zephyp wrote:Indeed and the people are peeved. I wonder what's going to happen when congress starts talking about the amnesty bill introduced back in mid-December? I think that's next up on their agenda once they shove this health care crap down our throats. I've watched this administration and congress do nothing but stack wood around the country and pour gasoline over it. Sooner or later it will be sparked. I sometimes think this is precisely what they want.
Thought exercise only...
Assume something violent did happen (starting at the extreme end of this line of thought).
The odds of succeeding are very slim even if large portions (States?) of the country back it up. More than likely who ever started something would simply be labeled a terrorist or something. Out of fear (can't support the terrorists!) most American's wouldn't back them up. While people talk about how angry they are etc. on forums like this, etc. they would be the first ones posting against such a group vice coming to its aid physically.
Suppose they understood this and decided to follow the declarations advice and exclaim to the world their intentions first. Who would print it that is respectable? Even the "right wing" media (talk shows, fox, etc.) would ignore it. Sure there is the internet, but there is no legitimacy doing it that way. In short, everyone would ignore it until they did something...too late; ignored manifesto's have been tried in many causes and they don't work.
We could continue down this road, but you get the idea. So, instead of violence, how about political/social rebellion? E.g. Boston Tea Party. Last years TEA protests tried to leverage this, but...
The original Tea Party dumped 342 chest, each containing approx. 300lbs of tea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_tea_party). According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_bag tea bags can have up to 3.3 grams of tea. So the TEA protest idea of dumping 1M tea bags equates too at most 7,275lbs of tea they owned, while the colonist dumped approx. 102,000 lbs of tea they didn't own!
However, the TEA protest didn't do it because they lacked the government permit!
Don't get me wrong, activism is good, but come on. Wake me up when someone is really mad enough to actually make a stand, government permit or not. Until then it is all just talk...they know it and it is why you are getting healthcare.
sudo modprobe commonsense
FATAL: Module commonsense not found.
Great points gunderwood and I agree. Hence, my last statement "I sometimes think this is precisely what they want."
It would only take a single event to put the administration into motion. Label the perpetrators of this event as terrorists? Maybe. Maybe not. We've seen they are loathe to use that term. My guess is use it as an excuse to declare martial law and implement certain agendas...(scuse me whilst I adjust my tinfoil hat)...I think it might happen sooner or later and it will be (IMHO) some misguided yahoos who think they can save the country. Well enough, however, it could signal the beginning of the end.
And you are precisely correct...that is why we are getting "free" [sic] health insurance whether we want it or not...
No more catchy slogans for me...I am simply fed up...4...four...4...2+2...
zephyp wrote:Great points gunderwood and I agree. Hence, my last statement "I sometimes think this is precisely what they want."
It would only take a single event to put the administration into motion. Label the perpetrators of this event as terrorists? Maybe. Maybe not. We've seen they are loathe to use that term.
This administration only has problems calling Muslims terrorists.
Yup, I was just thinking of all of those "Constitution Militia's" that fought the Feds off at Ruby Ridge... I mean they were there for a fraction of an inch on a stock.
Lexington and Concord had barrels of powder and cannons at least...talk about an arsenal, they had to stand and fight just to move the stuff!
Edit: Just in case it wasn't clear, I was using sarcasm to illustrate the absurdity of comparing events today with historic events of resistance. I.e. in the Whiskey rebellion they actually attacked the "Feds."
sudo modprobe commonsense
FATAL: Module commonsense not found.
"I think Sarah will have had 4 years to think things through.. And as long as she doesn't listen to the party 'handlers' and remains true to herself and her beliefs, she'd do fine! (alot better than that inexperienced 'community organizer' we're currently stuck with!)
Violence begets violence But sometimes, it's the right answer."
The above is what you wrote Vt800c.
Are you blind or did you just wake up? Obama is President of The United States. Sarah Palin is just completing a book tour, and is considering some type of job with the FOX news division. Wow, so she is doing better than the most powerful person the planet? If the community organizer was so inexperienced and unqualified, please explain how he won the office over I suppose you would say his more experienced and qualified opponents. Are you saying the best slate lost? How was that possible?
Next you want a QUITTER to lead the nation! Why? So a governor who deserted Alaskans and her state showed an unusual toughness and great leadership ability? You mean all that stuff she said about what she did and was going to do for Alaska meant nothing? If she couldn't handle the Alaskan Press, home grown political foes, or even her 18 year old son in law, where's the evidence she could handle the likes of Putin? She has a habit of quitting when the going gets tough, or things don't go her way. From college to state commissions, and now governor quitting is what she does. I never thought I would see America adoring a quitter!
Steve Schmidt, John McCain's campaign manager, deserves a lot of credit for revealing the truth about Mrs Palin. There was absolutely no reason for him, a Republican political operative, to lie about her, or say anything in public. Now we know all the rumors were true. She was McCain's second choice. He truly wanted Senator Lieberman as his VP just days before the Convention. The push back from the Republican leadership was so strong until he was forced to drop that choice.
So out pops Mrs. Palin's name from Steve Schmidt, who remembered her from a "YOU TUBE" clip! She was picked to be a heart beat away from the Presidency based on the most superficial review in modern times! No one on McCain's staff, nor did McCain himself really know much about her. She herself didn't take the VP vetting seriously. I can actually excuse McCain picking her for show. He was true to himself, in that he has always demonstrated a disdain for women except as bed-mates (That's worse than Bill Clinton btw). Even VP Cheney called naming her as VP candidate "Reckless". Peggy Noonan who knows a thing or two about what it takes to be President, after all she was President Reagan's speech writer, Preferred Obama over ANY Republican ticket with Mrs. Palin. Actually the list is endless. It had to exceptionally difficult for Republicans in the hierarchy to turn their backs on their own party! There is only one reason they would do that, i.e. to put the country first! As Schmidt learned right away she was woefully unprepared and did little to really get up to speed. She couldn't even get Senator Biden's name right! The famous line:"Can I call you Joe?" was used to conceal that fact. She still called him O'Biden once during the debate.
It's odd how anyone could rail against the, as you disparagingly call him, the community organizer and wax so eloquently about someone who has showed little ability to lead, or mettle in a crisis, or persistence, or an ability to be accountable for their actions. Mrs. Palin's credo could well be: "THE BUCK STOPS EVERYWHERE BUT WITH ME". From what I read in parts of her book instead of "Going Rogue", I would rename it "It's not my fault", or "I'm too lazy to learn".
Having said this, I can see being taken with Mrs. Palin. She was new, fresh, and incisive. And she was qualified because she met the Constitutional requirements for office. It's funny how people complained that Obama was not qualified but Palin was. All of the candidates were qualified. Of course we know millions of voters choose on a multiplicity of factors most of which have nothing to do with qualifications. Actually we usually mean credentials, since qualifications are in the Constitution.
Now that I know Mrs Palin was totally unprepared: For example she knew virtually nothing about our nation, or the world, or current events, did not put in the hard work to learn, tends to blame others for her mistakes, has trouble with the truth, didn't see a problem with having an anti-America spouse, used her daughter for her political purposes, that's enough for me (and this is from Schmidt and others in the campaign who worked with her). The worse part is Sarah knew her shortcomings and could have done something about them. She is not stupid and has excellent political intuition, so why she chose not to get up to speed is a mystery most of all to the people around her.
In essence we saw Sarah Palin the ice berg, you know 10% visible and the rest, the really dangerous part, under water out of sight! I'm going to take a wild guess why she didn't and still isn't doing what she should to prepare for the Presidency.
1. She has discovered she can make tons of money, so who needs the Presidency. You won't get a complaint from me on this one, more power to her.
2. She can exercise more influence over the shape and philosophy of the Republican Party if she does not have to govern.
3. The adulation from people like you show her she doesn't need to waste time on preparedness, or any of that hard stuff. Her beauty pageant background made her smart and astute enough to know that the image is sometimes the only thing you need to win.
What's so sad is she learned that lesson from US! So this uncritical adulation will paradoxically be the reason she won't become President, that is if she gives it a run. My guess is she won't run.
That's so true about violence vt800, if you take up violence against America for your own narrow political reasons, our government will do right and respond in kind. Oh well I guess we can't all take pride in America's tradition of peaceful transfer of power. When leadership changes from one party another the loser is always gracious in defeat (Btw that's why McCain didn't let Sarah speak, he was afraid she would not be gracious). Guns are not a part of our transfer of power tradition. When the loser concedes he or she does not show up armed, nor do their constituents. Why would they? Lighten up for goodness sakes!!!!
By Gunderwood: This administration only has problems calling Muslims terrorists.
Huh? Either you misspoke or I misunderstood your intent. OK, on second thought, there's no way you meant almost 1.5 billion people are terrorists. I'm guessing you meant they have a problem calling some people terrorists profess to be Muslim? Why should I care what they call them as long as they are apprehended before they act and punished accordingly?
What is this preoccupation with the word "terrorist"? What in the heck am I missing?
Re: America Rising: An Open Letter to Democrat Politicians
Postby gunderwood » Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:12:12
zephyp wrote:Indeed and the people are peeved. I wonder what's going to happen when congress starts talking about the amnesty bill introduced back in mid-December? I think that's next up on their agenda once they shove this health care crap down our throats. I've watched this administration and congress do nothing but stack wood around the country and pour gasoline over it. Sooner or later it will be sparked. I sometimes think this is precisely what they want.
Thought exercise only...
Thought exercises are fine but allow me to correct some of your errors:
What Americans don't like are "INSURRECTIONISTS" , i.e. those Americans who seek to destroy the Union by violence or take it over by violence.
Americans don't like other Americans who don the cloak of Patriotism to justify violence against other Americans to solve a political problem
Americans will uphold anyone's right to peacefully protest anything, even if they don't like what is being protested. Well some Americans will.
Americans will ruthlessly put down a violent insurrection the same as we did before! Can anyone tell me why most of the people who even think about insurrection seem to originate in the South? They lost before and sure as hell would lose again! Anyway the majority of Southerners couldn't be conned again by a small cabal of men to revolt against the United States! I'm no different than millions of other Southerners in that thought.
To the good people of Boston dumping over almost 8,000 lbs of tea in a harbor where millions is being spent to reverse the pollution is not an act of protest, it's an act of idiocy that's no different than throwing blood and red paint on the Pentagon, or on the soldiers who surrounded the Pentagon during the 60s.
Come on guys you need to get back into Saul Alinsky's writings if you are going to peacefully protest. Never thought I would see the day when the far Right Wing would learn to use the tactics of the far Left Wing! Good for them. But wait: I almost forgot, some of Right Wing ideology came from disaffected Left Wingers. The more you know, the more confusing it is!
Respectfully: Jim
Btw are you still an American if you are an insurrectionist? My guess is they would all be named enemy combatants!
gatlingun6 wrote:
Are you blind or did you just wake up? Obama is President of The United States. Sarah Palin is just completing a book tour, and is considering some type of job with the FOX news division. Wow, so she is doing better than the most powerful person the planet? If the community organizer was so inexperienced and unqualified, please explain how he won the office over I suppose you would say his more experienced and qualified opponents. Are you saying the best slate lost? How was that possible?
One way it was possible:
"The great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter a chance to do something stupid." - Art Spander.
Another way it might have been possible:
gatlingun6 wrote:
Next you want a QUITTER to lead the nation! Why? So a governor who deserted Alaskans and her state showed an unusual toughness and great leadership ability? You mean all that stuff she said about what she did and was going to do for Alaska meant nothing? If she couldn't handle the Alaskan Press, home grown political foes, or even her 18 year old son in law, where's the evidence she could handle the likes of Putin? She has a habit of quitting when the going gets tough, or things don't go her way. From college to state commissions, and now governor quitting is what she does. I never thought I would see America adoring a quitter!
Obama would have actually had to do something before we could call him a quitter. Give me 5 solid examples of his leadership skills and accomplishments - and if you choose to use ACORN, lets all remember how they helped a pimp and his prostitute to cover their actions and didn't bat an eye at the plan to bring underage children to the US to use in their prostitution ring.... Not even something I'd put on a resume for McDonalds, but feel free to use ACORN as an example as I simultaneously laugh and cry...
gatlingun6 wrote:
Steve Schmidt, John McCain's campaign manager, deserves a lot of credit for revealing the truth about Mrs Palin. There was absolutely no reason for him, a Republican political operative, to lie about her, or say anything in public. Now we know all the rumors were true. She was McCain's second choice. He truly wanted Senator Lieberman as his VP just days before the Convention. The push back from the Republican leadership was so strong until he was forced to drop that choice.
So out pops Mrs. Palin's name from Steve Schmidt, who remembered her from a "YOU TUBE" clip! She was picked to be a heart beat away from the Presidency based on the most superficial review in modern times! No one on McCain's staff, nor did McCain himself really know much about her. She herself didn't take the VP vetting seriously. I can actually excuse McCain picking her for show. He was true to himself, in that he has always demonstrated a disdain for women except as bed-mates (That's worse than Bill Clinton btw). Even VP Cheney called naming her as VP candidate "Reckless". Peggy Noonan who knows a thing or two about what it takes to be President, after all she was President Reagan's speech writer, Preferred Obama over ANY Republican ticket with Mrs. Palin. Actually the list is endless. It had to exceptionally difficult for Republicans in the hierarchy to turn their backs on their own party! There is only one reason they would do that, i.e. to put the country first! As Schmidt learned right away she was woefully unprepared and did little to really get up to speed. She couldn't even get Senator Biden's name right! The famous line:"Can I call you Joe?" was used to conceal that fact. She still called him O'Biden once during the debate.
Who cares what Peggy Noonan thinks? Do you vote what Peggy Noonan votes because you can't think for yourself? I don't care who wins an election and who loses, it's dirty business and you can find anyone on any side which has nasty little details... While we're on the subject (you brought it up) since it's obvious it's a HUGE issue to you that she didn't get "O'Bidens" name right, I'll expect you to write your letter asking him to step down for all of the verbal gaff's he's committed. Since you're such a stickler for the details.
gatlingun6 wrote:
It's odd how anyone could rail against the, as you disparagingly call him, the community organizer and wax so eloquently about someone who has showed little ability to lead, or mettle in a crisis, or persistence, or an ability to be accountable for their actions. Mrs. Palin's credo could well be: "THE BUCK STOPS EVERYWHERE BUT WITH ME". From what I read in parts of her book instead of "Going Rogue", I would rename it "It's not my fault", or "I'm too lazy to learn".
It's amazing how you wax philosophical about your fearless leader who has never done anything except live off of your tax dollars (community organizer, senator, blah blah blah) but decide to attack a working mom who actually governed a state. Obama's credo should be "The Buck Stops Here but It Ain't Worth Anything Anymore so Oh Well" As for "It's Not My Fault" how much longer is Obama gonna blame Bush?
gatlingun6 wrote:
Having said this, I can see being taken with Mrs. Palin. She was new, fresh, and incisive. And she was qualified because she met the Constitutional requirements for office. It's funny how people complained that Obama was not qualified but Palin was. All of the candidates were qualified. Of course we know millions of voters choose on a multiplicity of factors most of which have nothing to do with qualifications. Actually we usually mean credentials, since qualifications are in the Constitution.
Agreed. An example of those credentials was in the video posted above. In case you've forgotten, please scroll up and watch it again to see what you're defending.
gatlingun6 wrote:
Now that I know Mrs Palin was totally unprepared: For example she knew virtually nothing about our nation, or the world, or current events, did not put in the hard work to learn, tends to blame others for her mistakes, has trouble with the truth, didn't see a problem with having an anti-America spouse, used her daughter for her political purposes, that's enough for me (and this is from Schmidt and others in the campaign who worked with her). The worse part is Sarah knew her shortcomings and could have done something about them. She is not stupid and has excellent political intuition, so why she chose not to get up to speed is a mystery most of all to the people around her.
Where to start - blame others? Knew nothing about our nation? Who said they visited all 57 states? (Obama) The world? Lets give the Queen an iPod with our speeches (how tacky can you be? Obama...) Did not put in the hard work to learn - you go run a state and tell me how you do... Obama didn't put in any hard work either. Blames others for mistakes? Oh yeah, that would be George W. Bush's fault (Obama) Doesn't see a problem with Anti-American people? Um, Hello! The Weathermen, Ayers... (Obama) I could fill up a 55 gallon barrel of crap that is Obama and you'd eat it with your rose colored glasses on saying it was the best $#!+ you'd ever had...
gatlingun6 wrote:
In essence we saw Sarah Palin the ice berg, you know 10% visible and the rest, the really dangerous part, under water out of sight! I'm going to take a wild guess why she didn't and still isn't doing what she should to prepare for the Presidency.
1. She has discovered she can make tons of money, so who needs the Presidency. You won't get a complaint from me on this one, more power to her.
2. She can exercise more influence over the shape and philosophy of the Republican Party if she does not have to govern.
3. The adulation from people like you show her she doesn't need to waste time on preparedness, or any of that hard stuff. Her beauty pageant background made her smart and astute enough to know that the image is sometimes the only thing you need to win.
What's so sad is she learned that lesson from US! So this uncritical adulation will paradoxically be the reason she won't become President, that is if she gives it a run. My guess is she won't run.
The image is the only thing you need to win, huh? Refer back yet again to the video. What kind of image does that present?
gatlingun6 wrote:
That's so true about violence vt800, if you take up violence against America for your own narrow political reasons, our government will do right and respond in kind. Oh well I guess we can't all take pride in America's tradition of peaceful transfer of power. When leadership changes from one party another the loser is always gracious in defeat (Btw that's why McCain didn't let Sarah speak, he was afraid she would not be gracious). Guns are not a part of our transfer of power tradition. When the loser concedes he or she does not show up armed, nor do their constituents. Why would they? Lighten up for goodness sakes!!!!
Respectfully Jim
Only time will tell
Always gracious in defeat? Gee, wally, where were you when Al Gore was suing everywhere he could file when he got beat in 2000?
Since guns are not a part of our transfer of power, lets get rid of all the police and military at the next transfer. Or at least ban the guns. Any reason they shouldn't, since you said so?
Si vis pacem, para bellum. Resistance to Tyranny is Obedience to God.
gatlingun6 wrote:by zephyp » Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:35:44
Oops!! I stand corrected. How could I have possibly forgotten the DHS report released a little less than a year ago.
OK Mr Z. against my better judgment, I'll bite: What DHS report?
Respectfully: Jim
Dear Jim,
That would be the report where your liberal buddies labeled guys like me as an extremist prone to terrorist activities. And let us not forget they lumped veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan into the same group. And Christians, and those against abortion, and those against illegal immigration, and those afraid for their economic security, and those against higher taxes, and and and...
Warmest regards,
DK
No more catchy slogans for me...I am simply fed up...4...four...4...2+2...
Guns WERE part of the "transfer of power" in 1776! It was with this in mind that the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution. It is why we MUST retain the God given right to protect and defend ourselves, our families and our nation against those like Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Company who is intent on destroying our freedom and way of life. If "Jim", or "gatlingun6" or whoever or whatever he is sees no dangers in Obama and his "changes" then he has his head so far up his backside that if he sneezes he will blow the buttons off of his shirt!
When you've never said the Pledge of Allegiance before, you don't know what to do without a TelePrompTer.
pledge.jpg (12.95 KiB) Viewed 2558 times
They have their left hands (note the wedding rings) over their right chest. Not the right hand over their hearts!
Oh, try placing your left hand over your right chest and repeat after me "I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE" . Feels so
awkward. What kind of people could actually do this?
Improvise, Overcome, Adapt
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
T Jefferson
Someone who has never been proud of their country, someone who has never served in the military, someone who has NO allegiance to this country.....someone who has stolen the highest office in our land in order to destroy it! THAT is the kind of people who could actually do this!
moss20 wrote:When you've never said the Pledge of Allegiance before, you don't know what to do without a TelePrompTer.
pledge.jpg (12.95 KiB) Viewed 2546 times
They have their left hands (note the wedding rings) over their right chest. Not the right hand over their hearts!
Oh, try placing your left hand over your right chest and repeat after me "I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE" . Feels so
awkward. What kind of people could actually do this?
I don't agree with President Obama's policies and politics either, but this photo (and the email that often accompanies it) is a hoax.
It is a cropped, mirror-image of the original which was taken on the White House lawn during a commemoration ceremony for the victims of 9-11 on 11 Sep 09. The original photo was published in Newsday. This hoax has photoshopped rings on the Obamas' left hands and photoshopped reverse buttons on his jacket. The hoaxer tried to blur the Marine in the background, but made a mistake when he forgot about the Marine's medals. Even though they are blurred, you can still see them above the wrong pocket on the Marine's uniform.
gatlingun6 wrote:By Gunderwood: This administration only has problems calling Muslims terrorists.
Huh? Either you misspoke or I misunderstood your intent. OK, on second thought, there's no way you meant almost 1.5 billion people are terrorists. I'm guessing you meant they have a problem calling some people terrorists profess to be Muslim? Why should I care what they call them as long as they are apprehended before they act and punished accordingly?
What is this preoccupation with the word "terrorist"? What in the heck am I missing?
Respectfully Jim
We (I) Don't Do Fear
You misunderstood. Being Muslim does not make someone a terrorist, nor does being a terrorist make someone a Muslim. Statistically, most of the terrorism against the United States is commited by Muslims, but that is irrelevant to the comment. As others have pointed out, when ever a terrorist happens to be a Muslim this Administration goes out of its way to call it anything but what it is (E.g. man made disaster). When American citizens who disagree with this administrations' politics and soldiers returning from Iraq/Afghanistan do nothing but attempt to exercise their other rights such as to protest this administration, you get government organizations like DHS reporting them as potential terrorists.
Why should I care what they call them as long as they are apprehended before they act and punished accordingly?
You should care because the first step to having an intelligent discussion about anything requires some level of classification. Ever wonder why symbolic logic starts with defining A and not A? To the ignorant this seems dumb...perhaps you are a metaphysical/epistemological nihilist and deny this sort of logic?
sudo modprobe commonsense
FATAL: Module commonsense not found.
gatlingun6 wrote:* Report this post
* Reply with quote
Re: America Rising: An Open Letter to Democrat Politicians
Postby gunderwood » Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:12:12
zephyp wrote:Indeed and the people are peeved. I wonder what's going to happen when congress starts talking about the amnesty bill introduced back in mid-December? I think that's next up on their agenda once they shove this health care crap down our throats. I've watched this administration and congress do nothing but stack wood around the country and pour gasoline over it. Sooner or later it will be sparked. I sometimes think this is precisely what they want.
Thought exercise only...
Thought exercises are fine but allow me to correct some of your errors:
What Americans don't like are "INSURRECTIONISTS" , i.e. those Americans who seek to destroy the Union by violence or take it over by violence.
Americans don't like other Americans who don the cloak of Patriotism to justify violence against other Americans to solve a political problem
Americans will uphold anyone's right to peacefully protest anything, even if they don't like what is being protested. Well some Americans will.
Americans will ruthlessly put down a violent insurrection the same as we did before! Can anyone tell me why most of the people who even think about insurrection seem to originate in the South? They lost before and sure as hell would lose again! Anyway the majority of Southerners couldn't be conned again by a small cabal of men to revolt against the United States! I'm no different than millions of other Southerners in that thought.
To the good people of Boston dumping over almost 8,000 lbs of tea in a harbor where millions is being spent to reverse the pollution is not an act of protest, it's an act of idiocy that's no different than throwing blood and red paint on the Pentagon, or on the soldiers who surrounded the Pentagon during the 60s.
Come on guys you need to get back into Saul Alinsky's writings if you are going to peacefully protest. Never thought I would see the day when the far Right Wing would learn to use the tactics of the far Left Wing! Good for them. But wait: I almost forgot, some of Right Wing ideology came from disaffected Left Wingers. The more you know, the more confusing it is!
Respectfully: Jim
Btw are you still an American if you are an insurrectionist? My guess is they would all be named enemy combatants!
I grabbed Webster's 1913 dictionary (partially because it towards to top of my search and no, I wasn't looking it up for my edification):http://www.webster-dictionary.org/defin ... surrection
Of course the definition of an insurrectionist is boring, one who participates in an insurrection.
1. A rising against civil or political authority, or the established government; open and active opposition to the execution of law in a city or state.
2. A rising in mass to oppose an enemy.
Based on your response I assume you were using the word to imply one who participates in the first meaning. An interesting comparison would be how an insurrectionist compares to a revolutionary or revolutionist. I.e. one who participates in a revolution. Sticking with the same dictionary so you can't accuse me of hand selecting my definitions. the first couple of meanings are not relevant to this discussion (rotating bodies and such). http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/Revolution
7. A fundamental change in political organization, or in a government or constitution; the overthrow or renunciation of one government, and the substitution of another, by the governed.
1. The act of rebelling; open and avowed renunciation of the authority of the government to which one owes obedience, and resistance to its officers and laws, either by levying war, or by aiding others to do so; an organized uprising of subjects for the purpose of coercing or overthrowing their lawful ruler or government by force; revolt; insurrection.
2. Open resistance to, or defiance of, lawful authority.
So what is the difference between an insurrection and a revolution? Partially perspective. The colonist weren't considered by most British (or at least those who really had influence) to be participating in a revolution, but rather a rebellion or insurrection. The government being overthrown rarely declares the over-throwers as revolutionaries or freedom fighters. However, there is an interesting observation between these words. Insurrection and rebellion focus on the resistance to upholding the law and/or to the state, while revolution is resistance to replace a government by the governed. Insurrection and rebellion make no such illusions as to the make up of the rebels. Rebellion includes the additional idea that allegiance is due to the government being rebelled against, while our founding fathers (revolutionaries) made it clear the ties or allegiances were broken and their actions justified. Perhaps a read of the Declaration and Jonathan Mayhew's Sermon, "When is Resistance Duty" is in order?
The point? Lawful citizens of every country hate insurrections and rebellions (when they are actually such and not simply labeled as such buy a tyrannical government) by definition as allegiance is still rightfully due to the government being resisted. Revolution is quite different and great responsibility is required of anyone who partakes in such an endeavour. Repeated attempted redress of grievances for starters. Declaration of intent for another. Etc.
I'm not really sure what your stating here besides the obvious. Anyways, I'm not from the South, I'm a Yankee.
gatlingun6 wrote:To the good people of Boston dumping over almost 8,000 lbs of tea in a harbor where millions is being spent to reverse the pollution is not an act of protest...
Umm, you mean the 1M tea bags they wanted to dump on the ground in Washington D.C.? I'm pretty sure no-one was actually considering dumping the tea into any body of water.
gatlingun6 wrote:Btw are you still an American if you are an insurrectionist? My guess is they would all be named enemy combatants!
So let me get this right. Non-US citizens commit terrorism, get caught, and they get Constitutional protections and civil trials, but if an American citizen does the same thing, they become enemy combatants and have no rights? Please tell you either haven't thought this through or were simply stating what you think the idiots in Washington (regardless of party) would do?
P.S. Country not equal to government.
sudo modprobe commonsense
FATAL: Module commonsense not found.
gatlingun6 wrote:So this uncritical adulation will paradoxically be the reason [Sarah Palin] won't become President. . . .
Hmmm. . . . Who knows at this time whether or not she might become the President, but I doubt "uncritical adulation" will have anything to do with it.
I've been voting since 1976, and I've been following presidential elections since a junior high school assignment in 1964, and during that time there has never been so much uncritical fawning and devotion as Obama has received.
Jim, while I might agree with you on some things, I don't with regard to President Obama and the pass he was given by the American press and public during the campaign. I would have preferred to have heard more unbiased but thorough discussions and commentaries about his views on Bill Ayers and left-wing domestic terrorism, his early Illinois political relationship with and endorsement by the Democratic Socialist Alliance, Jeremiah Wright and Marxist liberation theology, Saul Alinsky and community activism, the redistribution/transfer of wealth, his mentor Frank Marshal Davis and the American Communist Party, and so on. All of his past travelings in these areas have been uncritically ignored, and any uncritical adulation that Sarah Palin has received pales in comparison to the uncritical adulation heaped on Barrack Obama
From mainstream print news (Newsweek Editor: "Obama is sort of God!"):
From mainstream television news (MSNBC Host: "The feeling most people get . . . my, I get a thrill up my leg! . . . And that is an objective assessment"):
From schools (The Obama Youth Brigade):
From middle class families ("We're gonna spread happiness; We're gonna spread freedom. . . .":
From the underclass ("I won't have to . . . ."):
From the African-American community (McCain or Obama?):
Even Jib-Jab gets it that this unrealistic and unthinking devotion to Barrack Obama was and is wrong:
I have an observation on the pictures of Comrade Obama incorrectly placing his hand on the right side instead of the correct left side. Notice in the first picture that not only is the wedding bands on the hands placed over the chest, but the had is on the side OPPOSITE of the lapel pin. In the second picture, the hand is BENEATH the lapel pin, where it should be. Therefore I submit that the first picture had not be altered, or "mirror imaged" but that it is a real shot of the event. I further submit that when the event started someone saw the error taking place and corrected the Obamas, and the second pictures was taken. Since the MSM is so enamored with the Obama regime it would not have made the news. If any conservative president had done this it would have been on CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC and all the other outlets!
I mean they were there for a fraction of an inch on a stock. 
