When is violence acceptable?

[uscitizen]

Given that we have a constitutional system that allows for non-violent altering and indeed abolishion of government, violence as a means for governmental change is NEVER acceptable. As long as the constitution functions, using violence as a means to induce societal change is TREASON.

I am sworn to support and defend said contitution. Commit this sort of treason and i will shoot you. Left, right, no matter. I will shoot you. or one of my brothers and sisters in arms will.

Does that mean Thomas Jefferson was a traitor for suggesting that there were times it was acceptable?

I suppose it was since all the Founders were committing Treason against the crown.

Yes the American revoloution is somewhat of an ideological morass.
Do not forget that many of the founders stood to gain businesswise by breaking away from the regulations, taxes and tarrifs of England.

 

[uscitizen]

Apparently when ever the President, Congress, and the MSM media decide it is. Case in point, the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

70% of Americans thought that Saddam was supporting al Queda in the 9-11 attacks.

and I am proud to be among the remaining 30% who were correct and not scared excrementless.
.

 

[uscitizen]

In response to a different thread on this subject, I picked up a copy of "Inside War: the guerrilla conflct in Missouri during the American Civil War" by Professor Michael Fellman.

If you would like a glimpse of what America would be like during an internal rebellion among civilians in an enviroment where there has been a total societal breakdown and a collapse of all forms of what we think of as law and order, I highly recommend this book...I am only halfway through chapter 3 and I am already absolutely mortified.

My conclusion is we are currently light years away from any rationalization of armed rebellion.

By light years I mean unless we are under marshal law, the Congress has been disbanded, there has been a military coup, or concentration camps are being filled with political dissidents, no one should be discussing any armed action.

I'll have to look at that. But I know that things got pretty bad during the "Bloody Kansas" outbreak and during the Mormon Wars, two topics that modern Americans seem largely ignorant of.

and in labor disputes.
Few know that the US government aka president ordered an aerial bombing raid on striking coal miners. It failed the planes got lost and I think One crashed in bad weather.
the national guard in CO also shot and killed striking miners. And more incidents as well.

 

[goldcatt]

In response to a different thread on this subject, I picked up a copy of "Inside War: the guerrilla conflct in Missouri during the American Civil War" by Professor Michael Fellman.

If you would like a glimpse of what America would be like during an internal rebellion among civilians in an enviroment where there has been a total societal breakdown and a collapse of all forms of what we think of as law and order, I highly recommend this book...I am only halfway through chapter 3 and I am already absolutely mortified.

My conclusion is we are currently light years away from any rationalization of armed rebellion.

By light years I mean unless we are under marshal law, the Congress has been disbanded, there has been a military coup, or concentration camps are being filled with political dissidents, no one should be discussing any armed action.

I'll have to look at that. But I know that things got pretty bad during the "Bloody Kansas" outbreak and during the Mormon Wars, two topics that modern Americans seem largely ignorant of.

and in labor disputes.
Few know that the US government aka president ordered an aerial bombing raid on striking coal miners. It failed the planes got lost and I think One crashed in bad weather.
the national guard in CO also shot and killed striking miners. And more incidents as well.

There's a long and bloody history of labor in many areas that predates or doesn't involve unions, government in the past had a shameful pattern of using public resources to enforce private gain. Today's corporatism isn't good, but it's nothing compared to the Good Old Days.



"B-b-b-b-but SEIU thugs!" in 3...2...1...

 

[Dr.Traveler]

In response to a different thread on this subject, I picked up a copy of "Inside War: the guerrilla conflct in Missouri during the American Civil War" by Professor Michael Fellman.

If you would like a glimpse of what America would be like during an internal rebellion among civilians in an enviroment where there has been a total societal breakdown and a collapse of all forms of what we think of as law and order, I highly recommend this book...I am only halfway through chapter 3 and I am already absolutely mortified.

My conclusion is we are currently light years away from any rationalization of armed rebellion.

By light years I mean unless we are under marshal law, the Congress has been disbanded, there has been a military coup, or concentration camps are being filled with political dissidents, no one should be discussing any armed action.

I'll have to look at that. But I know that things got pretty bad during the "Bloody Kansas" outbreak and during the Mormon Wars, two topics that modern Americans seem largely ignorant of.

and in labor disputes.
Few know that the US government aka president ordered an aerial bombing raid on striking coal miners. It failed the planes got lost and I think One crashed in bad weather.
the national guard in CO also shot and killed striking miners. And more incidents as well.

True, the labor disputes got pretty scary at times. Nothing at all like today with the picket lines. Some of the Civil Rights stand offs got bad too.

I think a lot of folks have forgotten that we've got an enormous potential for violence in the USA when it comes to our disagreements. That's why violence needs to be the last option. If the stuff referenced so far in the thread is any indication, once violence starts we're willing to take it pretty far.

Maybe that's been the best thing to come from the invention of television. Once we see ourselves acting insane, we tend to back down. The LA Riots not long ago were bad, but no were near as bad as some of the other stuff that's come up in this thread.

 

[Samson]

When in politics is violence acceptable? It's become clear that there are some on the right and the left calling for violent revolution. It's also become clear that there are people on both sides of the aisle who have no problem justifying/excusing it when their guys call violence.

But when is actually acceptable?

When in political is violence acceptable?

I'm certain we're dealing with an oxymoron here: When Violence begins, Politics ends.

They are mutually exclusive.

 

[BlindBoo]

Apparently when ever the President, Congress, and the MSM media decide it is. Case in point, the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

70% of Americans thought that Saddam was supporting al Queda in the 9-11 attacks.

and I am proud to be among the remaining 30% who were correct and not scared excrementless.
.

Glad to hear it, good for you.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Given that we have a constitutional system that allows for non-violent altering and indeed abolishion of government, violence as a means for governmental change is NEVER acceptable. As long as the constitution functions, using violence as a means to induce societal change is TREASON.

I am sworn to support and defend said contitution. Commit this sort of treason and i will shoot you. Left, right, no matter. I will shoot you. or one of my brothers and sisters in arms will.

Oh palease.. you'd probably shoot yourself in the foot first you twit.

 

[frazzledgear]

When in politics is violence acceptable? It's become clear that there are some on the right and the left calling for violent revolution. It's also become clear that there are people on both sides of the aisle who have no problem justifying/excusing it when their guys call violence.

But when is actually acceptable?

I don't hear ANYONE with any ability to launch a violent revolution calling for one on either side. But when it is acceptable? That is a judgment call that can only be made by the individual and it would absolutely depend on whether they are on the left or right. As a conservative who rejects using violence in order to GRAB power and believes in the right of the individual to own his own life and control the important decisions of his life -the only time it could even be an option for me is IF and ONLY IF others are using violence for the purpose of trying to enslave me -whether a state owned slave or the slave of another person. If violence isn't being used against me in order to forcibly impose the rule of those who can't get it at the ballot box and without violence - then I have other nonviolent options to resist since I know my side can, does and will win any debate of ideas.

You only need to look at history to see when those on the far left believe it is acceptable because they have launched violent revolutions for the purpose of grabbing power in order to enslave others to the state. Whether you want to look at the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Cuba -it required violent revolution and murder, sometimes horrific mass murder to grab power and then enslave all citizens. The worst political mass murderers in history are leftists and always will be. Those on the right resort to violence to free themselves but only when there is so little vestige of freedom it becomes intolerable. But those on the far left resort to violence to TAKE freedom from others which is a much more common event in the history of man. When the far left or far right resort to violence it is ALWAYS for totally different reasons - the left seeks to grab power, the right seeks their freedom which is why you see far more violence on the left than you do the right. One is an act of aggression -the other an act of self-defense. Just like with violent crimes where you see more violent acts of aggression than you see violent acts of self defense -so too when it comes to political ideologies.

Nazism is NOT rightwing -but is leftwing ideology. It is a political ideology that believes the state should have total control over the individual. Just like communism does and both are totalitarian states. Nazis and communists just disagree about who should be wielding that power over the individual - not whether the state should even have it at all. Stalin once claimed that Nazism was the opposite of communism which was bullshit but some people still fall for that. But the opposite of a totalitarian state is not another totalitarian state! Rightwing ideology says that state should never be large enough to wield that kind of power at all no matter who happens to be holding the reins at the moment. Rightwing EXTREMIST ideology is anarchy -where the state has zero control over the individual, leftwing extremism is totalitarianism where the state has total control of the individual. The extremes of left and right are total slavery or total freedom -THOSE are opposite conditions! And both of those extremes are rejected by the vast majority of people with most people desiring to live closer to the right than the left because slavery is not the natural state of man. Except of course those on the far left who believe THEY will be the ones wielding that power and control over others and not end up being slaves themselves.

Since man will tolerate some chains and it requires time for it to chafe to the point they will resort to violence to escape it while those who seek total power know they are unlikely to get it without the violence -you see far more violence and violent revolutions born of leftwing ideology than rightwing ideology. Those who are most easily driven to violence are those who want to be the slave owners and impose their will on everyone else. While even those seeking to escape it will far more often try to do so by just fleeing it and not resort to violence.

If you doubt that just watch the HUGE difference between a demonstration led by the right and one led by the left in THIS country. First of all a rightwing demonstration is unusual in and of itself since conservatives are by definition individualists and not naturally inclined to public and group demonstrations. The fact the Tea Parties came into existence at all is unusual. But then look at their behavior when they finally did. There hasn't been a single arrest for ANY reason at any Tea Party, much less one for an act of violence. But look at what ROUTINELY happens at leftist demonstrations -for example when they protested Arizona's immigration law and resorted to throwing rocks and bottles at cops. The left believes it is justified to resort to violence to get what they want -which is to impose their will on everyone else. The Tea Parties came about because people want a smaller, less powerful, less intrusive government with less ability to impose its will on the individual. (And which did our own leftist media find "scary"? The media said those resorting to violence did so because they were "just so passionate" -while the nonviolent Tea Parties using NO violent or threatening language of any kind just scared the shit out of them. Its because the violent left demonstrating about some issue or another is not unusual whatsoever -it is the sudden appearance and involvement of conservative individualists who don't normally do that for any reason at all that made their eyes pop out of the heads and they found "scary"! ROFL!)

Whether you are a liberal or a conservative is FIRST determined by a single principle and the answer to a single question. Who really owns the life of the individual -that individual or the state? Those on the left and the right do NOT answer that the same way and you can tell by the policies they advocate. Which makes those on the left FAR more dangerous to human life and FAR more likely to resort to violence in an effort to impose their will on the rest of of us.

This is why dictatorships, communist nations -totalitarian states - do not allow their citizens to freely travel -they know they won't come back. And it is why there is always a steady stream of people willing to risk their life to escape such countries. Living in slavery, whether as the slave of another person or that of the state, is an abnormal condition SO repugnant to the human soul that escaping it becomes worth the risk of losing their life. Among the left there are no Patrick Henry moments because freedom of the individual is actually despised and feared as the threat to THEIR ability to grab power and hang on to it -and they know it. They just saw a sharp reminder of that a week ago.

Want to know the TRUE nature of those on the right and those on the left who just give empty lip service about how they just OOZE with all this "caring" whether it is for people, animals or the environment -while always claiming the other side wants polluted water, air and to slaughter all living creatures of course? These two pictures tell it all -these are TYPICAL of what it looks like after a Tea Party(on the right) vs. what it looks like after any liberal demonstration (left -naturally). One side doesn't even PRETEND to try and live up to its own claims to be the more "caring" because what really drives them isn't "care" -it is POWER. The left is about POWER. And POWER doesn't really give a damn about anything else BUT power, certainly not concerned about their own trash. They probably believe it is actually government's job to wipe their asses and clean up the mess they made.

 

[goldcatt]

I don't hear ANYONE with any ability to launch a violent revolution calling for one on either side. But when it is acceptable? That is a judgment call that can only be made by the individual and it would absolutely depend on whether they are on the left or right. As a conservative who rejects using violence in order to GRAB power and believes in the right of the individual to own his own life and control the important decisions of his life -the only time it could even be an option for me is IF and ONLY IF others are using violence for the purpose of trying to enslave me -whether a state owned slave or the slave of another person. If violence isn't being used against me in order to forcibly impose the rule of those who can't get it at the ballot box and without violence - then I have other nonviolent options to resist since I know my side can, does and will win any debate of ideas.

You only need to look at history to see when those on the far left believe it is acceptable because they have launched violent revolutions for the purpose of grabbing power in order to enslave others to the state. Whether you want to look at the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Cuba -it required violent revolution and murder, sometimes horrific mass murder to grab power and then enslave all citizens. The worst political mass murderers in history are leftists and always will be. Those on the right resort to violence to free themselves but only when there is so little vestige of freedom it becomes intolerable. But those on the far left resort to violence to TAKE freedom from others which is a much more common event in the history of man. When the far left or far right resort to violence it is ALWAYS for totally different reasons - the left seeks to grab power, the right seeks their freedom which is why you see far more violence on the left than you do the right. One is an act of aggression -the other an act of self-defense. Just like with violent crimes where you see more violent acts of aggression than you see violent acts of self defense -so too when it comes to political ideologies.

Nazism is NOT rightwing -but is leftwing ideology. It is a political ideology that believes the state should have total control over the individual. Just like communism does and both are totalitarian states. Nazis and communists just disagree about who should be wielding that power over the individual - not whether the state should even have it at all. Stalin once claimed that Nazism was the opposite of communism which was bullshit but some people still fall for that. But the opposite of a totalitarian state is not another totalitarian state! Rightwing ideology says that state should never be large enough to wield that kind of power at all no matter who happens to be holding the reins at the moment. Rightwing EXTREMIST ideology is anarchy -where the state has zero control over the individual, leftwing extremism is totalitarianism where the state has total control of the individual. The extremes of left and right are total slavery or total freedom -THOSE are opposite conditions! And both of those extremes are rejected by the vast majority of people with most people desiring to live closer to the right than the left because slavery is not the natural state of man. Except of course those on the far left who believe THEY will be the ones wielding that power and control over others and not end up being slaves themselves.

Since man will tolerate some chains and it requires time for it to chafe to the point they will resort to violence to escape it while those who seek total power know they are unlikely to get it without the violence -you see far more violence and violent revolutions born of leftwing ideology than rightwing ideology. Those who are most easily driven to violence are those who want to be the slave owners and impose their will on everyone else. While even those seeking to escape it will far more often try to do so by just fleeing it and not resort to violence.

If you doubt that just watch the HUGE difference between a demonstration led by the right and one led by the left in THIS country. First of all a rightwing demonstration is unusual in and of itself since conservatives are by definition individualists and not naturally inclined to public and group demonstrations. The fact the Tea Parties came into existence at all is unusual. But then look at their behavior when they finally did. There hasn't been a single arrest for ANY reason at any Tea Party, much less one for an act of violence. But look at what ROUTINELY happens at leftist demonstrations -for example when they protested Arizona's immigration law and resorted to throwing rocks and bottles at cops. The left believes it is justified to resort to violence to get what they want -which is to impose their will on everyone else. The Tea Parties came about because people want a smaller, less powerful, less intrusive government with less ability to impose its will on the individual.

Whether you are a liberal or a conservative is FIRST determined by a single principle and the answer to a single question. Who really owns the life of the individual -that individual or the state? Those on the left and the right do NOT answer that the same way and you can tell by the policies they advocate. Which makes those on the left FAR more dangerous to human life and FAR more likely to resort to violence in an effort to impose their will on the rest of of us.

This is why dictatorships, communist nations -totalitarian states - do not allow their citizens to freely travel -they know they won't come back. And it is why there is always a steady stream of people willing to risk their life to escape such countries. Living in slavery, whether as the slave of another person or that of the state, is an abnormal condition SO repugnant to the human soul that escaping it becomes worth the risk of losing their life. Among the left there are no Patrick Henry moments because freedom of the individual is actually despised and feared as the threat to THEIR ability to grab power and hang on to it -and they know it. They just saw a sharp reminder of that a week ago.

Want to know the TRUE nature of those on the right and those on the left who just give empty lip service about how they just OOZE with all this "caring" whether it is for people, animals or the environment -while always claiming the other side wants polluted water, air and to slaughter all living creatures of course? These two pictures tell it all -these are TYPICAL of what it looks like after a Tea Party vs. what it looks like after any liberal demonstration. One side doesn't even live up to its own claims to be the more "caring" it proves what really drives them -POWER. The left is about POWER. And POWER doesn't really give a damn about anything else BUT power.

Good lord.

 

[Ravi]

I don't hear ANYONE with any ability to launch a violent revolution calling for one on either side. But when it is acceptable? That is a judgment call that can only be made by the individual and it would absolutely depend on whether they are on the left or right. As a conservative who rejects using violence in order to GRAB power and believes in the right of the individual to own his own life and control the important decisions of his life -the only time it could even be an option for me is IF and ONLY IF others are using violence for the purpose of trying to enslave me -whether a state owned slave or the slave of another person. If violence isn't being used against me in order to forcibly impose the rule of those who can't get it at the ballot box and without violence - then I have other nonviolent options to resist since I know my side can, does and will win any debate of ideas.

You only need to look at history to see when those on the far left believe it is acceptable because they have launched violent revolutions for the purpose of grabbing power in order to enslave others to the state. Whether you want to look at the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Cuba -it required violent revolution and murder, sometimes horrific mass murder to grab power and then enslave all citizens. The worst political mass murderers in history are leftists and always will be. Those on the right resort to violence to free themselves but only when there is so little vestige of freedom it becomes intolerable. But those on the far left resort to violence to TAKE freedom from others which is a much more common event in the history of man. When the far left or far right resort to violence it is ALWAYS for totally different reasons - the left seeks to grab power, the right seeks their freedom which is why you see far more violence on the left than you do the right. One is an act of aggression -the other an act of self-defense. Just like with violent crimes where you see more violent acts of aggression than you see violent acts of self defense -so too when it comes to political ideologies.

Nazism is NOT rightwing -but is leftwing ideology. It is a political ideology that believes the state should have total control over the individual. Just like communism does and both are totalitarian states. Nazis and communists just disagree about who should be wielding that power over the individual - not whether the state should even have it at all. Stalin once claimed that Nazism was the opposite of communism which was bullshit but some people still fall for that. But the opposite of a totalitarian state is not another totalitarian state! Rightwing ideology says that state should never be large enough to wield that kind of power at all no matter who happens to be holding the reins at the moment. Rightwing EXTREMIST ideology is anarchy -where the state has zero control over the individual, leftwing extremism is totalitarianism where the state has total control of the individual. The extremes of left and right are total slavery or total freedom -THOSE are opposite conditions! And both of those extremes are rejected by the vast majority of people with most people desiring to live closer to the right than the left because slavery is not the natural state of man. Except of course those on the far left who believe THEY will be the ones wielding that power and control over others and not end up being slaves themselves.

Since man will tolerate some chains and it requires time for it to chafe to the point they will resort to violence to escape it while those who seek total power know they are unlikely to get it without the violence -you see far more violence and violent revolutions born of leftwing ideology than rightwing ideology. Those who are most easily driven to violence are those who want to be the slave owners and impose their will on everyone else. While even those seeking to escape it will far more often try to do so by just fleeing it and not resort to violence.

If you doubt that just watch the HUGE difference between a demonstration led by the right and one led by the left in THIS country. First of all a rightwing demonstration is unusual in and of itself since conservatives are by definition individualists and not naturally inclined to public and group demonstrations. The fact the Tea Parties came into existence at all is unusual. But then look at their behavior when they finally did. There hasn't been a single arrest for ANY reason at any Tea Party, much less one for an act of violence. But look at what ROUTINELY happens at leftist demonstrations -for example when they protested Arizona's immigration law and resorted to throwing rocks and bottles at cops. The left believes it is justified to resort to violence to get what they want -which is to impose their will on everyone else. The Tea Parties came about because people want a smaller, less powerful, less intrusive government with less ability to impose its will on the individual.

Whether you are a liberal or a conservative is FIRST determined by a single principle and the answer to a single question. Who really owns the life of the individual -that individual or the state? Those on the left and the right do NOT answer that the same way and you can tell by the policies they advocate. Which makes those on the left FAR more dangerous to human life and FAR more likely to resort to violence in an effort to impose their will on the rest of of us.

This is why dictatorships, communist nations -totalitarian states - do not allow their citizens to freely travel -they know they won't come back. And it is why there is always a steady stream of people willing to risk their life to escape such countries. Living in slavery, whether as the slave of another person or that of the state, is an abnormal condition SO repugnant to the human soul that escaping it becomes worth the risk of losing their life. Among the left there are no Patrick Henry moments because freedom of the individual is actually despised and feared as the threat to THEIR ability to grab power and hang on to it -and they know it. They just saw a sharp reminder of that a week ago.

Want to know the TRUE nature of those on the right and those on the left who just give empty lip service about how they just OOZE with all this "caring" whether it is for people, animals or the environment -while always claiming the other side wants polluted water, air and to slaughter all living creatures of course? These two pictures tell it all -these are TYPICAL of what it looks like after a Tea Party vs. what it looks like after any liberal demonstration. One side doesn't even live up to its own claims to be the more "caring" it proves what really drives them -POWER. The left is about POWER. And POWER doesn't really give a damn about anything else BUT power.

Good lord.

Translation: Liberals suck, are violent, and they smell funny.

 

[Samson]

I don't hear ANYONE with any ability to launch a violent revolution calling for one on either side. But when it is acceptable? That is a judgment call that can only be made by the individual and it would absolutely depend on whether they are on the left or right. As a conservative who rejects using violence in order to GRAB power and believes in the right of the individual to own his own life and control the important decisions of his life -the only time it could even be an option for me is IF and ONLY IF others are using violence for the purpose of trying to enslave me -whether a state owned slave or the slave of another person. If violence isn't being used against me in order to forcibly impose the rule of those who can't get it at the ballot box and without violence - then I have other nonviolent options to resist since I know my side can, does and will win any debate of ideas.

You only need to look at history to see when those on the far left believe it is acceptable because they have launched violent revolutions for the purpose of grabbing power in order to enslave others to the state. Whether you want to look at the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Cuba -it required violent revolution and murder, sometimes horrific mass murder to grab power and then enslave all citizens. The worst political mass murderers in history are leftists and always will be. Those on the right resort to violence to free themselves but only when there is so little vestige of freedom it becomes intolerable. But those on the far left resort to violence to TAKE freedom from others which is a much more common event in the history of man. When the far left or far right resort to violence it is ALWAYS for totally different reasons - the left seeks to grab power, the right seeks their freedom which is why you see far more violence on the left than you do the right. One is an act of aggression -the other an act of self-defense. Just like with violent crimes where you see more violent acts of aggression than you see violent acts of self defense -so too when it comes to political ideologies.

Nazism is NOT rightwing -but is leftwing ideology. It is a political ideology that believes the state should have total control over the individual. Just like communism does and both are totalitarian states. Nazis and communists just disagree about who should be wielding that power over the individual - not whether the state should even have it at all. Stalin once claimed that Nazism was the opposite of communism which was bullshit but some people still fall for that. But the opposite of a totalitarian state is not another totalitarian state! Rightwing ideology says that state should never be large enough to wield that kind of power at all no matter who happens to be holding the reins at the moment. Rightwing EXTREMIST ideology is anarchy -where the state has zero control over the individual, leftwing extremism is totalitarianism where the state has total control of the individual. The extremes of left and right are total slavery or total freedom -THOSE are opposite conditions! And both of those extremes are rejected by the vast majority of people with most people desiring to live closer to the right than the left because slavery is not the natural state of man. Except of course those on the far left who believe THEY will be the ones wielding that power and control over others and not end up being slaves themselves.

Since man will tolerate some chains and it requires time for it to chafe to the point they will resort to violence to escape it while those who seek total power know they are unlikely to get it without the violence -you see far more violence and violent revolutions born of leftwing ideology than rightwing ideology. Those who are most easily driven to violence are those who want to be the slave owners and impose their will on everyone else. While even those seeking to escape it will far more often try to do so by just fleeing it and not resort to violence.

If you doubt that just watch the HUGE difference between a demonstration led by the right and one led by the left in THIS country. First of all a rightwing demonstration is unusual in and of itself since conservatives are by definition individualists and not naturally inclined to public and group demonstrations. The fact the Tea Parties came into existence at all is unusual. But then look at their behavior when they finally did. There hasn't been a single arrest for ANY reason at any Tea Party, much less one for an act of violence. But look at what ROUTINELY happens at leftist demonstrations -for example when they protested Arizona's immigration law and resorted to throwing rocks and bottles at cops. The left believes it is justified to resort to violence to get what they want -which is to impose their will on everyone else. The Tea Parties came about because people want a smaller, less powerful, less intrusive government with less ability to impose its will on the individual.

Whether you are a liberal or a conservative is FIRST determined by a single principle and the answer to a single question. Who really owns the life of the individual -that individual or the state? Those on the left and the right do NOT answer that the same way and you can tell by the policies they advocate. Which makes those on the left FAR more dangerous to human life and FAR more likely to resort to violence in an effort to impose their will on the rest of of us.

This is why dictatorships, communist nations -totalitarian states - do not allow their citizens to freely travel -they know they won't come back. And it is why there is always a steady stream of people willing to risk their life to escape such countries. Living in slavery, whether as the slave of another person or that of the state, is an abnormal condition SO repugnant to the human soul that escaping it becomes worth the risk of losing their life. Among the left there are no Patrick Henry moments because freedom of the individual is actually despised and feared as the threat to THEIR ability to grab power and hang on to it -and they know it. They just saw a sharp reminder of that a week ago.

Want to know the TRUE nature of those on the right and those on the left who just give empty lip service about how they just OOZE with all this "caring" whether it is for people, animals or the environment -while always claiming the other side wants polluted water, air and to slaughter all living creatures of course? These two pictures tell it all -these are TYPICAL of what it looks like after a Tea Party vs. what it looks like after any liberal demonstration. One side doesn't even live up to its own claims to be the more "caring" it proves what really drives them -POWER. The left is about POWER. And POWER doesn't really give a damn about anything else BUT power.

Good lord.

I'm happy someone can cut and paste from their NRA blog.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I'll have to look at that. But I know that things got pretty bad during the "Bloody Kansas" outbreak and during the Mormon Wars, two topics that modern Americans seem largely ignorant of.

and in labor disputes.
Few know that the US government aka president ordered an aerial bombing raid on striking coal miners. It failed the planes got lost and I think One crashed in bad weather.
the national guard in CO also shot and killed striking miners. And more incidents as well.

There's a long and bloody history of labor in many areas that predates or doesn't involve unions, government in the past had a shameful pattern of using public resources to enforce private gain. Today's corporatism isn't good, but it's nothing compared to the Good Old Days.



"B-b-b-b-but SEIU thugs!" in 3...2...1...

HAHAHAHA!

Actually many unions have used violence, if not all. In the beginning it would have fallen under "Defense of others". Since, at least, the 80's any use of violence by unions has been wrong.

Intimidation has been used by unions and owners. A person will usually be normal and open to talking, people are fucking batshit nuts, and talk is cheap when you are the one holding the bat.

Sadly from, family and personnal knowledge, once you are in or next to a union, threats and intimidation are commone place to get you to do what they want. That's why they want to do away with private voting.

 

[goldcatt]

and in labor disputes.
Few know that the US government aka president ordered an aerial bombing raid on striking coal miners. It failed the planes got lost and I think One crashed in bad weather.
the national guard in CO also shot and killed striking miners. And more incidents as well.

There's a long and bloody history of labor in many areas that predates or doesn't involve unions, government in the past had a shameful pattern of using public resources to enforce private gain. Today's corporatism isn't good, but it's nothing compared to the Good Old Days.



"B-b-b-b-but SEIU thugs!" in 3...2...1...

HAHAHAHA!

Actually many unions have used violence, if not all. In the beginning it would have fallen under "Defense of others". Since, at least, the 80's any use of violence by unions has been wrong.

Intimidation has been used by unions and owners. A person will usually be normal and open to talking, people are fucking batshit nuts, and talk is cheap when you are the one holding the bat.

Sadly from, family and personnal knowledge, once you are in or next to a union, threats and intimidation are commone place to get you to do what they want. That's why they want to do away with private voting.

So it took longer than 3 seconds. Must be a slow day on the boards.

 

[Missourian]

and in labor disputes.
Few know that the US government aka president ordered an aerial bombing raid on striking coal miners. It failed the planes got lost and I think One crashed in bad weather.
the national guard in CO also shot and killed striking miners. And more incidents as well.

There's a long and bloody history of labor in many areas that predates or doesn't involve unions, government in the past had a shameful pattern of using public resources to enforce private gain. Today's corporatism isn't good, but it's nothing compared to the Good Old Days.



"B-b-b-b-but SEIU thugs!" in 3...2...1...

HAHAHAHA!

Actually many unions have used violence, if not all. In the beginning it would have fallen under "Defense of others". Since, at least, the 80's any use of violence by unions has been wrong.

Intimidation has been used by unions and owners. A person will usually be normal and open to talking, people are fucking batshit nuts, and talk is cheap when you are the one holding the bat.

Sadly from, family and personnal knowledge, once you are in or next to a union, threats and intimidation are commone place to get you to do what they want. That's why they want to do away with private voting.

I've had to cross a few picket lines, by necessity...not choice. When picking up a load of raw materials for transport, the shipper rarely divulges that the plant the load is consigned to is on strike.

I honestly believe the union picketers would have used violence to keep the shipment out, but management had hired a security force armed with...video cameras.

As my truck approached, the security detail jumped out of two vans and video recorded the encounter from every side...another example of technology thwarting violence.

 

[Two Thumbs]

There's a long and bloody history of labor in many areas that predates or doesn't involve unions, government in the past had a shameful pattern of using public resources to enforce private gain. Today's corporatism isn't good, but it's nothing compared to the Good Old Days.



"B-b-b-b-but SEIU thugs!" in 3...2...1...

HAHAHAHA!

Actually many unions have used violence, if not all. In the beginning it would have fallen under "Defense of others". Since, at least, the 80's any use of violence by unions has been wrong.

Intimidation has been used by unions and owners. A person will usually be normal and open to talking, people are fucking batshit nuts, and talk is cheap when you are the one holding the bat.

Sadly from, family and personnal knowledge, once you are in or next to a union, threats and intimidation are commone place to get you to do what they want. That's why they want to do away with private voting.

So it took longer than 3 seconds. Must be a slow day on the boards.

Couldn't help myself. I was fine until you said SEIU. Then it was on like Donkey Kong!!

 

[Two Thumbs]

There's a long and bloody history of labor in many areas that predates or doesn't involve unions, government in the past had a shameful pattern of using public resources to enforce private gain. Today's corporatism isn't good, but it's nothing compared to the Good Old Days.



"B-b-b-b-but SEIU thugs!" in 3...2...1...

HAHAHAHA!

Actually many unions have used violence, if not all. In the beginning it would have fallen under "Defense of others". Since, at least, the 80's any use of violence by unions has been wrong.

Intimidation has been used by unions and owners. A person will usually be normal and open to talking, people are fucking batshit nuts, and talk is cheap when you are the one holding the bat.

Sadly from, family and personnal knowledge, once you are in or next to a union, threats and intimidation are commone place to get you to do what they want. That's why they want to do away with private voting.

I've had to cross a few picket lines, by necessity...not choice. When picking up a load of raw materials for transport, the shipper rarely divulges that the plant the load is consigned to is on strike.

I honestly believe the union picketers would have used violence to keep the shipment out, but management had hired a security force armed with...video cameras.

As my truck approached, the security detail jumped out of two vans and video recorded the encounter from every side...another example of technology thwarting violence.

STOP!! or I'll shoot!! I mean, take your picture!!

Pfft.

When seconds count the cops are just minuts away.

 

[goldcatt]

[/COLOR]

HAHAHAHA!

Actually many unions have used violence, if not all. In the beginning it would have fallen under "Defense of others". Since, at least, the 80's any use of violence by unions has been wrong.

Intimidation has been used by unions and owners. A person will usually be normal and open to talking, people are fucking batshit nuts, and talk is cheap when you are the one holding the bat.

Sadly from, family and personnal knowledge, once you are in or next to a union, threats and intimidation are commone place to get you to do what they want. That's why they want to do away with private voting.

So it took longer than 3 seconds. Must be a slow day on the boards.

Couldn't help myself. I was fine until you said SEIU. Then it was on like Donkey Kong!!

The bait! The bait!

'S all right, I don't really feel like playing anyway.

 

[loosecannon]

Self-defense. Repelling invasion. Defense of those who cannot defend themselves.

Otherwise? I can't think of any violence I would feel justified in engaging in.

But you support the violence of state actors each and every day.

You have no idea what I do or do not support, or why. Care to try again, oh amazing Kreskin?

If you are an american, pay taxes, vote then you support the violence of many, many state actors every day.

 

[loosecannon]

What/who are state actors?

I think he's talking about law enforcement. But who knows? These black helicopter types get a little obscure sometimes.

Care to explain, loosecannon?

(A)
Albania (Tirane) - in Albanian only
Algeria (Algers)
Andorra (Andorra la Vella)
Angola (Luanda)
Anguilla (St. Martin)
Antigua and Barbuda (St. John's)
Argentina (Buenos Aires)
Armenia (Yerevan)
Australia (Canberra)
Austria (Vienna)
Azerbaijan (Baku)

(B)
Bahamas (Nassau)
Bahrain (Manama)
Bangladesh (Dhaka)
Barbados (Bridgetown)
Belarus (Minsk)
Belgium (Brussels)
Belize (Belmopan)
Benin (Port-Novo) - In French only
Bhutan (Thimphu)
Bolivia (Sucre)
Bosnia and Herzegovina (Sarajevo)
Botswana (Gaborone)
Brazil (Brasilia)
Brunei (Bander Seri Begawan)
Bulgaria (Sofia)
Burkina Faso (Ouagadougou) - In French only
Burma/Myanmar (Yangon)
Burundi (Bujumbura)

(C)
Cambodia (Phnom Penh)
Cameroon (Yaounde)
Canada (Ottawa)
Cape Verde (Praia) - In Portuguese only
Central African Republic (Bangui) - In French only
Chad (N'Djamena)
Chile (Santiago)
China (Beijing)
Colombia (Bogota)
Comoros (Moroni)
Congo (Brazzaville)
Congo, Democratic Republic of (Kinshasa)
Costa Rica (San Jose)
Cote d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast (Yamoussoukro) - general link
Croatia (Zagreb)
Cuba (Havana)
Cyprus (Nicosia) (Greek)
Cyprus (Nicosia) (Turkish)
Czech Republic (Prague)

(D)
Denmark (Copenhagen)
Djibouti (Djibouti)
Dominica (Roseau)
Dominican Republic (Santo Domingo)

(E)
Ecuador (Quito) - links to government sites
Egypt (Cairo)
El Salvador (San Salvador)
Equatorial Guinea (Malabo)
Eritrea (Asmara)
Estonia (Tallinn)
Ethiopia (Addis Ababa)

(F)
Fiji (Suva)
Finland (Helsinki)
France (Paris)

(G)
Gabon (Liberville)
Gambia (Banjul)
Georgia (Tbilisi)
Germany (Berlin)
Ghana (Accra)
Greece (Athens)
Greenland (Godthab)
Grenada (St. George's)
Guatemala (Guatemala City)
Guinea (Conakry)
Guinea-Bissau (Bissau)
Guyana (Georgetown)

(H)
Haiti (Port-au-Prince)
Honduras (Tegucigalpa)
Hungary (Budapest)

(I)
Iceland (Reykjavik)
India (New Delhi)
Indonesia (Jakarta)
Iran (Tehran)
Iraq (Baghdad)
Ireland (Dublin)
Israel (Jerusalem)
Italy (Rome)

(J)
Jamaica (Kingston)
Japan (Tokyo)
Jordan (Amman)

(K)
Kazakstan (Almaty)
Kenya (Nairobi)
Kiribati (Bairiki)
Korea, North (Pyongyang)
Korea, South (Seoul)
Kuwait (Kuwait City)
Kyrgyzstan (Bishkek)

(L)
Laos (Vientiane) - U.S.A. Embassy
Latvia (Riga)
Lebanon (Beirut)
Lesotho (Maseru)
Liberia (Monrovia)
Libya (Tripoli)
Liechtenstein (Vaduz) - in German only
Lithuania (Vilnius)
Luxembourg (Luxembourg)
(M)
Macedonia (Skopje)
Madagascar (Antananarivo)
Malawi (Lilongwe)
Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur)
Maldives (Male)
Mali (Bamako) - embassy in Washington
Malta (Valletta)
Marshall Islands (Majuro)
Mauritania (Nouakchott)
Mauritius (Port Louis)
Mexico (Mexico City)
Micronesia (Palikir)
Moldova (Chisinau)
Monaco (Monaco)
Mongolia (Ulan Bator)
Morocco (Rabat)
Mozambique (Maputo)

(N)
Namibia (Windhoek)
Nepal (Kathmandu)
Netherlands (The Hague)
New Zealand (Wellington)
Nicaragua (Managua)
Niger (Niamey)
Nigeria (Abuja)
Norway (Oslo)

(O)
Oman (Muscat)

(P)
Pakistan (Islamabad)
Palau (Koror)
Palestine (Jerusalem)
Panama (Panama City)
Papua New Guinea (Port Moresby)
Paraguay (Asuncion)
Peru (Lima)
Philippines (Manila)
Poland (Warsaw)
Portugal (Lisbon)
Puerto Rico (San Juan)

(Q)
Qatar (Doha)

(R)
Romania (Bucharest)
Russian Federation (Moscow)
Rwanda (Kigali)

(S)
Saint Kitts and Nevis (Basseterre)
Saint Lucia (Castries)
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (Kingstown)
San Marino (San Marino)
Sao Tome and Principe (Sao Tome)
Saudi Arabia (Riyadh)
Senegal (Dakar)
Seychelles (Victoria)
Sierra Leone (Freetown)
Singapore (Singapore City)
Slovakia (Bratislava) - in Slovak only
Slovenia (Ljubljana)
Solomon Islands (Honiara)
Somalia (Mogadishu)
South Africa (Pretoria)
Spain (Madrid) - in Spanish only
Sri Lanka (Colombo)
Sudan (Khartoum)
Suriname (Paramaribo)
Swaziland (Mbabane)
Sweden (Stockholm)
Switzerland (Bern)
Syria (Damascus)

(T)
Taiwan (Taipei)
Tajikistan (Dushanbe) - general information
Tanzania (Dodoma)
Thailand (Bangkok)
Togo (Lome)
Tonga (Nuku'alofa)
Trinidad and Tobago (Port-of-Spain)
Tunisia (Tunis)
Turkey (Ankara) - in Turkish only
Turkmenistan (Ashgabat)
Tuvalu (Funafuti)

(U)
Uganda (Kampala)
Ukraine (Kiev)
United Arab Emirates (Abu Dhabi)
United Kingdom (London)
United States of America (Washington D.C.)
Uruguay (Montevideo)
Uzbekistan (Tashkent)

(V)
Vanuatu (Port-Vila)
Vatican City
Venezuela (Caracas)
Vietnam (Hanoi) - In Vietnamese only

(W)
Western Samoa (Apia)

(Y)
Yemen (Sana)
Yugoslavia (Belgrade)

(Z)
Zambia (Lusaka)
Zimbabwe (Harare)