capitalism where wealth is accumulated and controlled as a larger concern by a group, an immortal corporation on a macro scale in a way that eternalizes insults on to the environment and the greater society.

Both modes can externalize but where one man is toiling in a society of equals there is not the scale of problem with externalization that there is at the macro or global scale with wars or class distinctions used to steal from people.

Perhaps what killed the unions is racism, whites resented the success of non-whites in the union as owners resent the workers daring to thing they have a right to owership of something they did not create.

The bottom line is that in the macro case there huge forces like tsunamis that randomly affect millions of people who a smart small investment can solve, but the successful always want to kick the ladder away to keep other people down and out.
 
 
-3 # DPM 2013-05-01 16:12
Brown Shirts or Black Shirts? Really n difference.
 
 
+6 # 666 2013-05-01 16:58
didn't you get the gop letter sent to all nra members? a nra membership card is as good as a get-out-of-guan tanamo-free card in the coming right-wing terrorist revolution
 
 
+28 # PABLO DIABLO 2013-05-01 14:28
The United States of Insanity.
 
 
+64 # myungbluth 2013-05-01 14:29
Taking up arms against the government is, oh what's it called, oh yeah, TREASON. And these people think they are patriots? What ever happened to, "my country right or wrong"?
 
 
+69 # bmiluski 2013-05-01 14:42
These are the same people whose leader declared that the number one mission of the republican party was to make sure President Obama served only one term. No matter the cost to the country. THAT IS TREASON.
 
 
+2 # egbegb 2013-05-01 17:48
How else would you interpret:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That
whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is
the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
government,"

There is a limit where my rights have disappeared. Should
we draw a red line?
 
 
+11 # brux 2013-05-01 16:12
> What ever happened to, "my country right or wrong"?


Kind of ended with the Nazis.
 
 
+15 # T4D 2013-05-01 18:11
Kind of ended when people started misquoting Stephen Decatur.

My country right or wrong,
when in the wrong to make it right,
and when in the right to make it strong
 
 
0 # brux 2013-05-03 00:47
Yeah, thansk, but, same difference
 
 
+4 # Nominae 2013-05-02 00:02
Quoting myungbluth:
Taking up arms against the government is, oh what's it called, oh yeah, TREASON. And these people think they are patriots? What ever happened to, "my country right or wrong"?


"My country right or wrong" never *BELONGED* in America. It is, and was, the absolute hallmark of ignorance and inability to examine a nuanced problem for yourself. What benefit is freedom of thought and speech if no one uses either ?

Those who love their country WANT TO correct it *to* the path it was founded for, as delineated in the Constitution.

*That's* what "happened to" it.

"Goose-step in Lockstep, right or wrong !"

It was as patently and obviously stupid as: "Kill a Commie for Christ". Yeah.... that's *exactly* what The Prince Of Peace would have wanted most !

"Keep your Government hands off my Medicare", yeah.....

Bumper Stickers for Boneheads
 
 
+35 # thekidde 2013-05-01 14:51
All this means is that about 1/4 of the population are idiots (who most likely have never served in the military, shot an enemy or seen/experience d a comrade get killed).
 
 
-37 # Depressionborn 2013-05-01 15:33
re: animus toward democratic ideals

Sorry, our nation is founded a republic and based on republic ideals, a democratically elected republic. It is not a democracy. "a democracy" is dictatorship of the majority.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting or muggers, it is to keep our republic safe from dictatorship. It is not needed until 'they' come for guns. Libs need to learn to love our guns, they protect good guys from bad guys.

And please, stay away from a gun free zone, they're dangerous.
 
 
+20 # chrisconnolly 2013-05-01 18:25
The 2nd amendment is about keeping our government safe from invaders. It is not to protect those who want to overthrow our government. And nobody is proposing that 'they' come for our guns. We register our dogs and when necessary euthanize them for the safety of the people. Registering guns should be a no less important.
 
 
-18 # Depressionborn 2013-05-01 18:44
# chrisconnolly 2013-05-01 16:25 The 2nd amendment

Re: It is not to protect those who want to overthrow our government.

Of course not, it is to protect the people from the government. (see Federalist # 47 I think)
 
 
+7 # RHytonen 2013-05-02 07:16
Quoting Depressionborn:
# chrisconnolly 2013-05-01 16:25 The 2nd amendment

Re: It is not to protect those who want to overthrow our government.

Of course not, it is to protect the people from the government. (see Federalist # 47 I think)

If you're going to quote the Federalist Papers, you also need to quote Jefferson's letters - which state, among other things, that taxes were to be paid and the government, roads, schools, libraries, a guaranteed home, etc. supported, to benefit the poor and working people("farmers ,"in that agrarian society)- by ONLY the rich;
and further state that we must put an end to the influence of "monied corporations" which are a huge and dangerous threat to democracy and the government, threatening its laws and its very existence.
 
 
+1 # dkonstruction 2013-05-03 10:04
Quoting Depressionborn:
# chrisconnolly 2013-05-01 16:25 The 2nd amendment

it is to protect the people from the government. (see Federalist # 47 I think)


with all due respect Depressionborn, but I believe that this is a fundamental misinterpretati on of the history and the intent of the 2nd amendment.

The call for a new constitution comes after the convention to reform the Articles of Confederation decides that the Articles are insufficient and do not provide for a strong enough federal government to deal with either slave rebellions (which is why those in the south push for it along with their whole notion of "states rights" which was about protecting and preserving slavery) and or popular rebellions by the "rabble" from below such as Shay's Rebellion which broke out in 1786 prior to the convening of the Constitutional Convention in May of 1877. Madison in particular is concerned about the popular rebellions from below and so in Federalist 10 writes that representation in the new republic should be:

"...limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude." And later, Madison makes clear what "confusion of the multitude" he is worried about:

"A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project."

In the south, the "militia" was the slave patrol; in the North it was used to put down rebellions such as Shays.
 
 
-7 # ladypyrates 2013-05-01 19:16
Amendments 1-10 are specifically for the protection of the citizenry from oppressive government...re ad history much?? Considering that they put firearms right after freedom of the press, it appears the founders were very concerned about what would happen to an unarmed public should their government become a brutal regime.
 
 
+2 # RHytonen 2013-05-02 07:26
Quoting ladypyrates:
Amendments 1-10 are specifically for the protection of the citizenry from oppressive government...read history much?? Considering that they put firearms right after freedom of the press, it appears the founders were very concerned about what would happen to an unarmed public should their government become a brutal regime.


How well do you think you would fare against the government with your Bushmaster? Got bullets? HOW MANY?

What are the statistics of our firearms deaths compared with other countries that DON'T allow such things?

And anyway, what country creates itself by building into its legal system, the tolerance of violent revolution (treason/anarch y?)

Maybe on the mythical (Klingon home-) planet Konos...
 
 
0 # ladypyrates 2013-05-02 12:09
...the INTENT of the founders with respect to the Bill of Rights is irrefutable. You can certainly disagree with them or argue with the feasability of fighting against a brutal government but you can't snap your fingers and declare that they didn't mean what they said. I must say that I'm always impressed when I encounter someone who considers themself to be of greater intellect than Jefferson.
 
 
+1 # dkonstruction 2013-05-03 10:09
Quoting ladypyrates:
Amendments 1-10 are specifically for the protection of the citizenry from oppressive government...read history much?? Considering that they put firearms right after freedom of the press, it appears the founders were very concerned about what would happen to an unarmed public should their government become a brutal regime.


With all due respect, see my response to Depressionborn. It is a fundamental misreading of the 2nd amendment to see it as being about individuals protecting themselves from the gov't. It was precisely the other way around. In the South, the "militia" was the slave patrol and so it was about protecting slavery and the slaveowners from slave rebellions. In the north it was about protecting against popular rebellions from below such as Shay's Rebellion (which had already broken out and was still going on when the Constitutional Convention first convenes initially to simply revise the Articles of Confederation and not to write a new Constitution). It is in large part Shay's Rebellion that convinces "the founders" that the Articles are not strong enough and do not provide for a strong enough federal gov't to put down popular (or slave) rebellions from below. And Shay's Rebellion was just the latest in at least 100 years of popular rebellion from below going back at least to Bacon's Rebellion in 1676.
 
 
+14 # Nominae 2013-05-02 00:27
Quoting Depressionborn:

The Second Amendment is not about hunting or muggers, it is to keep our republic safe from dictatorship. It is not needed until 'they' come for guns.....


Certainly one of most laughably inane arguments out there.

First of all, a *STATE'S* "right to maintain a well-regulated militia" was the alternate to the expense and headache of maintaining a *STANDING* Federal Army.

It was simply *NEVER* intended to "protect the people from the government". Childish pablum. Try some history research.

And the idea ITSELF of protecting the public from the Government is a KNEE SLAPPING JOKE NOW when one is savvy enough to recognize that you are talking about a Military that can cram a Hellfire Missile down your damned CHIMNEY from half a *planet* AWAY !

Go ahead and play with your little pop-guns all you want. You are talking about an "intruder" that you are likely never even to SEE.

And, if they want to save a few bucks, how about all your little basement arsenal against nothing more high tech than the TANK from your local National Guard Armory ? And, check it ! Even many of your local police now have tanks.

Some people have WAY MORE guns than brains.
They are not exactly military strategists to begin with,
and guns are their antidote to their own fear and sense of inadequacy.

Guns are needed in remote areas such as ranches. Assault rifles in cities are just "binkies" for badly frightened little men.
 
 
+4 # RHytonen 2013-05-02 07:08
Quoting Depressionborn:
re: animus toward democratic ideals

Sorry, our nation is founded a republic and based on republic ideals, a democratically elected republic. It is not a democracy. "a democracy" is dictatorship of the majority.


Redefinition of terms (like "Liberal," "entitlement," and "Socialism") -usually by trite phrases, or fatuous references-
is a long discredited ploy of the Right,

given power by the previously referenced Florida 'Fox v. GM milk whistleblowers' court decision, which allowed corporate corruption of the "News" into a powerful propaganda distribution system.

This statement is an example of nothing more, though somewahat more severe.

There is only ONE definition of
"Tyranny" and "Dictatorship," and "tyranny of the minority" is merely another false argument for fascism, plutarchy, which is the ANTITHESIS of "republic" - which word incidentally means NOTHING MORE than a system WITHOUT A MONARCH - or any type of "_-archy;" just as fascism means ONLY "the merger of industry and state power," and does not define totalitarianism , nor require a dictator nor a police state (except that only we gullible American economic Stockholm Syndrome suffering sheep, would tolerate it without REQUIRING one!)

But wait- in fact, it's already in place.
 
