• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Death to Obama' sign holder in Md. detained

Devil505 said:
Tyrants like FDR, Kennedy, Reagan & almost all Presidents?
Click to expand...
You are obvious being obtuse, and need to educate yourself. However FDR is a prime example, I'll give you that.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x59wNGHe6iI"]YouTube - President Reagan - Government is the Problem[/ame]
 
hiswoman said:
Methinks people are more focused on the death threat part, understandably so.
Click to expand...

And yet it was not long ago how we were hearing all about "the left" and making fun of Palin's kids.
 
Redress said:
And yet it was not long ago how we were hearing all about "the left" and making fun of Palin's kids.
Click to expand...

I think it was a bit more mainstream than one loon with a sign.
 
Harshaw said:
I think it was a bit more mainstream than one loon with a sign.
Click to expand...

One example was a low budget blogger, and we heard about that one for weeks. Hell, in reality, Letterman is only one guy, and according to those throwing the fit, a left wing loon.
 
Redress said:
One example was a low budget blogger, and we heard about that one for weeks. Hell, in reality, Letterman is only one guy, and according to those throwing the fit, a left wing loon.
Click to expand...

:roll:

If you say so. Hardly worth the energy to correct you.
 
Redress said:
You do not see the selective outrage?
Click to expand...

That both sides are guilty of. Geez this sounds like nursery school.

"You started it!"
"Nuh uh, you did!"
"No, you did!"
"Did not!"
"Did too!"
And on....
And on...
Etc....

How annoying. :roll:
 
American said:
Obama wants more government power over the people. Only tyrannts want that.
Click to expand...

Like 'socialism' the actual definition and connotation of the word 'tyrant' is being tossed aside for whatever is convenient to the far-right and Obama-haters.

Dictionaries be damned, right American?:roll::doh
 
hiswoman said:
That both sides are guilty of. Geez this sounds like nursery school.

"You started it!"
"Nuh uh, you did!"
"No, you did!"
"Did not!"
"Did too!"
And on....
And on...
Etc....

How annoying. :roll:
Click to expand...

And yet I found jokes about Palin's kids to be in poor taste at best...
 
hiswoman said:
Haven't read through the entire thread yet, but at first glance, this little stunt strikes me as being along the same lines as making bomb jokes while standing in line at the airport. Just plain stupid. Moron deserved to be locked up. What an idiot. :roll:
Click to expand...

Apples to oranges - the sign is understandable - the airport jokes stuff - like the rest of TSA security theater - is just idiotic bull****.
 
Travelsonic said:
Apples to oranges - the sign is understandable - the airport jokes stuff - like the rest of TSA security theater - is just idiotic bull****.
Click to expand...

I see it differently. Most (intelligent) people know that there are certain lines you just don't cross. Frankly, I'm glad such comments about bombs are taken seriously. That's me or my loved one(s) 33,000 feet in the air. Not to mention there are signs posted all over the airport warning against such comments. Anyone who fails to heed those warnings deserves what they get.
 
Redress said:
And yet I found jokes about Palin's kids to be in poor taste at best...
Click to expand...

Was the name-calling in poor taste? Yes, definitely. Of the multiple issues with that sign, the death threat against those two little girls sorta trumps everything else. Maybe it's a Mommy/Parent thing.
 
celticlord said:
I'd say you misinterpreted both Jefferson and me.

It also was not a condemnation of insurrection. You overlooked a crucial sentence:
He also stood for the virtue of rebellion and uprising ("protest", in other words) as a sobering reminder to the government that final power vests in the people.
Click to expand...
Sure he said it was honorable but he also said it was based out of ignorance. You have to take everything he said as a whole. The whole tree of liberty thing was a statement on our history he stated that when those who rise up in arms we must set them straight with the facts. He said it was natural that people would take up arms but he also did not wish for people to do so. Again there is no reasoning for armed insurrection in this country at this time. Otherwise we would have had it a few years ago when things were going worse.

You also have to take into account Jefferson's actions afterwards
celticlord said:
Jefferson has a much clearer statement on the matter, the Declaration of Independence:
Click to expand...

How about we take note during Jefferson's time in power. While governor of Virginia Jefferson himself had to deal with armed insurrection in the spring of 1781. Jefferson stated that the insurrection must be subdued as laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by the individual. Kinda contrary to what he said before. You can read this in Jefferson's letter to Garret Van Meter
Thomas Jefferson to Garret Van Meter
27 Apr. 1781Papers 5:566

I am sorry such a Spirit of Disobedience has shewn itself in your County; it must be subdued. Laws made by common Consent must not be trampled on by Individuals. It is very much the Interest of the good to force the unworthy into their due Share of Contributions to the Public Support, otherwise the burthen on them will become oppressive indeed. We have no power by the law of raising Cavalry in the Counties generally, but on some similar Occasions we have recommended to the County Lieutenants, who have the power of forming their Militia Companies as they please, to form into one Company such Individuals of their Militia as will engage to mount and equip themselves and to serve as mounted Infantry and we give Commissions to the Officers in the ordinary Stile. These may be used as effectually as Cavalry, and men on horseback have been found the most certain Instrument of public punishment.

Their best way too perhaps is not to go against the mutineers when embodied which would bring on perhaps an open Rebellion or Bloodshed most certainly, but when they shall have dispersed to go and take them out of their Beds, singly and without Noise, or if they be not found the first time to go again and again so that they may never be able to remain in quiet at home. This is what I must recommend to you and therefore furnish the Bearers with the Commissions as you desire.

If you find this Service considerable you will of Course give the Individuals Credit for it as a Tour of Duty.
Click to expand...

celticlord said:
Jefferson was not a forceful advocate for armed insurrection as the natural remedy for a nation's political ailments, but he firmly believed that the capacity for rebellion--displayed now and again by a distempered people for whatever wrongs may be apprehended--was the very best check on governmental excess.
Click to expand...

And yet when he was in power he quelled rebellion and said that insurrection went against the common good.
 
PogueMoran said:
Sure he said it was honorable but he also said it was based out of ignorance. You have to take everything he said as a whole. The whole tree of liberty thing was a statement on our history he stated that when those who rise up in arms we must set them straight with the facts. He said it was natural that people would take up arms but he also did not wish for people to do so. Again there is no reasoning for armed insurrection in this country at this time. Otherwise we would have had it a few years ago when things were going worse.
Click to expand...
That claim of ignorance applies to Shays' rebellion only. There is nothing in that letter which transposes that statement to rebellion overall. His commentary on Shays' may be summarized thus: It was a rebellion done right but for wrong reasons. That is not the same as saying rebellion never has right reasons, which is what you are suggesting.

PogueMoran said:
And yet when he was in power he quelled rebellion and said that insurrection went against the common good.
Click to expand...
Someone in power found that a rebellion against him was for the wrong reasons? Shocking!:doh
 
celticlord said:
That claim of ignorance applies to Shays' rebellion only. There is nothing in that letter which transposes that statement to rebellion overall. His commentary on Shays' may be summarized thus: It was a rebellion done right but for wrong reasons. That is not the same as saying rebellion never has right reasons, which is what you are suggesting.
Click to expand...
And yet there's nothing that says the tree of liberty quote also didn't apply to just that situation.

celticlord said:
Someone in power found that a rebellion against him was for the wrong reasons? Shocking!:doh
Click to expand...
Yeah I know jefferson must have been a total hypocrite. Claiming its okay to rebel then crushing one himself. There goes the need to quoting him as an excuse to rebel
 
PogueMoran said:
And yet there's nothing that says the tree of liberty quote also didn't apply to just that situation.
Click to expand...
Except the fact that it is general language speaking of rebellion generally. Other than that, and the total lack of specific reference to Shay's Rebellion, nothing at all.:roll:

PogueMoran said:
Yeah I know jefferson must have been a total hypocrite. Claiming its okay to rebel then crushing one himself. There goes the need to quoting him as an excuse to rebel
Click to expand...
Not a hypocrite at all. Merely the difference in perspective. When you're the rebel you have all the justification in the world. When you're the target of the rebellion, the rebels have no justification at all.

The key thing that Jefferson understood, that his letter highlights, and that everyone should remember is that the quality of the justification for rebellion is the decision of the rebel, not the government. If you don't want others to rebel, make damn sure they don't ever get around to thinking (no matter how "wrongly") that rebellion is a right idea.
 
American said:
Obama wants more government power over the people. Only tyrannts want that.
Click to expand...

So just so we understand fully what it is you define as a tyrant by seeing examples. You think Obama is one. Was FDR a tyrant for his expansive nature of government? What about George W. Bush with his further government power over travel, communication, privacy, education, and prescription drugs?
 
celticlord said:
They don't really have a choice.

  • John Wilkes Booth
  • Charles Giteau
  • Leon Czolgosz
  • Lee Harvey Oswald
  • John Hinkley, Jr.
"Some nut" is the one most likely to actually get a gun and make good on the silly sign.
Click to expand...

Were they holding signs...or guns?

I am just saying its the silent planners that are more dangerous. Someone taking an alternative method of venting should of course be checked out.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
It was wrong when they were burning effigies of Bush. It's wrong now. Disagreements with the President do not warrant physical attacks on them.
Click to expand...

Well I think that all depends on the extent of the disagreement. A disagreement on healthcare absolutly not. Now if a president were pushing for lets say slavery then I could see it being a viable possibility.
 
American said:
Obama wants more government power over the people. Only tyrannts want that.
Click to expand...

Tyrants, Republicans, and Democrats. Which one is Obama?

Dick Cheney scowls alot. Only vampires do that?:lol::2razz:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom