Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Problem is, there are literally groups, many of them indirectly
> supported, for ideological reasons, by existing members of the
> government, (who have, in a few case come damn close to saying the same
> things, and in others ***are*** the ones saying it), who have actually
> convinced themselves that everything from the economy to the current
> non-white, possibly Muslim (they still insist this is true), likely not
> a US citizen (again they **still** insist this is the case), liberal,
> are signs of how corrupt the government is, and how it needs to be
> replaced. One of them, just this last week, stated that, "If the
> government continues down this path, I wouldn't be surprised if a
> bloodless coup took place, led by military officials, trained in nation
> building." One can presume this means the same people they sent to Iraq,
> under bush, and hand picked from the "Evangelical" groups in the
> military, which we have been hearing increasingly large numbers of
> complaints about. Others are vaguely more rational, and just suggest it
> might be better if Texas, or some other states, leave the union, to
> found their own **true** theocratic democracy.

There are those groups. Where I disagree is that the members of the
government actually believe what they are saying. Call it cynical, but
most of them are saying what ever it takes to get their 'base' to vote
for them. Since that occasionally requires out-right lies, that is what
they do.

> No, I have no problem imagining these people are serious. I have no
> problem believing that too many people in congress, state officials,
> school boards, and many other places, where they have spent **decades**
> playing up the god card, and getting radicals elected, should, if not
> for it being "religious beliefs", be classed as clinically insane. And,
> I have no difficulty at all, based on who they fund, who funds them,
> their being board members, in some cases, of right wing think tanks and
> other such organizations, and the ties between those and even more
> radical groups, that if for one moment, they actually thought they
> already had enough military people, brain washed with evangelical
> gibberish, behind them, they wouldn't stop to think for one moment at
> trying to "save" the country from communism and liberal thinking,
> through military actions. Many of them have said as much one the various
> places they fund/get funding from, chair, or support, while never quite
> saying so *in public*.

I don't disagree with you that the entire thing is a problem, but I do
have trouble believe that many of the people are serious about it. I
grew up in a coal and train city. I am certain there are people who
believe any of the points you made above. What I do not believe is that
any single one of them is actually going to act on it except to talk or
to vote.

There are always the militant figures, the quiet ones in militias and
the loud ones screaming on national TV. The ones in militias may be more
dangerous, as the past 20 years has shown. But the ones on TV, I won't
say they are harmless as they do a great deal of damage to the country
by causing people to simply vote against the other team instead of
thinking on a larger scale. However, I have a great deal of trouble
seeing any of them as actual participants in a revolution of any sort.

> Heck the current wacko they think is likely to be the Republicrat
> candidate in 2012 has hand picked what has been described as a laundry
> list of the worst right wing scandals and hypocrites, to be his
> "advisers". The only possible reason for doing this is because he, and
> they, don't think anything they got caught doing was wrong, and that
> anything at all is justified, as long as it supports the insertion of
> Jesus, "back into the nations government". One of them is a women who
> ***Bush*** even had a problem with, and during her testimony, in the
> trial that lost her her job, she repeated stated that she made an oath,
> not to protect the "constitution", but the "president", despite the fact
> that her job required the former, and she couldn't have been given the
> position without taking the oath to defend it.

Who is the current likely pick? I stopped getting cable and try not to
follow the primaries until it is time to vote in them. I know Caribou
Barbie is one, but she actually caused some long term Republicans in the
small coal and train town to vote for Obama or for a third party. They
were scared of her becoming President.

> You have to be living under a rock to not get that these people are mad
> as a hatter, and clueless, if you imagine that none of them are serious
> about a coup, bloodless or otherwise, if they don't get what they want.

I don't believe that none of them are serious. I think that the majority
of them, serious or not, do not have the ability to pull it off. Beyond
that, I feel that the few how think they have that ability would find
themselves hard pressed to shoot their neighbor for sedition from their
cause.

> Some have even gone so far as to suggest that democracy itself is a
> failure, though again, not in the direct public, but in their own books,
> web sites, and talks to some supporters, and we need to "fix" the
> problem by reinstituting some sort of monarchy, with, of course, them as
> the nobility.

So? I have suggested that democracy is broken before. I wouldn't be the
first. Goggle "panem et circenses", bread and circuses.

> How insane do these people have to act before you recognize that they
> don't have the same limits on their actions, or what they might plan, as
> the rest of us do? You can't reason with someone that rejects reason.

How insane would someone had to have been to charge the White House with
a water gun 4 years ago to protest water boarding? People on the left
talked about revolution, people on the right were scared that one might
happen any day now. Years later, nothing happened. Not having sane
limits to actions is one of the definitions of insane.

The populous is, in my opinion, in no shape to take part in a
revolution. To generalize: the voting blocks of the right, those who are
following but not leading at the moment, are too scared of government
control to trust a few people to lead a revolution. Those on the left
want the government to act for them, so they don't have to act for the
government.

This constant fear of what the other team might do to cheat and win is
exactly the problem. There is no discussion because the other side
doesn't warrant it, so we should just yell at the top of our lungs too.
There is no compromise because the other guy may try to stuff a loophole
in and cheat. Maybe, just maybe, the people who are not part of either
side of the two vocal majorities still have it in them to kick up a fuss
and cause trouble. That remains to be seen.

Post a reply to this message