 
0 # Depressionborn 2013-05-03 19:57
RH-It was the difference between "a democracy and a republic.

In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "a democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.
A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to who those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]

It is factual, not an opinion
 
 
+17 # brux 2013-05-01 15:42
> there's plenty of proof of ( ... ) and animus toward democratic ideals in today's conservative movement.

Conservatives may be wrong in the way they are opposed to democracy, but when you really look at the average American - the intelligence and the thought that goes into their votes it's scary. The problem is that Conservatives only oppose democracy on one dimension - the dimension that "claims" someone BAD AND UNDESERVING is going to get their money ... hard earned or otherwise.

They never really grasp the whole abstract idea of money and supply and demand or the idea of taxes. I am not defending the totality of spending by the government, only that through the government we should have a right to decide certain things about our lives and how we want to live. Our government needs to progress at doing this in many ways, but I'm not sure the answer is to vilify the government in total - especially at a time when private power is at an all time threatening size.

So Conservatives erroneously based their whole political reality based on these emotions - but they attach no real studies, no real numbers to these ideas, they are led to an emotional place of selfishness and never do a reality check on it. Conservatives have no real understanding or interest in the world around them - that needs "management". They seem to think everything would still be here if everyone stopped paying taxes.
 
 
+12 # wwway 2013-05-01 19:01
You are so right on. Emotive language is used to make false appeals to emotions, patriotism, nationalism, vanity, etc. Americans swallow it hook line and sinker without any thought at all.
What I also learned from my tenure in the religious right is that believers will willingly sacrafice their own well being, economic benefits, retirement opportunities, etc to ensure that others don't get what they have (think they have) without any question or thought.
 
 
+10 # Rain17 2013-05-01 21:53
Well, as someone who works in a field dominated by conservatives, nothing angers them more than the idea that "their tax dollars" are going to anyone they deem as "less than worthy". Most of them are hostile to any kind of social welfare spending because, in their minds, anyone in poverty is there "due to irresponsible/l azy choices" and not worthy of any assistance. They think that anyone down on his/her luck is lazy. And, were it not for their decisions to "have IPhones, cable TV, flat screen TVs, and laptops, they could afford health insurance". Even if they still can't afford insurance they can go to the emergency room, which everyone knows provides free healthcare.

In their minds there are legions of people out there defrauding the system. They think that anyone can walk into a state welfare office get free housing, food stamps, and unemployment in 10-15 minutes. They all share the same story/anecdote about the able-bodied friends collecting "disability" benefits. And they believe that "it's so easy to get disability". This is in spite of the fact that the vast majority of applicants don't get approved for SSDI the first time they apply, have to hire lawyers, and then have to wait a year or more to get benefits.

Continued in next post. . .
 
 
+2 # RHytonen 2013-05-02 07:34
Quoting Rain17:
in their minds, anyone in poverty is there "due to irresponsible/lazy choices" and not worthy of any assistance. They think that anyone down on his/her luck is lazy. . . .


An excellent study of that fallacy is called "The Meritocrcy Myth" (Stephen J. McNamee and. Robert K. Miller, Jr. University of North Carolina at Wilmington)

The original paper doesn't explain it quite as effectively as Matt Miller does, in Chapter 6("Money Follows Merit,") in his 2009 book, "The Tyranny of Dead Ideas."
 
 
+7 # Rain17 2013-05-01 21:55
Continued from last post. . .

They don't realize that some people often end up needing help because they lose their job. They don't realize that you can save six months' worth of expenses only to have that liquidated quickly in an emergency. They don't realize that a natural disaster or disability could hit without notice. And even the ones who do don't care because they don't see it as "their problem".
 
 
-10 # Depressionborn 2013-05-02 03:21
No brux, your can't mean it.

I don't know about conservatives, but patriots don't want government deciding their life. To patriots, gov is force and not to be trusted.

Do you really want your stupid neighbor or your lousy son in law to tell you how to live? I sure hope not. You must have meant something else? Government can't manage an ice cream parlour.
 
 
+3 # RHytonen 2013-05-02 08:05
Quoting Depressionborn:

I don't know about conservatives, but patriots don't want government deciding their life. To patriots, gov is force and not to be trusted.

Do you really want your stupid neighbor or your lousy son in law to tell you how to live? I sure hope not. You must have meant something else? Government can't manage an ice cream parlour.


That's because they elect to have a for-profit middleman -a contractor- run that theoretical ice cream parlor.

Government's only problem is that it doesn't DO what the constitution relegates to it, but FARMS IT OUT - immediately doubling the cost, and the layers of spurious management, whose goals have merged into one - PERSONAL PROFIT. It is no surprise one of those intended "balancing" layers, simply bought out the other.

To your initial point: WE formed the government, it is supposed to be US.

And no, you don't get for the country to be run YOUR way, any more than your stupid neighbor or lousy son-in-law (hate many, btw?)

And,"patriot," your government-less country would long ago have been conquered, and you would be a slave.
 
 
+2 # brux 2013-05-03 00:51
I don't read a lot of coherence in your post DB?
Government put a man on the moon, the most complicated system man on Earth ever created ... if government wanted to, and it was set up right it ... that is, we, can do anything we want to. Try reading an older book now called "The Wisdom Of Crowds".
 
 
+22 # MichaelArchAngel 2013-05-01 15:47
I think what we are experiencing is the constant stoking by politicians of the fires of fear and hatred.
 
 
+9 # MendoChuck 2013-05-01 15:57
I really do not think that this is should be focused on the RIGHT or the LEFT. I truly believe that what we have is the bulk of the American population very, very much upset with the function, or lack there of the present government.

I really do think the the root cause of this dissatisfaction falls straight on the the Main Stream Media.

Once the corporations learned that the NEWS could become a profit center, then any and all REAL NEWS REPORTING went out the window. What we get now is press releases that the political elite and major corporations send to other corporate distribution centers to put on the air.

We not longer get real reporting what we get are Public Relation Statements read by talking heads that follow orders no matter what it is.

To blame the RIGHT or the LEFT is really just avoiding the problem. Just like this article which is based solely on making statements that continue to point at someone or something else that is to blame.

But then again that is also just my opinion.
When we begin to actually get FACTS and INFORMATION delivered in a manner that will allow us to make up our own minds then maybe the American Public will begin to elect legislators that actually take the Country into consideration when they vote.

At least that is my hope . . . .
 
 
+29 # geraldom 2013-05-01 16:08
There is one thing that I have observed in past protests which I find deeply disturbing. In the past when protests were held by the extreme right against Obama, even when the protesters were in close proximity to Obama, people were openly wearing guns or carrying rifles and some even had concealed weapons attached to their shins, and yet no one in the crowd had their heads bashed in by police or even arrested. But, if the shoe had been on the other foot and it was so-called liberals and lefties protesting carrying guns and rifles, I don't even want to think about what could have happened to them by law enforcement.
 
 
+6 # jwb110 2013-05-01 16:37
Maybe the left should start arming themselves. The moral highroad looking down the barrel of a gun is not very comforting.
 
 
+8 # Sweet Pea 2013-05-01 20:57
Quoting jwb110:
Maybe the left should start arming themselves. The moral highroad looking down the barrel of a gun is not very comforting.

If the time comes that I have to arm myself to feel safe on our streets, I'm afraid that I would be looking into residency in Canada.
 
 
+18 # Ronwalt 2013-05-01 16:52
Oh! The po widdo babies. They've had to put up with a black president fo 5 years now. They don't think they can hold out another 3 years
 
 
+11 # Jim W. 2013-05-01 17:00
It would be nice if the the lines were as clear as Sirota and some commentators portray them. If I recall, Occupy was not done in by Republican thuggery, but in most cases by police acting at the behest of Democratic officials. If you think fascism is a problem traceable only to the right, you are making a grave mistake.

What Sirota is doing is taking a page from the Rethugnican playbook, using hyperbole and innuendo to send his base into a panic. I for one, am not scared. There a two reasons. First, I don't buy the fearmongering. Two, I'm one of those very rare birds - a well armed liberal.

Do I anticipate ever having to use one of those weapons in defense of anything? Nope. That said, I think it is high time we (ALL OF US RIGHT LEFT AND CENTER) ratchet back the rancid talk. What I saw from the left during the gun debate sickened me as much as what I saw from the right.

We have let this distract us from the truly pressing problems we need to address: a bloated military, REAL reform of Wall Street, permanently fixing Social Security by removing the income cap from contributions, requiring the 1% to truly pay their fair share, and, like/believe it or not, a burgeoning government and corporate surveillance apparatus that truly does threaten the liberties of each and every one of us.
 
 
0 # Depressionborn 2013-05-01 19:18
Holy cow Jim W. Yu make good sense. So where do we find the leaders we need?
 
 
0 # RHytonen 2013-05-02 07:52
Quoting Depressionborn:
Holy cow Jim W. Yu make good sense. So where do we find the leaders we need?


www.jillstein.org/issues
 
 
-2 # Depressionborn 2013-05-03 18:53
HEY # RHytonen,

Re: Jillstein.

Went there.

It is a green thing and much of her agenda sounded like Patriot goals.
Three questions:

1) Where does she expect to get money?

2) Does her agenda respect property rights?

3) Where does a green expect to get energy and food?
 
 
+3 # RHytonen 2013-05-02 07:51
Quoting Jim W.:
.. police acting at the behest of Democratic officials. If you think fascism is a problem traceable only to the right, you are making a grave mistake..


I agree wholeheartedly with your main point, but must raise a point of tautology.

"Fascism" is NOT defined by, nor defines, nor as a word is requiring of; totalitarianism , violence, or a police state.

As we can plainly (and painfully) see, there are ways just as effective, to DUPE a populace into submission to even the complete dismantling of its own power to govern and protect itself from plunder, poisoning, suffocation, and complete usurpation (theft) of individual wealth and the commons; to benefit a fascist plutarchy.
 
 
+14 # Rain17 2013-05-01 17:10
I work in a field that generally attracts conservatives. I'm one of the few liberals in my office and I often hear ridiculous statements. A few months ago I had a coworker tell me that the government "staged the whole Netwon tragedy to take away guns". Most of the time, because I'm at work, I usually ignore their statements because I'm there to work and it's a waste of time trying to correct them.

But generally, when you strip down their rhetoric, most of them have paranoid fantasies of mobs of thugs from the inner-city (mostly Black and Latino) menacing their homes in exurbia and suburbia. They don't say it directly; but, if you draw the logical conclusions behind their statements, that's where it leads to. They have this fear that, "if there is a breakdown in law and order, they will have to defend themselves".

