Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

juraigamer wrote:Another piece of proof that fox news is guilty of treason vs the united states.

Pretty interestting that an article with NOTHING to do about Fox news, not even on a Fox news website, gets you to your conclusion. I submit you may be in error if you consider this 'proof Fox News is guilty' of anything.

reds8n wrote:http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/08/gop-newsletter-in-virginia-advocates-for-armed-rebellion-if-the-american-people-re-elect-president-obama/

The Republican Party seems to already be sensing that they will be miserably defeated on Election Day this November. So as a back-up plan, a Republican newsletter in Virginia is openly calling for violently overthrowing the duly elected government of the United States should Democrats still be in charge.

The newsletter, known as “The Constitutional Conservatives” was published in March by the Greene County, Virginia Republican Committee and it included a column titled “Whitehouse Watchdog” written by editor Ponch McPhee.

God damn I love American politics, it's like watching piranha box.

Just for the record: An editorial column in a county party newsletter does not equal The Republican Party position....

purplefood wrote:

captain collius wrote:

3rd. Armed insurrection is supposed to be our right it is way to keeep the elected officials from just keepiing power and setting themselves up as a new royalty.

Does that include ousting a democratically elected government?

Actually, yes. If the people are unhappy with democracy in general, it's their right to destroy it....

In theory... IMO, the founding fathers just put that in there as a "well, if you don't like it, you can always get rid of it, right? hahahaha. Now sign here" sort of thing.

Samus_aran115 wrote:

purplefood wrote:

captain collius wrote:

3rd. Armed insurrection is supposed to be our right it is way to keeep the elected officials from just keepiing power and setting themselves up as a new royalty.

Does that include ousting a democratically elected government?

Actually, yes. If the people are unhappy with democracy in general, it's their right to destroy it....

In theory... IMO, the founding fathers just put that in there as a "well, if you don't like it, you can always get rid of it, right? hahahaha. Now sign here" sort of thing.

That doesn't seem very democratic...

Kovnik Obama wrote:And compare that to true central-left governments, (Canada or Québec being damn good examples) and you'll see that the violent crime rate is half that of Va.

Virginia has a violent crime rate of 210 per 100,000. Quebec has a violent crime rate of 756 per 100,000.

Must be a generous definition of "half".

purplefood wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:

purplefood wrote:

captain collius wrote:

3rd. Armed insurrection is supposed to be our right it is way to keeep the elected officials from just keepiing power and setting themselves up as a new royalty.

Does that include ousting a democratically elected government?

Actually, yes. If the people are unhappy with democracy in general, it's their right to destroy it....

In theory... IMO, the founding fathers just put that in there as a "well, if you don't like it, you can always get rid of it, right? hahahaha. Now sign here" sort of thing.

That doesn't seem very democratic...

It doesn't have to be. If the people hate democracy and want to destroy it, why should they be democratic about it?

Am I reading this right? Does maryland really have a 538 per 100,000 crime rate?

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/md/crime/

Samus_aran115 wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:

purplefood wrote:

captain collius wrote:

3rd. Armed insurrection is supposed to be our right it is way to keeep the elected officials from just keepiing power and setting themselves up as a new royalty.

Does that include ousting a democratically elected government?

Actually, yes. If the people are unhappy with democracy in general, it's their right to destroy it....

In theory... IMO, the founding fathers just put that in there as a "well, if you don't like it, you can always get rid of it, right? hahahaha. Now sign here" sort of thing.

That doesn't seem very democratic...

It doesn't have to be. If the people hate democracy and want to destroy it, why should they be democratic about it?

Wasn't that the point of America?

I don't think anyone is really eager to tear down democracy itself, as much as they'd want to reform what we currently have.

An Armed Rebellion is not only stupid, but would go down in history as stupid, and would likely make americans even more paranoid and scared of everything.

biccat wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:And compare that to true central-left governments, (Canada or Québec being damn good examples) and you'll see that the violent crime rate is half that of Va.

Virginia has a violent crime rate of 210 per 100,000. Quebec has a violent crime rate of 756 per 100,000.

Must be a generous definition of "half".

Its Animal Farm math. All numbers are equal. Some are more equal than others.

Y'know, I preferred the old GOP that was for law and order, respected police and other institutions, etc. Whatever happened to those guys?

Regarding MD, it's probably Baltimore's crime rate of 98,574 per 100,000 that drives the state average up.

Samus_aran115 wrote:I don't think anyone is really eager to tear down democracy itself, as much as they'd want to reform what we currently have.

An Armed Rebellion is not only stupid, but would go down in history as stupid, and would likely make americans even more paranoid and scared of everything.

From an outside perspective that seems like a difficult thing to achieve...

purplefood wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:I don't think anyone is really eager to tear down democracy itself, as much as they'd want to reform what we currently have.

An Armed Rebellion is not only stupid, but would go down in history as stupid, and would likely make americans even more paranoid and scared of everything.

From an outside perspective that seems like a difficult thing to achieve...

Making Americans more scared, or reforming our democracy? I'd say both are far-fetched

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tough luck, the sharpshooters are on the establishment's payroll. And the drones. And the guys that actually build guns. I reckon that if they really, really wanted your guns, prying them off of your cold dead hands would actually be comparable to a stroll in the park.

This one has always made me laugh. My missus and her Mom (Americans) always say that over here people seem to worry less about the government, and for some reason Americans are still paranoid about it, so they want to keep their guns?

When the far right say things like (I argue with them in bars in the US obviously) "Yeah but in Britain you guys are screwed, over here we can rise up against the government cos we have guns!" I always answer with the same reply you just gave. Its so logical.



"I bet the Navy SEALs are fething gaking themselves!"

biccat wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:And compare that to true central-left governments, (Canada or Québec being damn good examples) and you'll see that the violent crime rate is half that of Va.

Virginia has a violent crime rate of 210 per 100,000. Quebec has a violent crime rate of 756 per 100,000.

Must be a generous definition of "half".

I didn't lurk enough apparently. But every single site I see offer a different figure. This ones (http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=57) goes of the chart with 1.093/100K.
2 or 3 years ago, Québec City (1 million) had 0 murder. I understand the mobsters in Montreal have been roughing it up lately, but still.
I will figure this out.

mattyrm wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tough luck, the sharpshooters are on the establishment's payroll. And the drones. And the guys that actually build guns. I reckon that if they really, really wanted your guns, prying them off of your cold dead hands would actually be comparable to a stroll in the park.

This one has always made me laugh. My missus and her Mom (Americans) always say that over here people seem to worry less about the government, and for some reason Americans are still paranoid about it, so they want to keep their guns?

When the far right say things like (I argue with them in bars in the US obviously) "Yeah but in Britain you guys are screwed, over here we can rise up against the government cos we have guns!" I always answer with the same reply you just gave. Its so logical.



"I bet the Navy SEALs are fething gaking themselves!"

I missed the part where the SEALs and Royal Marines defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan. Must have been on the anniversary of our victory over North Vietnam and Britain's victory over the Colonials.

mattyrm wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tough luck, the sharpshooters are on the establishment's payroll. And the drones. And the guys that actually build guns. I reckon that if they really, really wanted your guns, prying them off of your cold dead hands would actually be comparable to a stroll in the park.

This one has always made me laugh. My missus and her Mom (Americans) always say that over here people seem to worry less about the government, and for some reason Americans are still paranoid about it, so they want to keep their guns?

When the far right say things like (I argue with them in bars in the US obviously) "Yeah but in Britain you guys are screwed, over here we can rise up against the government cos we have guns!" I always answer with the same reply you just gave. Its so logical.



"I bet the Navy SEALs are fething gaking themselves!"

I bet she's a real pious Christian too, what with all those fake boobs.

frazzled wrote:I missed the part where the Seals and Royal Marines defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan.

I doubt a fair comparison would put on the same level of threat the Army and the Talibans. I think it's also disingenuous to compare would be militia-men to either trained soldiers or, even more so, Special Forces.

Frazzled wrote:
I missed the part where the SEALs and Royal Marines defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan. Must have been on the anniversary of our victory over North Vietnam and Britain's victory over the Colonials.

Thats the most ridiculous reply ever, do you actually want me to critique it or are you just being silly?

And I told you, the British beat the British, were like Orks NEVA BEAT.

Its extremely ridiculous. Yet in the words of that famous bounty hunter Jubal Early, here I am.

Can SEALS beat the daylights out of some local yocals with pump shotguns...you betcha. SO WHAT?
So can Royal Marines, US Marines, LA SWAT, and maybe even the French Army (ok who am I kidding, they're French). Doesn't matter.

Frazzled wrote:Its extremely ridiculous. Yet in the words of that famous bounty hunter Jubal Early, here I am.

Can SEALS beat the daylights out of some local yocals with pump shotguns...you betcha. SO WHAT?
So can Royal Marines, US Marines, LA SWAT, and maybe even the French Army (ok who am I kidding, they're French). Doesn't matter.

The point is obviously arming your populous is an irrelevance, but that's by the by. Will to fight is the most important thing in a war, and the well fed sweet smelling, soft skinned inhabitants of the USA aren't as willing to die for their beliefs as the poorly educated savages that flock to Afghanistan in their millions. 99.99% of the "tea party" would pick "Ah well.. I don't want to kill American soldiers" over certain death when facing the military machine, be it by advanced attack drone, impenetrable tank, chopper or trained killing machine soldiers.

And you forget about all the other American civilians that disagree with them as well!

And on the subject of Afghanistan, how many soldiers have they killed in 12 years? 2300 soldiers?

The armed forces would roll over the minuscule amount of hicks that are actually willing to die in a pointless fight against their own government.

No, like any civilised country, they will shout, and stomp, and complain, then they will go and play with their kids and make love to their wives. They have too much to lose.

Scruffy brainwashed Taliban fighters?

Less so.

gak, no bacon, no booze, and more than one mother in law!?

No wonder they are fething lining up!

mattyrm wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its extremely ridiculous. Yet in the words of that famous bounty hunter Jubal Early, here I am.

Can SEALS beat the daylights out of some local yocals with pump shotguns...you betcha. SO WHAT?
So can Royal Marines, US Marines, LA SWAT, and maybe even the French Army (ok who am I kidding, they're French). Doesn't matter.

The point is obviously arming your populous is an irrelevance, but that's by the by. Will to fight is the most important thing in a war, and the well fed sweet smelling, soft skinned inhabitants of the USA aren't as willing to die for their beliefs as the poorly educated savages that flock to Afghanistan in their millions. 99.99% of the "tea party" would pick "Ah well.. I don't want to kill American soldiers" over certain death when facing the military machine, be it by advanced attack drone, impenetrable tank, chopper or trained killing machine soldiers.

And you forget about all the other American civilians that disagree with them as well!

And on the subject of Afghanistan, how many soldiers have they killed in 12 years? 2300 soldiers?

The armed forces would roll over the minuscule amount of hicks that are actually willing to die in a pointless fight against their own government.

No, like any civilised country, they will shout, and stomp, and complain, then they will go and play with their kids and make love to their wives. They have too much to lose.

Scruffy brainwashed Taliban fighters?

Less so.

gak, no bacon, no booze, and more than one mother in law!?

No wonder they are fething lining up!

No. If the situation comes to the point there's an internal civil war in the US its substantially beyond that.

Frazzled wrote:

No. If the situation comes to the point there's an internal civil war in the US its substantially beyond that.

Well I disagree, its a pointless discussion anyway.

The point is, "you can rise up against your government!" is a gak argument for everyone owning a gun.

mattyrm wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

No. If the situation comes to the point there's an internal civil war in the US its substantially beyond that.

Well I disagree, its a pointless discussion anyway.

The point is, "you can rise up against your government!" is a gak argument for everyone owning a gun.

Except its there and both the Nazis and the Communists were all about confiscating them, so there's something to that.
If you disagree great but I could care less. I didn't bring up the topic.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:And compare that to true central-left governments, (Canada or Québec being damn good examples) and you'll see that the violent crime rate is half that of Va.

Virginia has a violent crime rate of 210 per 100,000. Quebec has a violent crime rate of 756 per 100,000.

Must be a generous definition of "half".

I didn't lurk enough apparently. But every single site I see offer a different figure. This ones (http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=57) goes of the chart with 1.093/100K.
2 or 3 years ago, Québec City (1 million) had 0 murder. I understand the mobsters in Montreal have been roughing it up lately, but still.
I will figure this out.

Canada considers all types of assault to be violent crime, in the US only aggravated assault is a violent crime, at least according to the UCR. The result is a much higher rate of violent crime than would exist if the US definition were used.

Of course, biccat probably knew that.

dogma wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:And compare that to true central-left governments, (Canada or Québec being damn good examples) and you'll see that the violent crime rate is half that of Va.

Virginia has a violent crime rate of 210 per 100,000. Quebec has a violent crime rate of 756 per 100,000.

Must be a generous definition of "half".

I didn't lurk enough apparently. But every single site I see offer a different figure. This ones (http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=57) goes of the chart with 1.093/100K.
2 or 3 years ago, Québec City (1 million) had 0 murder. I understand the mobsters in Montreal have been roughing it up lately, but still.
I will figure this out.

Canada considers all types of assault to be violent crime, in the US only aggravated assault is a violent crime, at least according to the UCR. The result is a much higher rate of violent crime than would exist if the US definition were used.

Of course, biccat probably knew that.

HA! I knew we weren't a bunch of violent gore-hungry savages!

Thank you very much.

Kovnik Obama wrote:
HA! I knew we weren't a bunch of violent gore-hungry savages!

Thank you very much.

Yeah, you know something is funny when Quebec seems to noticeably more violent than Michigan.

Samus_aran115 wrote:
An Armed Rebellion is not only stupid, but would go down in history as stupid, and would likely make americans even more paranoid and scared of everything.

Yeah, these guys went down in history as stupid for entering into armed rebellion against their democracy.


@matty
I don't think the SEALs should be afraid. But one of the kickers of civil war is you never know which way things will jump. What's to say the majority of the military wouldn't decide to fight against the gov't itself? (I don't think that BTW I think .mil represents a pretty fair cross section of the US with the same divisions).

I believe this is what's called 'the most vocal minority'. Some crazies discovered they were outnumbered by non-crazies and threw a tantrum.

LoneLictor wrote:I believe this is what's called 'the most vocal minority'. Some crazies discovered they were outnumbered by non-crazies and threw a tantrum.

They are not even 'most vocal'. It was a county newsletter for a political party, and an editorial comment in that newsletter. Frankly that isn't very vocal. It was for a small audience (the recipients of that newsletter).

Kovnik Obama wrote:HA! I knew we weren't a bunch of violent gore-hungry savages!

Thank you very much.

Actually, if you include simple assaults to the Virginia data, you'll find that the crime rates are equal between Virginia and Quebec at about 756.

Still a pretty generous definition of "half."

Of course, dogma probably knew that.

juraigamer wrote:Another piece of proof that fox news is guilty of treason vs the united states.

I hate to sidetrack here but this caught my eye.

And Fox News has what to do with this? I even clicked the link, and the only reference to Fox News I could find was in the adds on the side of the webpage.

biccat wrote:
Still a pretty generous definition of "half."

Of course, dogma probably knew that.

Did I claim the violent crime rate in Quebec was half what it is in Virginia? I don't think I did.

Maybe you should work on keeping track of who is claiming what. I realize its not a strong suit of yours, seeing as you only think in terms of "us" and "them", but it never hurts to develop a more nuanced view of the world.