A Republican we can all agree is an idiot

[zsdersw]

eco-KOOKS going underground and attacking society because they don't get their retrograde ways is not far fetched.

QFT. The following is an extract from Congressional testimony, the full detailed statement is available in the link reference -

This isn't about eco-kooks, it's about an idiotic Republican.

Do you think his statement is idiotic or not? Don't change the subject.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

The subject of the conversation is political crazies, who's got'm, who likes'm and how they matter to anyone.

It is clear that the terrorism perpetrated by environmental groups out-weighs the 2nd amendment activities of tea-party members.

Also, do you honestly think anyone here supports a violent overthrow of the US government? Clearly not as-long as there are non-violent means to create substantive change in our country.

 

[zsdersw]

The subject of the conversation is political crazies, who's got'm, who likes'm and how they matter to anyone.

The subject of the thread is this particular Republican.

It is clear that the terrorism perpetrated by environmental groups out-weighs the 2nd amendment activities of tea-party members.

Another topic for another thread.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Do you honestly think anyone here supports a violent overthrow of the US government? Clearly not as-long as there are non-violent means to create substantive change in our country.

 

[zsdersw]

Do you honestly think anyone here supports a violent overthrow of the US government? Clearly not as-long as there are non-violent means to create substantive change in our country.

Anyone on these forums? I'm not sure.. but that's not what I was asking. I asked what they thought of this guy's comment.

 

[werepossum]

I would hope everyone would agree that this man is an idiot, and why. It's one thing to support the concept of violent overthrow of a government that has gotten despotic; it's quite another to specifically endorse the concept because your side lost a particular election. As DixyCrat points out, "as long as there are non-violent means to create substantive change in our country" there is clearly no justification for a violent overthrow. And if the majority wants to take away the unique qualities of the United States and make it merely another European socialist nation, that is the majority's right. My only beef is that these changes should be made by amending the Constitution, not ignoring it.

 

[piasabird]

Some of our founding fathers thought that an overthrow of the government would be required from time to time to protect and guarantee freedom. There is no reason why the states need to go along with everything the federal government passes as an unfunded mandate.

 

[tweaker2]

I don't know what made him think he could say the things he did, but the passion is sure there, and being from Texas with their tradition of being independent-minded and all....but then again, I wonder why I never ever heard a Dem Texan say things like that. lol

 

[piasabird]

Overthrowing the federal government is definitely going to get someone some attention. However, in the past this type of tactic has resulted in mass death or suicide of all of the followers, and Jail time for whoever was left. Remember ruby ridge! The federal govt has a habit of murdering anyone who apposes them with sniper rifles in the back. Peaceful means of resisting the federal govt tend to work better. If you start to stockpile weapons, the Feds are likely to be nocking down your door and taking you to a dark room.

However, I do think that there are some people who do agree with the idea of overthrowing the government. Usually we call them terrorists. Maybe there will be a day that people start strapping on bombs and start blowing up government officials. You never know what people will do if they are pushed too far.

Maybe I watched Rambo one too many times.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I asked what they thought of this guy's comment.

I think he is wrong on the implementation layer of a generally good idea, one that echo's Werepossum's statment:

My only beef is that these changes should be made by amending the Constitution, not ignoring it.

But, Although this is absolutely true and I agree entirely, we should keep in mind that we have a system whereby how the constitution is interpreted that can be changed.

I don’t like the ‘philosopher king: arbiter of all things constitutional’ conceptualization of the Supreme Court, nor do I believe such a conceptualization to be constitutional; but I still believe that it is important that we follow the rulings of the USSC whilst still trying to amend the constitution to clarify who should be ‘interpreting’ the constitution.