Many of them really believe that the US government is "imposing socialism on them" and that they will "lose their freedom". Many of them perceive Obama to be a "radical Muslim Socialist" in spite of the fact that he really hasn't pushed such an agenda. And it's even more funny, given that all too many of the RSN readership views him to be a traitor, that they all perceive Obama to be like the late Hugo Chavez.

Continued in next post. . . .
 
 
+16 # Regina 2013-05-01 17:21
The horrendous state of American political belief and action are incontrovertibl e proof of the miserable shortfall of American education. An entire generation didn't learn English, math, sciences, history, geography, civics, etc etc etc. The total misunderstandin g and misrepresentati on of sociopolitical and economic news matches the failure of American students in international exams, where the USA scores 25th or lower from the top, year after year. The political cohorts demanding "equal rights" for creationism and climate change denial; the prohibition of critical reasoning as a subject-area for education; the total stupidity -- in addition to entrenched misogyny -- inherent in their attitudes toward women's reproductive health (e.g., Akin on "legitimate" rape); the screams for the "freedom" to shoot to kill; the adoption of the label "Tea Party" without any comprehension of our past; the yammer against "gummint" -- all this adds up to dangerous ignorance here and and makes us an international laughing-stock abroad. We must begin to reverse this idiocy by 2014.
 
 
+10 # Sweet Pea 2013-05-01 21:30
It seems that I have to argue that our education system has failed. Education begins at home and must be encouraged at home. My children knew that every night my husband or I would be checking to assure that their homework was done, and that they fully understood the subject or concept. Teachers "want" to teach, but the importance of education must be instilled at home. Blaming teachers is not fair.
 
 
+3 # Regina 2013-05-02 13:01
Sweet Pea: I'm not blaming teachers! Their hands are tied and mouths sealed. It's school boards and politicians who have so distorted education in their enactments that the outcomes are such dismal ignorance.
 
 
+11 # Rain17 2013-05-01 17:22
Continued from last post. . .

The GOP constantly uses violent metaphors and indirectly threatens violence (of course they don't cross the line, but they know where it is and just stop short of crossing it a lot of the times). It does concern me when I see Republicans like Sarah Palin create a PAC and put targets on Democrats' districts on her website. It does concern me when I hear candidates like Sharon Angle in NV talk about "second amendment remedies". During the healthcare debate I remember John Boehner said that a Democratic Congressman from Cincinnti "might be a dead man".

The reality is that the overwhelming majority of them are all talk and no action. But it's that last .0001%--the 1 in 1000 people, so to speak--who is the concern. The ones who are mentally unhinged and extreme are the scary ones. But the fact is that it's the least sane person who is the concern here.

And I could honestly see some crazy person going too far and harming someone. Most right-wing people don't concern me. It's that 1 in 1000 who does, the person who will actually listen to a Sarah Palin or Sharon Angle and take it too far.

Continued in next post. . . .
 
 
+18 # Rain17 2013-05-01 17:27
Continued from last post. . .

The bottom line is that many of them are just angry and resentful that the last election didn't go their way. They are angry at larger societal changes. They irrationally feel threatened by these changes.

When Clinton won the White House in 1992 the GOP had won the previous five out of six elections. They had viewed the White House as their entitlement. That Clinton and Obama managed to disrupt what seemed to be a strong GOP grip on the White House angered them.

That's why they spent millions going after President Clinton legally. That's why Ken Start spent $35 million probing Whitewater, a bad investment the Clintons undertook. That's why they demanded impeachment.

On some level I'm surprised that they haven't harassed President Obama legally to the extent that they did with Clinton. I'm surprised that the "Arkansas Project" didn't become the "Illinois or Chicago Project".

I'll conclude with the fact that there is also a double-standard in the media. They allow the right to go after Democrats and even indirectly call for violence (again just stopping short of crossing the line). But never does the media call them out on it. They always retreat to the Vilage line of "both sides do it". But I honestly have never seen a prominent Democrat talk the way that some Republicans have.
 
 
-1 # 4merlib 2013-05-01 17:29
The notion that armed revolution MIGHT be necessary to protect liberty is at least as old as Jefferson,and is a core principle for all lovers of freedom. VIZ the end of British tyranny, the end of slavery, the end of the Kuomindang, and so on. I would be very surprised if a similar number of democrats didn't also believe that an armed revolution MIGHT be necessary to protect our liberties. Let's just hope that it doesn't become necessary! As soon as the people say "We will never resist the taking away of our liberties," we're toast!
 
 
-11 # cordleycoit 2013-05-01 17:48
Sadly it is you David who wishes to dump the Bill of Rights for Obama's neo Hamiltonian collapsing of individual rights. Your neoliberal guilt betrays you.It is sad that we elected a president who hates and works against the Constitution. David the man you are following has mote blood on his hands than W.Bush.
 
 
+8 # giraffee2012 2013-05-01 18:05
The power of the NRS comes from the news media (ala FAUX) - and those who believe FAUX is giving news are ignorant/stupid and these is no cure for such maladies.

On the other hand, while FAUX, is riling up these GOPers the Congress is doing nothing about JOBS, the economy, the banksters, etc., because the news is so full of "gun rights" (as if the govt is going to take them away, etc), abortion, voter fraud, and anything other than the crooks who are allowing the 1% to steal (homes, for eg), no interest on money in your bank account (while they gamble and make big bucks using your money) - and you know the rest. They are eating us alive.

