• 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

Dr_Patrick said:
I don't make assertions like the one you did without proof prepared just in case someone asks me to back it up. It's kind of common sense. Here again you are making claims about me now that you most likely can't back up. By the way, which insults are you referring to? Nowhere in my replies to your posts did I insult you.
Click to expand...

You never make assertions, period. You harrass other members.
 
apdst said:
You never make assertions, period. You harrass other members.
Click to expand...

Once again, making claims that you can't back up. Expecting you to have proof to back up your claims isn't harassment. You are just lashing out because you have nothing to back them up with.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Once again, making claims that you can't back up. Expecting you to have proof to back up your claims isn't harassment. You are just lashing out because you have nothing to back them up with.
Click to expand...

I'll say this, again, I was expressing an opinion, just like everyone else that remarked about Jefferson. Is there some rule that says that a poster has to provide info to support his/her opinion? I think we all know the answer to that, just like you knew I was expressing an opinion and you just like to start ****.
 
apdst said:
I'll say this, again, I was expressing an opinion, just like everyone else that remarked about Jefferson. Is there some rule that says that a poster has to provide info to support his/her opinion? I think we all know the answer to that, just like you knew I was expressing an opinion and you just like to start ****.
Click to expand...

There was no indication from your post that it was just an opinion. If there had been I wouldn't have even commented. You made an absolute comment like you know for a fact that he felt that way.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
There was no indication from your post that it was just an opinion. If there had been I wouldn't have even commented. You made an absolute comment like you know for a fact that he felt that way.
Click to expand...

Althought I didn't expressly admit that I was posting my opinion, at some point common sense must prevail for one to figure it out on his own. If you believe my opinion is wrong, you're more than welcome to post information proving so, but, we know that'll never happen.
 
apdst said:
Althought I didn't expressly admit that I was posting my opinion, at some point common sense must prevail for one to figure it out on his own. If you believe my opinion is wrong, you're more than welcome to post information proving so, but, we know that'll never happen.
Click to expand...

Like I said, if there were any indication that it was an opinion such as "In my opinion, Jefferson would advocate execution" that would be one thing. You stated an absolute. You can't get all offended when reasonably ask for proof when you make absolute statements. I don't know how to make it any clearer.
 
Only the Coolaid drinkers (and mixers) are offended.. their protest is indicative of the social(ist) thugocracy!

The rest of us are just SLIGHTLY sad for this guy and assume he'd be prosecuted.. along with the "Zombie signholder".. and PETA.. and Code Pink..and SIEU.. and AFLCIO.. and... well you get the picture..

Otherwise I don't give a rat's patooty!
 
ConservaBill said:
Only the Coolaid drinkers (and mixers) are offended.. their protest is indicative of the social(ist) thugocracy!
Click to expand...

Death threats against the President are illegal and should be taken very seriously.
 
Whineston,

PLEASE read a couple words further and see: "assume he'd be prosecuted.."

...and please put down the coolaid, as it seems to be affecting your vision now..:mrgreen:
 
Zyphlin said:
Do you think Jefferson, based on the quote YOU decided to inject into this thread (which I imagine had a point rather than just to troll), would think this man was a Patriot? (based on how you used it and your response, it seems you believe not)

Do you think Jefferson, baed on the quote YOU decided to inject into this thread, would think that the man holding the Bush sign was a Patriot?
Click to expand...
Is Jefferson's quote not clear to you?
 
ConservaBill said:
Whineston,

PLEASE read a couple words further and see: "assume he'd be prosecuted.."

...and please put down the coolaid, as it seems to be affecting your vision now..:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I would and have said the same thing in regards to Bush. Death threats against the President are illegal and should be taken very seriously.
 
American said:
Is Jefferson's quote not clear to you?
Click to expand...

Doding and deflecting American.

I'm not asking you about what I think of it, I'm asking what you think of it.

You stated based on his quote that he would disagree with Haz's description of the guy as "not one of us", as us being Americans or as Jefferson's quote called it Patriots.

So, as a seeming expert on what Jefferson would think, based on the quote you posted, do you believe he would feel the same way about the person calling for the death of Bush.
 
Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids
Click to expand...

Where is the outrage over some one calling Obama's daughters names?
 
Zyphlin said:
Doding and deflecting American.

I'm not asking you about what I think of it, I'm asking what you think of it.

You stated based on his quote that he would disagree with Haz's description of the guy as "not one of us", as us being Americans or as Jefferson's quote called it Patriots.

So, as a seeming expert on what Jefferson would think, based on the quote you posted, do you believe he would feel the same way about the person calling for the death of Bush.
Click to expand...
I don't think party has anything to do with it. I think Jefferson considered revolution the only way to maintain the society envisioned by the founders. I don't think he was joking about the blood of tyrannts and patriots. He knew very well his words would be measured. Do I wish the death of our president...no.
 
Last edited:
American said:
Some would disagree with you.
Click to expand...

'The blood of Patriots and Tyrants.'

Aw, yes, the sign. I was wondering when that was going to come up.

IMO - the armed jackass holding that sing was not a patriot. Why? For one thing there is not Tyrant that I know of on the entire North American Continent. There is a democratically elected American president who ran on a liberal platform of expanding government in specific areas. A patriot, a reasonable, sensible American patriot, whether he voted for this liberal candidate or not, respects the Constitution and the election process.

No, American, Thomas Jefferson would not disagree with me.

The jamoke with the sign was out to make a point about the 2nd amendment. He holds that extreme delusion that Obama is going to dismantle the Constitution and take away his guns.

An intelligent, reasonable patriot knows that is just not the case. A moderately liberal expansion of government in certain areas, perhaps; but that is hardly a Tyrant.

The loser got off easy IMO. Some psychiatric counseling and basic course in American civics should be ordered.
 
No one should ever wish death upon the President, no matter how much you disagree with their political positions. I dislike both Bush and Obama to no end, but would never wish even a sore throat upon them.
 
apdst said:
No one else posted actual quotes by Jefferson. Why do I have to, all of a sudden?
Click to expand...
Because what you posted was ridiculous.
 
celticlord said:
Depends on how it was stated. Jefferson would approve of a mob saying they needed to take the President and string him up. Can't see Jefferson being supportive of some whack job saying someone else should take the President and string him up.

If you read Jefferson's comment closely, you'll see he gives credit to the folks who, like himself and the other Founding Fathers, are willing to put their lives on the line for what they believed in. Folks who lack the courage to do that are better off just keeping their grumblings to themselves.
Click to expand...

I'd say you misinterpret what Jefferson said about watering the tree of liberty. You have to take into context what he meant in the full letter along with the historical significance of it.

Lets all take the time to read the full quote before deciding what jefferson stated. It was not an open call for insurrection.

From Thomas Jefferson to William Smith




Paris, November 13, 1787

DEAR SIR, -- I am now to acknoledge the receipt of your favors of October the 4th, 8th, & 26th. In the last you apologise for your letters of introduction to Americans coming here. It is so far from needing apology on your part, that it calls for thanks on mine. I endeavor to show civilities to all the Americans who come here, & will give me opportunities of doing it: and it is a matter of comfort to know from a good quarter what they are, & how far I may go in my attentions to them. Can you send me Woodmason's bills for the two copying presses for the M. de la Fayette, & the M. de Chastellux? The latter makes one article in a considerable account, of old standing, and which I cannot present for want of this article. -- I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: & very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: & what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent & persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted. -- You ask me if any thing transpires here on the subject of S. America? Not a word. I know that there are combustible materials there, and that they wait the torch only. But this country probably will join the extinguishers. -- The want of facts worth communicating to you has occasioned me to give a little loose to dissertation. We must be contented to amuse, when we cannot inform.
Click to expand...

Lets give some context here. In the beginning Jefferson was talking about what he read about the proposed bills for the constitution. He thought some were bad and some were good and feared giving too much power to the executive. His fear was that a president could raise an army only loyal to him. The next part:
Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honorably conducted? I say nothing of its motives.
Click to expand...

This refers to the shays rebellion where people took up arms against the government. He then goes on to say

They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness.
Click to expand...

The motives of the Shayites to Jefferson were founded in ignorance much like a lot of the shouters we're seeing at these town halls.

What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.
Click to expand...

Jefferson then asks what remedy the people have but to take up arms. But in the following sentence he talks about what to do when people take up arms.

The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them.
Click to expand...

Jefferson's solution to rebellion was to set people right on the facts then pardon them peacefully. He stood for a peaceful solutions not for armed insurrection.
 
American said:
I don't think party has anything to do with it. I think Jefferson considered revolution the only way to maintain the society envisioned by the founders. I don't think he was joking about the blood of tyrannts and patriots. He knew very well his words would be measured. Do I wish the death of our president...no.
Click to expand...

So thise who called for Bush's death you think Jefferson would've also considered Patriots. This is odd to me as whenever such came up in the past and conservatives here called those people unamerican....even rev in the past few days I thi.k...I don't remember you touting Jeffersons words for why they are wrong.

So while Jefferson mayve not cared about party, is it right to say you seem to on your use of his words as a defense ?
 
Zyphlin said:
So thise who called for Bush's death you think Jefferson would've also considered Patriots. This is odd to me as whenever such came up in the past and conservatives here called those people unamerican....even rev in the past few days I thi.k...I don't remember you touting Jeffersons words for why they are wrong.

So while Jefferson mayve not cared about party, is it right to say you seem to on your use of his words as a defense ?
Click to expand...

Actually neither side is right. If you read jefferson's full quote he does not say armed insurrection is the right thing to do
 
PogueMoran said:
I'd say you misinterpret what Jefferson said about watering the tree of liberty. You have to take into context what he meant in the full letter along with the historical significance of it.
Click to expand...
I'd say you misinterpreted both Jefferson and me.

PogueMoran said:
Lets all take the time to read the full quote before deciding what jefferson stated. It was not an open call for insurrection.
Click to expand...
It also was not a condemnation of insurrection. You overlooked a crucial sentence:
Let them take arms.
Click to expand...
PogueMoran said:
Jefferson's solution to rebellion was to set people right on the facts then pardon them peacefully. He stood for a peaceful solutions not for armed insurrection.
Click to expand...
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.

Jefferson has a much clearer statement on the matter, the Declaration of Independence:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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:
 
hazlnut said:
'The blood of Patriots and Tyrants.'

Aw, yes, the sign. I was wondering when that was going to come up.

IMO - the armed jackass holding that sing was not a patriot. Why? For one thing there is not Tyrant that I know of on the entire North American Continent. There is a democratically elected American president who ran on a liberal platform of expanding government in specific areas. A patriot, a reasonable, sensible American patriot, whether he voted for this liberal candidate or not, respects the Constitution and the election process.

No, American, Thomas Jefferson would not disagree with me.

The jamoke with the sign was out to make a point about the 2nd amendment. He holds that extreme delusion that Obama is going to dismantle the Constitution and take away his guns.

An intelligent, reasonable patriot knows that is just not the case. A moderately liberal expansion of government in certain areas, perhaps; but that is hardly a Tyrant.

The loser got off easy IMO. Some psychiatric counseling and basic course in American civics should be ordered.
Click to expand...
Obama wants more government power over the people. Only tyrannts want that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom