Violent rebellion is overrated. No one is going to win, in a violent overthrow. We have the ability as a Republic to change our government thru peaceful means as Martin Luther King demonstrated (pun intended). The United States is not a dictatorship or monarchy and is quite capable of reigning in government at the ballot box. You only have to get the populace to throw the spenders out.
There are 2 quick ways to third world country status....bankruptcy and/or civil war.

HitsRus wrote: Violent rebellion is overrated. No one is going to win, in a violent overthrow. We have the ability as a Republic to change our government thru peaceful means as Martin Luther King demonstrated (pun intended). The United States is not a dictatorship or monarchy and is quite capable of reigning in government at the ballot box. You only have to get the populace to throw the spenders out.
There are 2 quick ways to third world country status....bankruptcy and/or civil war.

Rebellions and revolutions are not necessarily violent. Nor does a rebellion mean civil war. People don't seem to understand what Jefferson was talking about.

And when the rules are stacked in favor of the ruling oligarchy you have the illusion of choice. Not real choice. Most Americans seem to be fooled by this illusion.

“The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.” - John Adams

eersandbeers wrote: Rebellions and revolutions are not necessarily violent. Nor does a rebellion mean civil war. People don't seem to understand what Jefferson was talking about.

And when the rules are stacked in favor of the ruling oligarchy you have the illusion of choice. Not real choice. Most Americans seem to be fooled by this illusion.

“The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.” - John Adams

This is a good point. Popular revolutions only turn violent when the government in power uses force to end the revolution.

HitsRus wrote: There are 2 quick ways to third world country status....bankruptcy and/or civil war.

I think you are thinking more of a coup.

'Rebellion' encompasses a lot of behaviors including armed resistance, and when you consider that tea parties are a magnet for guns right activists and militia movements, I think that has to be addressed. Civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance must be stressed. If things turn violent, the cure will be worse than the disease.

believer wrote:

gibby08 wrote: crew....Then I have no problem with you and your fellow tea-party members that were protesting before January 20th,2009

Those of you who didn't start until January 21st,2009....you all make me sick

Classic ploy straight out of the Leftist Playbook Chapter 1: When all else fails, play the race card.

LMAO

My statement has nothing to do with race...

I'm referring the that fact that the ONLY reason you're hearing anything from these people is because the POTUS now has a little "D" beside his name

gibby08 wrote:

believer wrote:

gibby08 wrote: crew....Then I have no problem with you and your fellow tea-party members that were protesting before January 20th,2009

Those of you who didn't start until January 21st,2009....you all make me sick

Classic ploy straight out of the Leftist Playbook Chapter 1: When all else fails, play the race card.

LMAO

My statement has nothing to do with race...

I'm referring the that fact that the ONLY reason you're hearing anything from these people is because the POTUS now has a little "D" beside his name

And a huge D in his pants since he is a black man.

gibby08 wrote:


I'm referring the that fact that the ONLY reason you're hearing anything from these people is because the POTUS now has a little "D" beside his name

The original teabaggers were meeting in support of Ron Paul. Today you have the Glenn Beck warmongering crowd attending too.

I understand that Footwedge.

As I've said...I have no problems with the teabaggers who started with Dr.Paul

It's the ones who didn't start until President Obama took office that piss me off

Speaking of Dr.Paul:

Paul Wins CPAC Straw Poll

In a surprise, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) won the 2012 presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

The New York Times notes he won with 31% of the nearly 2,400 votes at the conference, edging out Mitt Romney who captured 22% of the vote.

"When Mr. Paul's name was announced in the packed ballroom of a Washington hotel, it elicited hoots and boos along with applause. Although Mr. Romney won fewer votes, he seemed to draw stronger applause."

CNN notes that a majority of participants "said they wished the Republican Party had a better field of candidates to choose from."

Politico: "CPAC organizers were plainly embarrassed by the results, which could have the effect of reducing the perceived impact of a contest that was once thought to offer a window into which White House hopefuls were favored by movement conservatives.


Quite the shocker if you ask me

The only way I can see a "violent revolution" is if somehow the govenment would swing so far left that they'd be able to enact some Pelosi-esque laws such as confiscating 401K's or something crazy. If you'd control healthcare, enact this cap and trade (tax) bill, then pull off some kind of crazy confiscation of personal assets/wealth "for the greater good of the country", then YES, there would be a revolution for sure. Will this ever happen, NO - of course not.
People are just fed up with government intervention, that's what started all this Tea Party stuff you see now. Bush started it with his Medicare Part D expansion years ago, then the bailout...then here comes Obama/Pelosi/Reid and thier stimulous and auto bailout, it's just been the perfect storm for a bunch of people to get pissed off. Add on top of that a War that seems endless, fighting an enemy that's hard to define, and it just sucks. There are alot of people grumbling to themselves, laying low in the weeds, talking amongst themesleves and their neighbors, just trying to get along with everyday life and make the best out of this shit storm...but you can only push people so far.

You do realize Gibby that by continuing to call these folks "teabaggers" you are the epitome of the partisan posters you are vilifying on these forums.

How does it feel to be ironic?

Hmm, how did I miss this, please refrain from personal attacks and name calling - LJ

Footwedge wrote:

gibby08 wrote:


I'm referring the that fact that the ONLY reason you're hearing anything from these people is because the POTUS now has a little "D" beside his name

The original teabaggers were meeting in support of Ron Paul. Today you have the Glenn Beck warmongering crowd attending too.

Writerbuckeye wrote: You do realize Gibby that by continuing to call these folks "teabaggers" you are the epitome of the, partisan posters you are vilifying on these forums.

How does it feel to be ironic?

Writer...my use of the word in my last post was not intended to de-mean this movement. If these folks are sinciere in their beliefs....all power to them...they have every right to protest.

Also...I've heard Beck,Hannity,Huckabee,Rush,and others use that term...so I don't really see what the big deal is?

Please. Don't insult my intelligence.

The very term "teabagger" is vulgar and sexually based. There's no reason to use it OTHER than to demean those you are calling the name.

The ONLY reason you've heard those folks call people that is when they're reporting on the vulgarity of the term as it is used by people who disagree with the movement.

OK writer.....I guess you can read my mind

I meant NO disrespect with my use of the term and I will leave it at that

gibby08 wrote: OK writer.....I guess you can read my mind

I meant NO disrespect with my use of the term and I will leave it at that

Dude...it doesn't matter what your intention is. words get their meaning external to the brain states of the persons who utter them. I don't care if you use the word teabagger but it is a pejorative term in reference to tea partiers.

I have no problem in calling nyself a teabagger. The sexual connotation neans nothing to me at all and in my mind, the term tea bagger is not all derogatory. I Rachal Maddow wants to 'wink-wink" wern using the phrase, more powe to her....but I do think her sexual fantasies have any rightful place in the argument.

Footwedge wrote: I have no problem in calling nyself a teabagger. The sexual connotation neans nothing to me at all and in my mind, the term tea bagger is not all derogatory. I Rachal Maddow wants to 'wink-wink" wern using the phrase, more powe to her....but I do think her sexual fantasies have any rightful place in the argument.

You miss the point (no surprise).

YOU don't get to decide what words mean. That has been decided, already.

Do you really think if some racist person arbitrarily decided it was okay to use the "N" word and that it didn't have the negative meaning a majority of people say it does, that it would be okay?

No. You wouldn't.

No difference here. The word HAS a meaning and it's pejorative. You can't simply say it's not.

Writerbuckeye wrote:

Footwedge wrote: I have no problem in calling nyself a teabagger. The sexual connotation neans nothing to me at all and in my mind, the term tea bagger is not all derogatory. I Rachal Maddow wants to 'wink-wink" wern using the phrase, more powe to her....but I do think her sexual fantasies have any rightful place in the argument.

You miss the point (no surprise).

YOU don't get to decide what words mean. That has been decided, already.

Do you really think if some racist person arbitrarily decided it was okay to use the "N" word and that it didn't have the negative meaning a majority of people say it does, that it would be okay?

No. You wouldn't.

No difference here. The word HAS a meaning and it's pejorative. You can't simply say it's not.

Sorry...I am very proud in being a member of the original tea baggers. True tea baggers do not equate assembling for a just cause to some sophomoric. junior high sexual act. And using the N word as a comparable slur is ridiclous. So I ask publicly on this board other Paul supporters, DDCrew, BMan BTMan, 2Quick4U, Eeers%Beers, Otrap, ..any of you offended by the term 'tea bagger?

^ Not really. Those people that try and use it to demean the movement have the intelligence of an adolescent and will probably be the people standing there wondering what happened when the US economy finally does collapse.

bigman...

I have no problem with the original tea-partiers. It the folks who didn't start protesting until a Democrat got in office

gibby08 wrote: bigman...

I have no problem with the original tea-partiers. It the folks who didn't start protesting until a Democrat got in office

No different than the anti-war movement who is now suddenly silent.

eersandbeers wrote:

gibby08 wrote: bigman...

I have no problem with the original tea-partiers. It the folks who didn't start protesting until a Democrat got in office

No different than the anti-war movement who is now suddenly silent.

This is true.

I agree with both of you...

Footwedge wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote:

Footwedge wrote: I have no problem in calling nyself a teabagger. The sexual connotation neans nothing to me at all and in my mind, the term tea bagger is not all derogatory. I Rachal Maddow wants to 'wink-wink" wern using the phrase, more powe to her....but I do think her sexual fantasies have any rightful place in the argument.

You miss the point (no surprise).

YOU don't get to decide what words mean. That has been decided, already.

Do you really think if some racist person arbitrarily decided it was okay to use the "N" word and that it didn't have the negative meaning a majority of people say it does, that it would be okay?

No. You wouldn't.

No difference here. The word HAS a meaning and it's pejorative. You can't simply say it's not.

Sorry...I am very proud in being a member of the original tea baggers. True tea baggers do not equate assembling for a just cause to some sophomoric. junior high sexual act. And using the N word as a comparable slur is ridiclous. So I ask publicly on this board other Paul supporters, DDCrew, BMan BTMan, 2Quick4U, Eeers%Beers, Otrap, ..any of you offended by the term 'tea bagger?

No, I'm not offended by the term. I am more offended with the people that are attempting to hijack the tea party and try to push their agenda that is totally opposite of what the tea party actually stand for.

Still irrelevant to the point, here.

Words have meaning. We don't get to capriciously choose what we want them to mean.

Writerbuckeye wrote: Still irrelevant to the point, here.

Words have meaning. We don't get to capriciously choose what we want them to mean.

What one word means to someone, might mean something different to you.

I don't understand why you don't just ignore the term.