13 states have now supported overturning citizens united. Do we need 25 or 60% to overturn that crazy unconstitutiona l decision made by the RATS in the Supreme Court?
 
 
+9 # angelfish 2013-05-01 18:19
The thing I don't now know, and will NEVER understand is, how "intellects" like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh became arbiters of all things Conservative. RePublicans USED to be sane, sensible, THOUGHTFUL people, NOT the hysterical, "From my cold, dead, hands" Nazi/Fascists they have become! One of them even paid off the National Debt, back in the day. They USED to champion freedom, not seek to impose their will on EVERYONE. You could ALMOST stomach some of them if they weren't such hypocrites! "Do as I SAY, not as I DO" is one of their Mantras. "MY way or the Highway" is another. They go on and on. Anyone who doesn't march "Goose-step" in line with them is a Traitor, or a "Liberal" or, Oh God forbid, a "Socialist"! We had the McCarthyites in the Fifties and there has ALWAYS been a Lunatic Fringe, but THAT is where they stayed, on the FRINGE. Until lately. We have gone through the Looking Glass and have lost our way back to sanity and reason. Using "Second Amendment Remedies" against fellow Americans we disagreed with, was NEVER an option. Pitifully, now, with THIS bunch of "Patriots", it IS. Say your prayers, Pilgrims, the Becks and Limbaughs of the World have more influence and power than ANYONE in our Government with REAL Hearts and Brains.
 
 
+4 # Robert B 2013-05-01 18:34
18 USC 2385. It is illegal to advocate overthrowing the government or calling for the assassination of any public official. The Republican Party has gone completely insane, believing that treason is patriotic. On the other hand, if 44% of the GOP actually goes for it, the military could wipe them out.
 
 
+1 # Dion Giles 2013-05-02 08:40
"the military could wipe them out"

Could but would they? In a fascist coup, the military caste can't be relied on to stand against the fascists.
 
 
+1 # Depressionborn 2013-05-02 18:10
probably Robert B, probably.

“Turn in your arms. The government will take care of you.” 1890 to a group of Sioux Indians.

“Perhaps the most famous example occurred in 1890 — decades before the 1924 guarantee of Constitutional rights for Native Americans — when Federal agents murdered 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. Before the Native Americans were killed by the agents of the state, they were notified that the 7th Cavalry had come to confiscate their firearms ‘for their own safety and protection.’”
 
 
+7 # wwway 2013-05-01 18:56
Anyone know much about the Spanish Civil War? America doesn't look that much different than Spain back then. A right wing religious nut case rural country armed against their progressive metropolotian brothers and sisters who enjoyed collabortation, education, art and science. We all know what Franco did to Spain. At least I hope you all do.
 
 
+10 # ganymede 2013-05-01 19:23
Sad, very sad, after nearly 250 years, after some very wise people started this country off in such a smart, enlightened way, we wind up with people who are, and I don't use this word lightly, out and out fascists. This country has never had a fascist fling, and now we have at least a quarter of the population prepared to bring about a cataclysm of violence. Sure, we can blame it on idiots like Reagan, Murdoch, Limbaugh and the Tea Party fools, but the problem is much deeper. America is flawed almost beyond redemption. Europeans are immune to fascism because they experienced it first hand and won't go near it again, but it looks like we've learned nothing. Our form of authoritarianis m is very deeply etched into American society. Lord knows what it's going to take to get us out of this mess.
 
 
-6 # Rick Levy 2013-05-01 19:38
A little perspective here: I well remember 19660's and early 1970's when leaders of the left were also calling for revolution "by any means necessary" and "taking it to the streets" meant more than just marching for the cause.
 
 
+5 # JSRaleigh 2013-05-01 19:45
The choice used to be guns or butter. Now it appears it's going to be guns or democracy.
 
 
+10 # Diane 2013-05-01 20:52
Not so oddly, I agree a revolution may be necessary. However, being a 70 year-old liberal, the revolution I envision will be to get rid of the GOP and the fundamentalist conservatives whose jackboots are currently leaving tread marks all over a woman's right to choose, a voter's right to vote and a person's right to live without fear.
 
 
-4 # 4merlib 2013-05-01 22:07
I see. So you are willing to kill to protect the "right" of a woman to have the life of her unborn child terminated and the "right" of anyone whosoever to vote as many times as he/she likes, and the "right" of, what - to do whatever without fear of attracting the attention of the authorities? I'd have to say that IS oddly.
 
 
+3 # RHytonen 2013-05-02 08:15
Quoting 4merlib:
I see. So you are willing to kill to protect the "right" of a woman to have the life of her unborn child terminated and the "right" of anyone whosoever to vote as many times as he/she likes, and the "right" of, what - to do whatever without fear of attracting the attention of the authorities? I'd have to say that IS oddly.

Especially in at statistics show essentially (in mathemnatic context) NO INSTANCES OF MULTIPLE VOTING.

And absolutely not in numbers even remotely capable of affecting an election's outcome.

OTOH, that of a corrupt and radically fanatic Supreme Court, to the point of public, nonsensically anti-legal racist, Right Wing ravings, on the part of "Justices" with PROVEN PERSONAL CORRUPTION... HAS swayed an election, legally proven yet allowed to stand (with CATASTROPHIC global and domestic results- including 9/11..)
 
