Time For Revolt?

[skyrider 0]

Given the polarized nature of American politics in the last several years, accusations of inciting violence on both sides have become somewhat cliched. But this afternoon, MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan took to his show to yell fire in a crowded theater, asking viewers, “Are things in our country so bad that it might actually be time for a revolution? The answer is obviously ‘yes.’”

It’s difficult to explain the following clip without appearing to indulge in hyperbole, so it’s probably best to simply state the facts: Ratigan invites on cartoonist Ted Rall to talk about his new book The Anti-American Manifesto, and argue the case for violent overthrow of government. Quoting John Locke, Rall argues that “the people have an obligation to revolt,” and that “nothing will radicalize the American citizen more than being thrown out of their home by a bank.” Citing frustration with both parties, who he called “in bed with the duopoly,” Rall also noted that “the American left has been very peaceful since the early ’70s… and where has it gotten us?”

Ratigan did not seem particularly flustered by the proposition, though he did ask if Rall saw any alternatives, especially peaceful political dissent, or what he called “European semi-violent revolt.” “If you could get everybody to do it,” Rall responded, “it could work, but you can’t even get everyone to stop littering.”

So yes, the following clip is a discussion on cable news over the various merits of violent left-wing overthrow of the American government– signed, sealed, and delivered with a cherry on top for those on the right looking for evidence to counter the claim that it’s their side that’s doing the fearmongering. The clip via MSNBC below:(at link)

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dylan-ratigan-the-answer-to-americas-woes-is-obviously-revolution/

[Gravitymaster 0]

Change it to what? And what pevents it from eventually having the same problems in the future?

[scruffy 0]

Americans have an opportunity to revolt every two years. Maybe instead of silliness like this, Mr. Ratigan can focus on that.

Peace, love and hoppiness

[airdvr 210]

I think those on the right need to be vigilent. The left would love us to react with a home grown terrorist act like Oklahoma City. In fact, they need that to happen as evidenced in this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_0Ixm21tn8

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[SpeedRacer 1]

Lefty or Righty childish nutjobs screaming every time something doesn't go their way.

What do they possibly think could be achieved with violence?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 3,008]

>signed, sealed, and delivered with a cherry on top for those on the right
>looking for evidence to counter the claim that it’s their side that’s doing the
>fearmongering.

=========
Tea Party Protesters Threaten Armed Revolt
posted 3rd January 2010
Peregrin Wood

This weekend, down in the desert land of Alamogordo, New Mexico, a group of a few hundred protesters stood out on the side of a road, protesting against the Obama White House while carrying loaded guns. . . .

Asked by the reporter if he had reached the point where he would use his gun in violence against the federal government, a protester replied, “Not yet, but they’re pushing us to our limit. That’s why we’re out here.” He called the show of guns at the Tea Party protest as, not a veiled threat, but “a very open threat”. The protester further explained that he would not discuss when the point of violent rebellion among Tea Party protesters against the government would begin: “I’m not saying when that is, because the element of surprise is the main thing in any military victory.”
==========
Sarah Palin: "America is ready for another revolution and you are a part of this"

Glenn Beck: "the second American revolution is being played out right now"

Glenn Beck: "We're headed for a civil war"

Sharron Angle: "Our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. In fact, Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that's not where we're going, but you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies."

Bob Owens, right wing blogger: "At this time, I suspect Shikha Dalmia's call for massive civil disobedience is the correct path. Show your anger.. . . Revolution is a brutish, nasty business. Innocents will fall along with patriots and the corrupt, and success is not assured. . . .The question for you, my fellow Americans, is simple. Will you fight, or will you surrender your liberties?""

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Lefty or Righty childish nutjobs screaming every time something doesn't go their way.

What do they possibly think could be achieved with violence?

Did you watch the clip? doesn;t sound like it..

Violence was the "Last" resort!

[Guest]

Quote

>signed, sealed, and delivered with a cherry on top for those on the right
>looking for evidence to counter the claim that it’s their side that’s doing the
>fearmongering.

=========
Tea Party Protesters Threaten Armed Revolt
posted 3rd January 2010
Peregrin Wood

This weekend, down in the desert land of Alamogordo, New Mexico, a group of a few hundred protesters stood out on the side of a road, protesting against the Obama White House while carrying loaded guns. . . .

Asked by the reporter if he had reached the point where he would use his gun in violence against the federal government, a protester replied, “Not yet, but they’re pushing us to our limit. That’s why we’re out here.” He called the show of guns at the Tea Party protest as, not a veiled threat, but “a very open threat”. The protester further explained that he would not discuss when the point of violent rebellion among Tea Party protesters against the government would begin: “I’m not saying when that is, because the element of surprise is the main thing in any military victory.”
==========
Sarah Palin: "America is ready for another revolution and you are a part of this"

Glenn Beck: "the second American revolution is being played out right now"

Glenn Beck: "We're headed for a civil war"

Sharron Angle: "Our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. In fact, Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that's not where we're going, but you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies."

Bob Owens, right wing blogger: "At this time, I suspect Shikha Dalmia's call for massive civil disobedience is the correct path. Show your anger.. . . Revolution is a brutish, nasty business. Innocents will fall along with patriots and the corrupt, and success is not assured. . . .The question for you, my fellow Americans, is simple. Will you fight, or will you surrender your liberties?""

"America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

-- Claire Wolfe

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[skyrider 0]

I guess the point of the OP is Lost...

BOTH sides are getting fed up.....

The Public says they want one thing, the dictator of America gives them what He thinks is best! IMO

[billvon 3,008]

>BOTH sides are getting fed up.

Agreed. Too many people are taking extremist positions, and trying to create an atmosphere of distrust, anger and in some cases even violence. You rarely hear reasonable discussions any more; it's all about how Obama is like Hitler, or death panels will kill your grandma, or terror babies will strike the US.

>The Public says they want one thing, the dictator of America . . .

Like I said.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Americans have an opportunity to revolt every two years. Maybe instead of silliness like this, Mr. Ratigan can focus on that.

No.

A first past the post electoral system results in two viable political parties with just minor differences between the two.

At best both candidates are electable in your district and one of the minor differences matters to you personally (like on gun laws).

Generally that's not the case with the incumbent party holding a strong majority that you can't overcome in the general election and can't address in a primary.

This situation is exacerbated by most districts being defined by party members.

Most voting in America won't represent a real choice until we get proportional representation which seems extremely unlikely.

We're also in a post literate age where it's all about the demagogues and their sound bites.

[billvon 3,008]

>>Americans have an opportunity to revolt every two years. Maybe instead
>>of silliness like this, Mr. Ratigan can focus on that.

>No. . . .Most voting in America won't represent a real choice until we get
>proportional representation which seems extremely unlikely.

The two party system is indeed an impediment to getting independent, even revolutionary, politicians elected.

But the idea that it is easier to get them into office via armed revolt than via the vote is absurd. When war is considered the "easy option" then the person advocating such actions does not understand what they're talking about.

Is it hard to get third party politicians elected? Yes. No one said it would be easy. Freedom can be a bitch sometimes.

[scruffy 0]

Thank you, said it better than I could have

Peace, love and hoppiness

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

The two party system is indeed an impediment to getting independent, even revolutionary, politicians elected.
.
.
.
Is it hard to get third party politicians elected? Yes. No one said it would be easy. Freedom can be a bitch sometimes.

Why do you think that is?

I think it's because American voters are lazy, stupid and apathetic. Think of all those bozos who vote only straight party ticket, for one thing.

Therefore:
1) most American voters have no freaking' clue on what "their" candidates stand for, or

2) It doesn't really matter what they stand for because the candidates do not represent the people. After election, they'll tell the people what is good for them instead.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[kaustik 3]

I am the true american voter. I have never submitted a ballot. I know how to make 17 flavors of molitovs. My vote is cast under the cover of darkness. My parents taught me long ago to stop talking politics and start discussing tactics. "Peace"

The future belongs to those of us still willing to get our hands dirty.

[Kennedy 0]

Bill, do you really think this country can get in enough politicians with enough different ideas into office to effect meaningful change before there is a major crisis?
(I'm talking major recession, national bankruptcy, skirmishes of a civil war variety, or other event that can't be handled under current government/law)

My concern is that American voters really are too lazy and apathetic to solve problems before they can't be solved. For all intents and purposes the US is insolvent, upside down, bankrupt, and we still aren't even looking hard at change.

Do you think the dollar is going to hold value?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Time For Revolt?

ya...against all humanity.

...got Jesus?

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

Time For Revolt?

ya...against all humanity.

...got Jesus?

Can ya feel that christian love?

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

The two party system is indeed an impediment to getting independent, even revolutionary, politicians elected.
.
.
.
Is it hard to get third party politicians elected? Yes. No one said it would be easy. Freedom can be a bitch sometimes.

Why do you think that is?

I think it's because American voters are lazy, stupid and apathetic. Think of all those bozos who vote only straight party ticket, for one thing.

Therefore:
1) most American voters have no freaking' clue on what "their" candidates stand for, or

2) It doesn't really matter what they stand for because the candidates do not represent the people. After election, they'll tell the people what is good for them instead.

I would have to go with number 2. I know what my candidates stand for. The problem with the 2 party system is none of the candidates truly represent me.

I am a moderate. I am fiscally conservative and socially fabulous. Really, who was the last candidate with my views?

Couple that with most politicians don't run to serve, they run to be served......

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[tkhayes 348]

the country is pretty much split 50/50 right now - Bush was elected by a small margin, so was Obama. Even the elections last week did not give either side a resounding majority of anything.

50/50 splits are not the basis for 'revolution'. Regardless of who is in office or what the policies are today, I am still getting out of bed, having breakfast, going to work, as is most of the country

The radical talk on both sides is coming from, well......radicals.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Time For Revolt?

ya...against all humanity.

...got Jesus?

Can ya feel that christian love?

It's ok, I don't expect you to understand...

...but ya...I like the whole christian love theme here.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...