 
+2 # Diane 2013-05-02 12:26
I prefer contraception over abortion any ole day, but you would likely have something negative to say about that, too. A woman does have the right to determine whether or not she wants, or can afford to raise, a child, and we will simply have to continue to disagree over when "life begins".

Keep in mind, too, there is NO pattern of fraudulant voting in this country. Though I have no problem with IDs for voting, it is something that should be phased in over time, avoiding the disenfranchisem ent that is happening now.

Finally, I have always thought about my "freedom" within the context of "community". What that means, 4merlib, is the decisions I make about my own actions are considered within the context of how they will affect others in my community. I obey the laws. I won't disenfranchise my fellow citizens. I won't tell them they must bear an unwanted child (though I hope contraception would help them avoid reaching that point). Above all, I refuse to live in fear - an emotion, I suspect, that underlies so much conservative thinking, making it almost impossible for them to leave anyone else alone to live their lives as they see fit. I don't want to be your clone, 4merlib. You are welcome not be be mine, but don't spend the rest of your life thinking you are right enough in your beliefs to force them on everyone else.
 
 
0 # 4merlib 2013-05-02 20:25
I don't want to force my beliefs on anyone, but there is a big difference between "jackboots" and the assertion that an unborn child is a human life that should be protected by the law.There seems to be more scientific evidence that a fetus is a living human being than the contrary. There is a difference between a voter's right to vote and the "right" to vote without having to prove that one is the registered voter he or she claims to be. As for living without fear . . . we all agree that we should have that right. I can't think of anything I am afraid of, such as the fear that the KGB is going to come after me or something - but you seem to assert that conservatives are afraid of . . . . something. Concern perhaps, but who isn't concerned about the future of our country and the world?
 
 
+9 # Mrcead 2013-05-01 21:10
"Almost half of Republicans think an armed revolution may be needed soon."

Why? Because they can't get what they want the way they want when they want it? Why are we being held hostage by such people?

All they know is war and they will put a weapon in your hands in order to justify killing you with theirs.
 
 
+5 # spercepolnes 2013-05-01 22:03
Depressionborn and others - most Americans wouldn't recognise true socialism if it kicked them in the goolies!
I've just been reading about John Brown and the life and times of the US in the 1850's - ye gods, what a violent, repressive, vicious time that was - which led to a Civil War!. Perhaps the GOP is intending another Civil War - only this time, with them on the winning side - the weapons stockpiling is impressive enough.....oh the vanity of egoes.....
 
 
-4 # Depressionborn 2013-05-02 03:35
My goodness spercepolnes, you are mean-spirited. But your right,

I have never experienced true socialism. I do accept the Mises reasoning and if he is right I hope we never find it out the hard way. (And Brown was a nut case, so what.)

Are you really sorry the redcoats didn't win.
 
 
+3 # RHytonen 2013-05-02 08:17
Quoting Depressionborn:
My goodness spercepolnes, you are mean-spirited. But your right,

I have never experienced true socialism. I do accept the Mises reasoning and if he is right I hope we never find it out the hard way. (And Brown was a nut case, so what.)

Are you really sorry the redcoats didn't win.


Von Mises is just another Ayn Rand-level cuckoo.
 
 
-3 # Depressionborn 2013-05-02 19:26
Wrong thinking about Mises RHytonen, sorry

Mises is the best ever. No cuckoo, in the twenties he was offered a big job at a prestigious Europeans bank. He turned it down, saying he didn't want any part of what was coming.

He escaped to America and taught in Chicago. Everything he predicted is coming true and without error. The left hates him for the truth of it. I don't think you can read him though. Your vocabulary seems insufficient, and your thought process somewhat inadequate.

Mises refutes Keynes who came later.

(And it is maybe more properly Mises, not Von Mises, you drop the Von. The name is Ludwig Von Mises if you want to keep the Von.)

If your dogma cost you any money you might want to ask for it back.

Ps. Don't feel badly about a lack of knowledge. It is common here.
 
 
+3 # cafetomo 2013-05-01 23:05
Little use strapping a bomb on, if no one believes you'll use it. But this lot may have gone overboard a bit, and gotten to believing their own press release. Sooner or later, someone's bound to swear god told them to do something stupid, and get the rest to panic. If carrying a loaded weapon is not a self fulfilling prophecy waiting to happen, I don't know what is.

Don't think so? Go downtown and wave your gun at folk. See how long before you do us and the gene pool a big favor.
 
 
+1 # FDRva 2013-05-02 03:23
Do not lose any sleep over these 'armed conservatives' who are mostly terrified of their aged mothers-in-law.

These 'radical' conservatives have the same relationship to their professed principles as President Reagan had to a balanced budget--or as the rhetorically heroic Senator Bernie Sanders had to Single Payer healthcare--bef ore President Obama said "boo.".
 
 
+1 # Walter J Smith 2013-05-02 07:43
The title revealed the major illusion with the mind that concocted this fairy tale. But the first sentence gave the whole tale its silly twist.

"There's plenty of proof of an authoritarian streak and animus toward democratic ideals in today's conservative movement."

There's no proof that there is a conservative in the entire GOP.

Where is that proof? What does the GOP, or anyone in it, want to "conserve" that isn't either pure liberalism or pure licentiousness?

Nothing conservative there.

One wishes we had a writer who could grasp that single obvious fact.

But, it seems, if you are a writer, you can make up your own facts.
 
 
+2 # RHytonen 2013-05-02 08:34
This does not threaten a revolution, but a civil war.

I say let them secede.
Red States are our biggest drain on government, through "welfare," anyway -
of the two, the truly significant, CORPORATE kind...
 
 
-1 # ChristopherCurrie 2013-05-02 13:06
Armed revolution is defined in the US Constitution as "sedition", a crime punishable by death.
 
 
+2 # restore2america 2013-05-02 16:45
CC you need to reconcile this statement with the right of the people to overthrow a government that no longer serves them - kinda like the same founders who wrote the Constitution did in the Declaration of Independence. It's an interesting conundrum at the core of our principals of governance that the People retain the right to step outside the governance process and destroy the government if the government has become destructive of the People.

No easy answers here mate, but it's not as simple as "Kill them damn revolutionaries !" Anyway, that didn't work out all that well for the Redcoats a couple of hundred years ago... ")
 
 
+2 # restore2america 2013-05-02 16:42
I have not yet read the entire article and supporting poll, but this pair of sentences struck me as a disconnect:

"But then this poll from Fairleigh-Dicki nson University was released showing that authoritarianis m runs throughout the the entire party. Take a look at the cross-tabs on page 3 of the national survey - that's right, you are reading it correctly: almost half (44 percent) of all self-described Republican voters say they believe an armed revolution might be necessary to protect our liberties."

Poll results finding that 44% of people who identify as GOP voters does not substantiate saying those rank and file people are part of an authoritarian streak. Indeed the opposite may be true.

We who identify as progressives need to be careful about how we interpret authoritarian and revolution. Democratic leaders - Obama included - are just as authoritarian or more so than Bush/Cheney. Personally I don't trust or like any of those three. But if I believe as a progressive that an armed revolution will be needed to protect our liberties, does that make me (as a Dem registered voter) authoritarian?

We need to separate the issues (revolt vs authoritarian), and be careful that we pots aren't calling the kettles black.

More to read now.
 
 
-3 # 4merlib 2013-05-02 20:12
Somebody is very confused, or purposely misconstruing the numbers to suit his own agenda. Sirota says "44% of Republicans [surveyed] say that armed revolution might be necessary." Now look how it was reported on the news:

"Asked whether an armed revolution might soon be necessary to protect liberties, 29 percent said yes.
Another 47 percent said no, while the rest were either unsure or declined to answer.

Of those who said yes, 44 percent were Republicans. "

That is a much different thing from what Sirota said. Looks like he did not look at the actual results of the survey but at a synopsis of it in a commentary he read.

Just sayin' . . . but of course it fits the template of the right-wing crazies who are supposedly arming for the coming revolution, so who's going to check his numbers?
 
 
+1 # Kimberly999 2013-05-03 09:49
I was also surprised recently by another poll showing similar numbers of citizens in favor of a national religion. Does anyone remember history? The societies that show tolerance, take care of their elders, educate & train their children to be productive have the most peace & stability. The US has devolved into a plutocracy, a government of, by and for the moneyed elite. There are virtually no protectors for the working classes, no movement to feed & educate children. Both parties are moving into fascist territory, with the GOP leading the charge, while pretending that the 2nd amendment is their most protected. (While it is the ONLY amendment that has the words "well regulated" in it!) Years after the "Patriot Act" began the stripping of our more basic rights, we are faced with a country where someone can escape an asylum for the criminally insane & can go to a gun show, buy a semi-automatic weapon & hundreds of rounds and unload it downtown in any major city or any county fair. People are actually selling backpacks for children made of flack jacket materials. What is wrong with this picture? Did someone put crazy pills in our water supplies?
 
 
+1 # DakotaKid 2013-05-03 09:53
Just what we need. A rising surge of fascist insurgents. Washington is asking for it, Wall Street is all about greed and gaming the system, and the attention span of the citizenry - the majority who now vote for Democrats - is short or non-existent. The polarization of American society is reminiscent of Germany in the interwar period and the United States in the Great Depression. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
 
 
-1 # barbaratodish 2013-05-04 19:51
I'm temporarilly visiting China, and after reading this article and all the comments, I'm seriously considering moving here!
 
 
0 # Depressionborn 2013-05-09 16:32
Life was once simple and easy to understand. No longer.

What you don't hear anymore.

Tonight on TV we have a choice of Gun Smoke, Leave it to Beaver or Wrestling.

This long distant call is costing us five cents a minute so I need to let you go Mom.

Quit slamming the screen door when you go out!

Remember to pump the gas to set the choke on the carburetor before you start the car.

Be sure and pull the windows down when you leave, it looks like a shower is coming up.

Roll down you're window Dear, it is so very hot in this car.

Don't you go outside with your school clothes on!

Take that empty bottle to the store with you so you won't have to pay a deposit on another one.

Get out and lift open the garage door for you Dad.

Quit jumping on the floor! I have a cake in the oven and you are going to make it fall if you don't quit!

There's a dollar in my purse, get 5 gallons of gas when you go to town.

Open the back door and see if we can get a breeze through here, it is getting hot.

Be sure to leave that bath water for your brother to use and don't use up all of the soap!

No! I don't have 10 cents for you to go to the show. Do you think money grows on trees?

That dog is NOT coming in this house! I don't care how cold it is out there, dogs don't stay in the house.

I'll wash your mouth out with soap!

If you get a spanking in school and I find out about it, you'll get another one when you get home.
???
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN