Inciting armed overthrow of the gov? - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

stevo · 05-12-2006, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

you'd drop the dime so fast? stevo, I know that you're a die hard republican fan and support George Bush, but I have to ask you, would you feel the same way if Hillary Clinton was president, Pelosi was speaker, Harry Ried became majority leader, and then they immediately passed legislation to confiscate all privately owned firearms and instead of giving some sort of 'amnesty' or grace period, just started sending paramilitary LE units and raided homes?

Thats not quite what's going on here. You're the most outspoken member on TFP for the 2nd amendment. I support and agree with you, there. But host isn't talking about a retaliation because of the appeal of 2nd amendment rights, he's talking about an armed revolution because of bush's policies. I would not support an armed revolution due to any freely elected leader's policies.

The picture you just raised is different. If they sent people home to home to collect individual's fire arms, yes there would be bloodshed, and thats not something I could argue against. But I think what you have just stated and what host has in mind are completely different.

dksuddeth · 05-12-2006, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Thats not quite what's going on here. You're the most outspoken member on TFP for the 2nd amendment. I support and agree with you, there. But host isn't talking about a retaliation because of the appeal of 2nd amendment rights, he's talking about an armed revolution because of bush's policies. I would not support an armed revolution due to any freely elected leader's policies.

The picture you just raised is different. If they sent people home to home to collect individual's fire arms, yes there would be bloodshed, and thats not something I could argue against. But I think what you have just stated and what host has in mind are completely different.

I get it now. I'm mixing up two conversations. my apologies.

host · 05-12-2006, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

When you talk about going against the military with an armed civilian force, well you're talking about attacking civilians' brothers and sisters. It wouldn't get anywhere, it wouldn't happen. Don't let me in on any discussion cause I'd drop the dime so fast...

Not to worry stevo, they already......know!

stevo · 05-12-2006, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Not to worry stevo, they already......know!

my point wasn't to be some kind of stand alone hero, but to let you know that if I would be willing to inform authorities, that I'm sure millions and millions of others would be as well.

host · 05-12-2006, 10:29 AM

Quote:

=stevo my point wasn't to be some kind of stand alone hero, but to let you know that if I would be willing to inform authorities, that I'm sure millions and millions of others would be as well.

Again....dontcha Get it???? They already know !!! They know who you call...how often....and how long your conversations are! Can't you see the implications? They did this illegal "data mining" and ANALYSIS during the last presidential election campaign, stevo.

We didn't have reports of NSA warrantless domestic wiretapping until the NY Times broke the story last December, after they sat on the report for a year, at the request of the Bush administration.

We didn't have this linking of the December reporting, until yesterday:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051100539.html

........Government access to call records is related to the previously disclosed eavesdropping program, sources said, because it helps the NSA choose its targets for listening...........

...and we didn't have this looming....

Quote:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1002157186

.......Under the boosted penalties, those found guilty could face fines of up to $1 million, 15 years in jail or both.

Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the measure is broader than any existing laws. She said, for example, the language does not specify that the information has to be harmful to national security or classified.

"The bill would make it a crime to tell the American people that the president is breaking the law, and the bill could make it a crime for the newspapers to publish that fact," said Martin, a civil liberties advocate...........

What we did have is one party rule. There is no authority for anyone but republicans in DC to call hearings, launch congressional investigations, subpoena anyone, and....only republicans control the DOJ policy and oversight, and they also enjoy a SCOTUS majority. No need to "drop a dime" stevo! Welcome to the police state that you voted for, and openly advocate.
Here are some hints:

Quote:

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/01/08...08rich.html?hp
or..... http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artm...w.cgi/48/16802
The Wiretappers That Couldn't Shoot Straight
By Frank Rich
The New York Times

Sunday 08 January 2006

....... Given that the reporters on the Times story, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, wrote that nearly a dozen current and former officials had served as their sources, there may be more leaks to come, and not just to The Times. Sooner or later we'll find out what the White House is really so defensive about.

Perhaps it's the obvious: the errant spying ensnared Americans talking to Americans, not just Americans talking to jihadists in Afghanistan. In a raw interview transcript posted on MSNBC's Web site last week - and quickly seized on by John Aravosis of AmericaBlog - the NBC News foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell asked Mr. Risen if he knew whether the CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour might have been wiretapped. (Mr. Risen said, "I hadn't heard that.") Surely a pro like Ms. Mitchell wasn't speculating idly. NBC News, which did not broadcast this exchange and later edited it out of the Web transcript, said Friday it was still pursuing the story.

If the Bush administration did indeed eavesdrop on American journalists and political opponents (Ms. Amanpour's husband, Jamie Rubin, was a foreign policy adviser to the Kerry campaign), it's déjà Watergate all over again. But even now we can see that there's another, simpler - and distinctly Bushian - motive at play here, hiding in plain sight.

That motive is not, as many liberals would have it, a simple ideological crusade to gut the Bill of Rights. Real conservatives, after all, are opposed to Big Brother; even the staunch Bush ally Grover Norquist has criticized the N.S.A.'s overreaching. The highest priority for the Karl Rove-driven presidency is instead to preserve its own power at all costs. With this gang, political victory and the propaganda needed to secure it always trump principles, even conservative principles, let alone the truth. Whenever the White House most vociferously attacks the press, you can be sure its No. 1 motive is to deflect attention from embarrassing revelations about its incompetence and failures............

Quote:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/art...ll_disclosure/
Group demands intelligence papers released

By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff | May 26, 2005

........Democrats have demanded more information about whether Bolton tried to exaggerate the threat of Syria, as well as information about secret intercepts of conversations between US and foreign officials that Bolton requested from the National Security Agency.

During yesterday's debate, Senator Jay Rockefeller, Democrat of West Virginia, the ranking minority member on the Senate Intelligence committee, said he was convinced that Bolton did nothing improper in asking for the identities of US officials quoted in the intercepts. But Rockefeller said Bolton may have violated the security agency's restrictions by sharing the information with another State Department official when he sought out the official to congratulate him, apparently for comments he made during the intercept.

Rockefeller said he was concerned that the incident could indicate a ''cavalier attitude" by Bolton and a ''blatant disregard for the intelligence process.".............

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8359252/...eek/from/RL.3/

July 4 issue - The Senate deadlock over John Bolton's nomination to the United Nations centers on requests by Democrats for secret info relating to Bolton's State Department tenure. But three congressional sources (who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the material) say the intel community was willing to give Dems access to key info at the center of the dispute: details of requests Bolton made for the names of Americans inadvertently monitored by the National Security Agency's worldwide electronic eavesdropping network. NSA normally blacks out American names when it forwards intel reports to other agencies. But the agency will unmask names if requesting officials certify in writing they need them to "understand the intelligence." Bolton sent NSA 10 such requests, and 19 U.S. names were disclosed to him, according to congressional correspondence.

Two of the congressional aides familiar with details of negotiations between the administration and Capitol Hill said that when Senate staffers first asked about Bolton's requests, NSA indicated it was willing to help out. "NSA told us they'd provide the [Senate intelligence] committee with the names," one of the officials told NEWSWEEK. But NSA said this would first have to be approved by the office of the new national intel czar, John Negroponte. The three congressional sources said that former NSA director Gen. Michael Hayden, Negroponte's deputy, was willing to compromise with Dems by turning over the names. In the end, Hayden briefed GOP Senate intel chair Pat Roberts and Democratic vice chairman Jay Rockefeller, but declined to turn over the names, leading to the current impasse. Bob Callahan, a spokesman for the intel czar's office, insisted: "At no time did General Hayden offer to provide Congress with the names."

stevo... when the preceding reports about Bolton and his failure to get confirmed by the senate as U.S. ambassador to the UN came out nearly a year ago, the NY Times and USA Today had not disclosed the warrantless wire tapping and data mining that we now know they are conducting. Did'nt you think it was odd that Bolton could not get confirmed by the republican senate majority? Apparently even a few republicans were "creeped out" enough by what they learned about Bolton's requests for "names" from the NSA, to withdraw support for his confirmation....

Quote:

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12974.htm

Video :Gen. Michael Hayden refused to answer question about spying on political enemies at National Press Club.

At a public appearance, Bush's pointman in the Office of National Intelligence was asked if the NSA was wiretapping Bush's political enemies. When Hayden dodged the question, the questioner repeated, "No, I asked, are you targeting us and people who politically oppose the Bush government, the Bush administration? Not a fishing net, but are you targeting specifically political opponents of the Bush administration?" Hayden looked at the questioner, and after a silence called on a different questioner. (Hayden National Press Club remarks, 1/23/06)
(video ) http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demn...sp&start=21:46
(audio ) http://www.archive.org/download/dn20...124-1_64kb.mp3

The_Jazz · 05-12-2006, 11:47 AM

Armed insurection has always worked so well against the American government, I'm surprised that more people haven't tried it.

Seriously, numbers mean nothing in this kind of conflict. It would be nothing but a slaughter. A force of 3,000,000 trained professionals with modern arms would completely tear apart 20,000,000 unorganized irregulars with only sidearms. I'm sorry, but I can't imagine any realistic scenario where rebels would emerge victorious. There are reasons why 100,000 Germans held off 2,000,000 Soviets at Stalingrad for 6 months. Any rebeling force would be disorganized at best and a mob in its most likely incarnation. You can't tell me that a highly organized, trained rebel army is going to spontaneous arise from nowhere in this country.

dksuddeth · 05-12-2006, 11:49 AM

guys, with all thats going on, 3 things will happen....

So many leaks and stories will come out that will without a doubt prove the bush admin broke the law and

a) The republican majorities, in order to keep their majority, will impeach and convict bush, cheney, and anyone else involved, and hope that the american people will acknowledge and accept that the republicans disciplined their own,

b) The republican majority will convince Bush to resign (ala Nixon) in order to save the partys face, and start billboarding their ignorance that Bush was breaking the law and hope for the best,

c) The republican majority will do anything and everything necessary to stifle, block, and classify any and all information proving Bush broke the law, pass whatever they need to criminalize anyone who discloses, investigate anyone who discloses, and basically start the police state type crackdown,

d) do absolutely nothing and hope for the best.

It doesn't matter what they do, it's what WE do.

dksuddeth · 05-12-2006, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Armed insurection has always worked so well against the American government, I'm surprised that more people haven't tried it.

Seriously, numbers mean nothing in this kind of conflict. It would be nothing but a slaughter. A force of 3,000,000 trained professionals with modern arms would completely tear apart 20,000,000 unorganized irregulars with only sidearms. I'm sorry, but I can't imagine any realistic scenario where rebels would emerge victorious. There are reasons why 100,000 Germans held off 2,000,000 Soviets at Stalingrad for 6 months. Any rebeling force would be disorganized at best and a mob in its most likely incarnation. You can't tell me that a highly organized, trained rebel army is going to spontaneous arise from nowhere in this country.

three words - warsaw ghetto uprising

they didn't emerge victorious, but for one month they held off the germans and they did it with a few sidearms and the weapons they confiscated off of the dead nazi's.

it can be done. will it succeed in a few short days, weeks, or months? absolutely not. It would be a conflict that would take years and be won by attrition.

Willravel · 05-12-2006, 12:02 PM

And people wonder why terrorists do what they do. If there were to be an armed resistence, it would be what is now known as terrorism. There would not be massive civilian armies a la Revolutionary war. There would be blacked out terrorist (or rebel) cells located all over the country. The military could find some of them, but never all of them. These cells would carry out totally independant attacks on government and military targets randomly (which is why I couldn't be directly involved: I don't kill people). Eventually the president and key government figures would go into hiding, martial law would be declaired, and things would get pretty bad for a while. Secret arrests and murders would turn many American citizens against the government, and then the rebelion would gain more and more support. Eventually it'll be a shrinking military vs. a very big rebelion. Then again, maybe the Republicans will grow balls and stand up to their BS leadership. One can only hope.

The_Jazz · 05-12-2006, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

And people wonder why terrorists do what they do. If there were to be an armed resistence, it would be what is now known as terrorism. There would not be massive civilian armies a la Revolutionary war. There would be blacked out terrorist (or rebel) cells located all over the country. The military could find some of them, but never all of them. These cells would carry out totally independant attacks on government and military targets randomly (which is why I couldn't be directly involved: I don't kill people). Eventually the president and key government figures would go into hiding, martial law would be declaired, and things would get pretty bad for a while. Secret arrests and murders would turn many American citizens against the government, and then the rebelion would gain more and more support. Eventually it'll be a shrinking military vs. a very big rebelion. Then again, maybe the Republicans will grow balls and stand up to their BS leadership. One can only hope.

You're presupposing a level of organization that I just find impossible given the state of technology today and the level of surveillance that goes with it. I find it impossible to believe that a grass-roots rebellion could get to the level of sophistication that you're implying without the government swooping in and arresting the majority of the conspirators.

dksuddeth · 05-12-2006, 12:37 PM

It would all gain momentum jazz, eventually people would get wise and see that the government is not arresting terrorists or rebels, but are actively persecuting american citizens. it would/could happen. the sad thing about this is twofold

1) the death toll would be absolutely horrendous. we're talking millions, maybe even tens of millions.

2) in order to prevent this kind of genocide, the populace would have to be disarmed in some way.......oh wait, they're already doing that. hmmmmm

The_Jazz · 05-12-2006, 01:29 PM

OK, color me confused. If the government is actively arresting those who are plotting the violent overthrow of the government, how do those folks NOT qualify as terrorists or rebels? It seems by their very definition they would be at least be rebels. There is specific language in the Constitution that allows the government to protect itself from insurrection, and anyone planning to violently overthrow the government would, fundamentally, be a rebel. Yes, they would still be American citizens, but they're no more worthy of Constitutional rights than a common criminal. In fact, they would only deserve those rights that criminals are afforded.

I agree that if an organized insurrection somehow magically appeared on the scene, the death toll would be horrendous. However, it's not going to appear out of thin air, would likely not be very organized, and would certainly be doomed to failure from the very start. Air superiority alone would dictate that most of the rebels wouldn't survive the initial attack, and you're presupposing an American government that's so vastly unpopular with its citizens that a significant minority decide to risk their lives, comfort and livelyhood to rebel. So long as Americans are placated with cheap goods, readily available entertainment and the ability to live their lives largely as they see fit, no rebellion is imminent. There will always be fringe groups unhappy with the status quo, but personally I file them all under "nut jobs". No offense intended.

rainheart · 05-12-2006, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

OK, color me confused. If the government is actively arresting those who are plotting the violent overthrow of the government, how do those folks NOT qualify as terrorists or rebels? It seems by their very definition they would be at least be rebels. There is specific language in the Constitution that allows the government to protect itself from insurrection, and anyone planning to violently overthrow the government would, fundamentally, be a rebel. Yes, they would still be American citizens, but they're no more worthy of Constitutional rights than a common criminal. In fact, they would only deserve those rights that criminals are afforded.

I agree that if an organized insurrection somehow magically appeared on the scene, the death toll would be horrendous. However, it's not going to appear out of thin air, would likely not be very organized, and would certainly be doomed to failure from the very start. Air superiority alone would dictate that most of the rebels wouldn't survive the initial attack, and you're presupposing an American government that's so vastly unpopular with its citizens that a significant minority decide to risk their lives, comfort and livelyhood to rebel. So long as Americans are placated with cheap goods, readily available entertainment and the ability to live their lives largely as they see fit, no rebellion is imminent. There will always be fringe groups unhappy with the status quo, but personally I file them all under "nut jobs". No offense intended.

Sure, but you're forgetting the relatively recent improvements in guerrilla warfare. A significant and intelligent enough minority would simply blend in with the population (and this is really because they actually represent the population), and possibly begin disrupting the means by which the rest of the citizens can be drugged to such levels of complacency.

Furthermore by blending in with the population (because they are a part of the population) and making it hard to distinguish between rebels and average citizens, the government would have a tough time trying to do their thing right. Eventually they might arrest a citizen for nothing, or they might arrest a rebel who appeared to the rest of the population to look like a citizen.

Such things would really put into question the legitimacy of the government.

Yeah, I know what I said begs the question and sounds fucking insane. But I just wanted to demonstrate to you that insurgency can be a force made impossible to defeat- for both the right and wrong reasons.

ASU2003 · 05-12-2006, 06:01 PM

I agree that it would have to be something even more major than what is currently going on to incite a violent overthrow of the government. The actually asked if you have attempted or supported the 'violent' ovrthrow of the government on the security clearance questionaire... So I don't support a French revolution style overthrow because it will never work. The_Jazz is right, the FBI, local cops, state cops, national guard and regular military would be able to take out anybody causing trouble. They could get the media to not report about it, or spin it like they always do. This is sounding more and more like this event if anybody tries this.

http://www.cnd.org/HYPLAN/yawei/june4th/
(Banned in China)

What I would worry about is an attack on the rich & religious from the poor. Basically, the main Republican voters are the rich white guys and the extremely religious ones. So, if we have a civil war, that would be one way to eliminate enough of the voters of the opposite party so your guy wins in the next election.

I would have to trust that even a very Republican Congress (Or Democratic one if the Dems have the Presidency), would be strong enough to oust the President if they do something really bad. If for instance Bush called for the imprisonation and execution of all Muslims in the US and abroad. There would be major protests, but they would get arrested too. I don't know what actions the general populance could take against this government besides asking for help from a foreign country. Or moving to one.

Elphaba · 05-12-2006, 08:25 PM

Dk, I understand your passion for reclaiming the government of "we the people," but my personal experience of our history tells me that a more effective revolution is possible.

Please recall the anti-war and civil rights militants of our past. They were certainly destructive and got a great deal of press for that reason, but they ultimately failed in garnering main stream support. That support is absolutely necessary in making a fundamental change in government decisions. I believe the militants did more harm than good in prompting government change.

The other more likely avenue for change is civil protest, and sometimes civil disobedience. Don't you find it remarkable the amount of press a few anti-war grandmothers have had? There is a sea change occuring now that should be obvious to most. The abuses of this administration are being condemned by conservatives and progressives alike, which gives "we the people" more power than has existed in our current one party system. Both sides will be scrambling for every vote, and lets make them earn each one.

Dk, "we the people" have the opportunity to exercise our power within the law. I advocate that approach and I hope you will agree after considering our history.

flstf · 05-12-2006, 08:41 PM

I don't think we are anywhere close to worrying about an armed revolution yet. When it comes I would expect the young men and women in the military to resist shooting their fellow citizens.

Our country came close to breaking up once in our short history. I hope if it comes to this again that the breakup can be accomplished without much bloodshed maybe something like the recent Soviet Union breakup. I guess it will depend on how adament the feds are to maintain power.

I guess our original freedom fighters were considered terrorists by those who wished to continue to rule them.

host · 05-12-2006, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

....The other more likely avenue for change is civil protest, and sometimes civil disobedience. Don't you find it remarkable the amount of press a few anti-war grandmothers have had? There is a sea change occuring now that should be obvious to most. The abuses of this administration are being condemned by conservatives and progressives alike, which gives "we the people" more power than has existed in our current one party system. Both sides will be scrambling for every vote, and lets make them earn each one.

Dk, "we the people" have the opportunity to exercise our power within the law. I advocate that approach and I hope you will agree after considering our history.

Elphaba, I wanna believe, but these are just the links to May 12 news reports of the Diebold & Sequoia E-Voting equipment sham:
<div class="list"><li>NAtional: Diebold - Voting machine security flaws uncovered <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=3025" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>NAtional: Diebold - Diebold voting systems critically flawed <a href="http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11391" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>NAtional: Diebold - New Fears of Security Risks in Electronic Voting Systems <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/12/us/12vote.html?_r=1&oref=slogin" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>NAtional: Diebold - Reversing Course on Electronic Voting <a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114739688261250925-q5rh2ocioxu6mgjmS6bZPCZL0HY_20060610.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>NAtional: Diebold - Wall Street Journal Covers E-Voting Train Wreck <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002816.htm" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>NAtional: Diebold – NY Times on New Diebold Touch-Screen Security Disaster! <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002817.htm" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>NAtional: Diebold - States Beef Up E-Voting Security After Report on Weaknesses <a href="http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/8ORCZwsBUtfng4/States-Beef-Up-E-Voting-Security-After-Report-on-Weaknesses.xhtml" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>NAtional: Diebold - On Electronic Voting: We Were Always Right, They Were Always Wrong... <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-friedman/on-electronic-voting-we-_b_20890.html" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>MD: Diebold - Experts see new Diebold flaw. They call it worst security glitch to date in state's voting machines and a 'big deal' <a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.voting12may12,0,618610.story?coll=bal-local-headlines" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>MD: Diebold - Experts Warn of New Security Flaw in Voting Machines <a href="http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=25&sid=789288" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>UT: Diebold - Hacker's Report Claims Vote Outcomes At-Risk <a href="http://www.kcpw.org/article/649" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>AR: Baxter and Marion Counties - Train Wreck - Election officials are still holding out hope for touchscreen voting (ES&S) <a href="http://www.baxterbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060512/NEWS01/605120321/1002" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>FL: Train Wreck - DIEBOLD DISASTERS CONTINUE: Company Ships Uncertified Machines, Software to 5 Florida Counties! <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002821.htm" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>FL: Train Wreck - Touch-screen voting devices not certified (Diebold TSx) <a href="http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Local/newEAST01POLL1051206.htm" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>FL: Train Wreck - Five Florida counties get uncertified voting machines <a href="http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/breaking_news/14564485.htm" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>NJ: Essex County – Train Wreck - Sequoia and Essex County-The Outrage Continues <a href="http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1277&Itemid=113" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>TX: Comal County – Train Wreck - Software delay sends Comal voters to paper (ES&S) <a href="http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA051206.05B.e-voting.21495238.html" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>WV: Jefferson County – Train Wreck - Bad ballots created headaches for election officials <a href="http://www.herald-mail.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=137899&format=html" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>CA: Santa Clara County - Paper trail to track June vote (Sequoia) <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/14559722.htm" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>CO: Denver - Auditor challenges voting machine purchase (Sequoia) <a href="http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/elections/article/0,2808,DRMN_24736_4691505,00.html" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>CO: Denver - City auditor: No deal for voting machines <a href="http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4693390,00.html" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>FL: Palm Beach County - Elections panel recommends use of paper trail <a href="http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/local_news/epaper/2006/05/12/s3b_elex_0512.html" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>FL: Palm Beach County - County panel recommends paper trail for elections <a href="http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-pelections12may12,0,4455646.story?coll=sfla-news-palm" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>FL: Volusia County - Volusia still lacks way to verify votes <a href="http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/Editorials/opnOPN15051206.htm" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>IL: eSlate watchers California-bound (Hart) <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/west/chi-0605120221may12,1,989809.story?coll=chi-newslocalwest-hed" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>MN: Winona County - Grants, county to cover voting machine costs (AutoMark) <a href="http://www.winonadailynews.com/articles/2006/05/12/news/05voting.txt" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>NY: Dutchess County - Paper ballot use pushed <a href="http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060512/NEWS01/605120328/1006" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>NY: Dutchess County - Group pushes for paper ballots in Dutchess <a href="http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/DC_votingMach-12May06.htm" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>PA: Counties warned of security glitch in machines (Diebold) <a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06132/689559-85.stm" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>PA: Bucks County - Use of old voting machines may cost Bucks $1 million <a href="http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/counties/philadelphia_county/philadelphia/14558512.htm" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>PA: Lancaster County - County's 550 new voting machines ready for debut (Hart eSlat and eScan) <a href="http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/22658" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>PA: Schuylkill County - Schuylkill voters to put down pencils to cast ballots. County readies for Tuesday's election with electronics not paper. <a href="http://www.mcall.com/news/local/lehighton/all-b1_1machinesmay12,0,1990617.story?coll=all-newslocallehighton-hed" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>TX: Denton County - Voters take to electronic voting <a href="http://www.courier-gazette.com/articles/2006/05/12/little_elm_journal/news/news27.txt" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>TX: Tarrant County - Tarrant merges polling places <a href="http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/local/14562627.htm" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>UT: Some rural areas heading for mail-only voting <a href="http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/178540/4/" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>WV: Opinion - A hit – and a miss <a href="http://www.register-herald.com/opinion/local_story_131230710.html?keyword=topstory" target="_blank">LINK</a></li> <li>WV: Editorials: West Virginians have had enough (Voter Fraud) <a href="http://www.dailymail.com/news/Opinion/200605121/" target="_blank">LINK</a>
********************************
This is the result of the sham "voting reform act of 2002", HAVA:

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_America_Vote_Act
Criticisms

Critics of the bill state it is little more than an effort to help large electronic voting systems vendors such as Diebold Election Systems, Election Systems & Software, and Sequoia Election Systems make millions of dollars throughout the country in selling electronic voting devices encouraged by HAVA. [1][2].....

IMO, the deadline requirements for local purchasing of new E-Vote machines were intended to block competition of "start-ups" who may have responded, given enough time, by designing and manufacturing voting systems that could easily compete with, and wrest contracts from Diebold and Sequoia....

Instead....the following is typical, it will still be the same around the country in November, I fear....and when the polls close, the same thugs who control the federal government today, will control it....exit poll results....be damned!

Quote:

http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/...ws/335912.html
Electronic voting machines off for most early voting
Wednesday, May 3, 2006

By Rob Moritz
Arkansas News Bureau
LITTLE ROCK - Most counties in Arkansas will be using paper ballots when early voting begins next week because of problems with the recently purchased electronic voting machines, Secretary of State Charlie Daniels said Tuesday.

Electronic balloting will be available for early voting in the eight counties that comprise the 2nd Congressional District in central Arkansas because there is a competitive federal party primary on the ballot, Daniels said. <h3>The federal Help America Vote Act requires the machines be available in contested federal races this year.</h3>

Daniels said he was confident that electronic voting machines would be available in all 75 counties by the May 23 primary.

The secretary of state spoke at a news conference Tuesday to address questions being raised about whether Election Systems & Software of Omaha, Neb., would be able to provide electronic voting machines, ballot software and absentee ballots in time for early voting that begins Monday.

At least 14 counties missed a Friday deadline to deliver absentee ballots to their clerks' offices for mailing. Several other counties, including Pulaski, have reported receiving defective software for their new machines.

The Nebraska company was awarded $15 million contract in November to deliver electronic voting machines for state compliance with the federal Help America Vote Act. The federal legislation was passed after the 2000 recount that determined George W. Bush's win over Al Gore in the presidential race.

Under the law, at least one new electronic voting machine was required at each of the polls by the May 23 primary elections in Arkansas.....

Elphaba...how the *uck could the voting machines of both principle manufacturers be so *ucked up in mid-2006. This isn't rocket science. It almost has to be this way, by intent....

If I'm right, what's the back up plan? I've talked about it before.....do some of us pick straws daily....to see whose turn it is to throw themselves under the wheels of Dick Cheney's limo...everytime it leaves his residence or office, until the streets are so caked with blood and guts that he and Bush "get the message"....or select less obvious vehicles to transport themselves in ?

Willravel · 05-12-2006, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

You're presupposing a level of organization that I just find impossible given the state of technology today and the level of surveillance that goes with it. I find it impossible to believe that a grass-roots rebellion could get to the level of sophistication that you're implying without the government swooping in and arresting the majority of the conspirators.

You missed my point. The trick to beating a powerful military with exceptional intelligence is to have no central organization, and to basically be dark 100% of the time. If, for example, I wanted to incite an armed rebelion against the current administration (btw, NSA, if you're reading this, welcome to TFP! Feel free to join up and please join us in the discussion. Also, I have no plans to overthrow the government. I'm a pretty peaceful guy.), I would go about my busniess. Every once in a while I would purchase things like styrofoam and gasoline (for napalm). There are thousands of government buildings in California. I know that many of them do not have security durring the night. Boom. I also know where Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics, United Technologies, Science Applications International Corporation, Health Net, and many other US weapons manufacturers do their dirty work. I'm pretty sure they're all in the yellow pages. I could probably destroy 3-4 buildings in a few hours and make a serious statement. Would it have any effect? Not really. The US military is armed to the teeth. The point would be that there are people out there willing to do what it takes to see that (insert complaint about government here). It's really wquite simple. The al Qaeda is a perfect example. Terrorism is an incredibly powerful, cheap and effective tool against what would normally be an invincable foe. Can you imagine Palestine trying to beat Israel military to military? A bit one sided. Yet, we see horrible things like bombs strapped to people going off in crowded supermarkets. Is it right? Of course not. Is it effective? Damn straight.

If, and this is a big if, someone wanted to overthrow the government badly enough, one would only need to become a one man terrorist cell. If enough people become one man cells, then you have a successful rebelion.

dksuddeth · 05-13-2006, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Dk, I understand your passion for reclaiming the government of "we the people," but my personal experience of our history tells me that a more effective revolution is possible.

Please recall the anti-war and civil rights militants of our past. They were certainly destructive and got a great deal of press for that reason, but they ultimately failed in garnering main stream support. That support is absolutely necessary in making a fundamental change in government decisions. I believe the militants did more harm than good in prompting government change.

The other more likely avenue for change is civil protest, and sometimes civil disobedience. Don't you find it remarkable the amount of press a few anti-war grandmothers have had? There is a sea change occuring now that should be obvious to most. The abuses of this administration are being condemned by conservatives and progressives alike, which gives "we the people" more power than has existed in our current one party system. Both sides will be scrambling for every vote, and lets make them earn each one.

Dk, "we the people" have the opportunity to exercise our power within the law. I advocate that approach and I hope you will agree after considering our history.

Don't get me wrong, when I discussed 'millions' of deaths, I'm scared that it would come to that. With that end in mind, I'm all for trying every available non-violent, non-lethal' method.

As alot of people have claimed, the 2A is the reset button, to be used as a totally last resort.

dksuddeth · 05-13-2006, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

If, and this is a big if, someone wanted to overthrow the government badly enough, one would only need to become a one man terrorist cell. If enough people become one man cells, then you have a successful rebelion.

to further stress the chaos that only a handful of people can cause, take a look at the north hollywood shootout. two guys with auto's held two dozen police at bay. Now, most police departments have auto's, SWAT paramilitary units, etc. but those take time to deploy. A quick explosion for diversion, an ambush hit by 3-4 armed with automatics, and dash.

If 5,000 rioting people can force the police and national guard to hold back from an area for a few days, imagine what a guerilla strike team can accomplish with surprise.

host · 05-13-2006, 04:50 AM

Find them....fast, in the:

Quote:

http://webpages.charter.net/micah/bellsouth.jpg
Saturday, May 13, 2006
The Telecoms are our friends

......The internet is far too important to be left in the hands of the rabble. It needs a firm, corporate hand to guide it so that it can become like the rest of our media, a bully pulpit for the powerful. Wouldn't we all feel a little better if Disney replaced Atrios or Rupert Murdock took up residence at Firedog Lake? That's all the telecoms want. Who are we to deny it to them?

After all, they're defending our freedom by providing Our Leader with things like this:

flstf · 05-13-2006, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Find them....fast, in the:

Right thinking will be rewarded
Wrong thinking will be punished

Elphaba · 05-13-2006, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Elphaba...how the *uck could the voting machines of both principle manufacturers be so *ucked up in mid-2006. This isn't rocket science. It almost has to be this way, by intent....

The evidence out of Ohio clearly shows intent, but my energy is limited to my corner of the country. County by county Washington is converting to all ballots by mail. It eliminates the polling centers and the NAVA requirement for voting machines. Our signatures are on file and matched. The door is closed to voting on behalf of our dearly departed. We gleefully pick off those darling little chads of fame and return our ballots, double enveloped, at our leisure. Shut ins and the elderly are not disenfranchised. Our Secretary of State, although a partison position, does not attract the ideologue, evidenced by our recent election for governor.

We aren't all the way there yet, but we're working on it. I can squawk as loud as the next person, but what precisely would you have me do that would correct the problems in Ohio or any other state?

ASU2003 · 05-13-2006, 10:50 AM

I just voted in Ohio a few days ago and there is a paper receipt that gets printed and stored inside the machine. The voter never touches the paper receipt and can't add their own into the machine. But, I'm not sure what happens to the discarded ones. And coould real votes be discarded?

Second, is it possible to hack into the machine somehow and change the numbers, either at the machine by a person, or in the software by saying for ever 2 votes the person I don't want to win gets, it will automatically add 1 vote to the 'good' guy total in addition to all of the other votes they get.

I like electronic voting, but I agree that there needs to be oversight by anybody in the public into every aspect of it.

cybersharp · 05-14-2006, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Armed insurection has always worked so well against the American government, I'm surprised that more people haven't tried it.

Seriously, numbers mean nothing in this kind of conflict. It would be nothing but a slaughter. A force of 3,000,000 trained professionals with modern arms would completely tear apart 20,000,000 unorganized irregulars with only sidearms. I'm sorry, but I can't imagine any realistic scenario where rebels would emerge victorious. There are reasons why 100,000 Germans held off 2,000,000 Soviets at Stalingrad for 6 months. Any rebeling force would be disorganized at best and a mob in its most likely incarnation. You can't tell me that a highly organized, trained rebel army is going to spontaneous arise from nowhere in this country.

Um the Germans didnt "hold" the Russians off at Stalingrad. The situation was that Germany attacked and Russia simply could not:
1. Get reinforcements, food, ect into the city.
2. Do much about bombs getting dropped on their city, (not much ANYONE can do about shots being fired miles away and blowing holes through walls.)

Think on this, do you think the Russians in that situation, if even near a quarter more russian had been train soldeirs the outcome would of been largly different? No, probably not, the city didnt have supply's or food for those kinds of troups, I'd wager that any random soldeir would have any problems killing a half starved individual whether it be soldeir, or civilian.
The issue isnt truly a TRAINED rebel army. Think of the civil war, it WAS cusins and brothers fighting against each other and they devided it up by lines. Something sure as hell happened there. A person will fight if their belief's in how their way of life should be lived is threatened by anouther living thing. No the goverment would not out right win a fight, because undoubtably people would switch sides in what they believe in. People dont fight for laws, they fight for their way of life and how they want their lives and those around them to be.

Think of it this way, what would be the reason to raise a rebellion if you felt you where totaly unthreatened by events surrounding your civil rights and the rights of your future offspring? If you thought that your children or the children of the nation where going the be used by people thousands of miles away who dont have the good of THE PEOPLE, not the goverment in mind, then wouldnt you fight? A single party system that control's everything, even OTHER PARTY's through espinage to get information that they have to hide simply because it is not their right to obtain it. That sounds kind of like a communistic goverment to me, although I was say it sounds more like a tyrany that a commi goverment, (I veiw tyrany as worse) Dont you?

I will stop here and read the rest of the posts now, your comment just caught my eye..

The_Jazz · 05-14-2006, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cybersharp

Um the Germans didnt "hold" the Russians off at Stalingrad. The situation was that Germany attacked and Russia simply could not:
1. Get reinforcements, food, ect into the city.
2. Do much about bombs getting dropped on their city, (not much ANYONE can do about shots being fired miles away and blowing holes through walls.)

Think on this, do you think the Russians in that situation, if even near a quarter more russian had been train soldeirs the outcome would of been largly different? No, probably not, the city didnt have supply's or food for those kinds of troups, I'd wager that any random soldeir would have any problems killing a half starved individual whether it be soldeir, or civilian.
The issue isnt truly a TRAINED rebel army. Think of the civil war, it WAS cusins and brothers fighting against each other and they devided it up by lines. Something sure as hell happened there. A person will fight if their belief's in how their way of life should be lived is threatened by anouther living thing. No the goverment would not out right win a fight, because undoubtably people would switch sides in what they believe in. People dont fight for laws, they fight for their way of life and how they want their lives and those around them to be.

Think of it this way, what would be the reason to raise a rebellion if you felt you where totaly unthreatened by events surrounding your civil rights and the rights of your future offspring? If you thought that your children or the children of the nation where going the be used by people thousands of miles away who dont have the good of THE PEOPLE, not the goverment in mind, then wouldnt you fight? A single party system that control's everything, even OTHER PARTY's through espinage to get information that they have to hide simply because it is not their right to obtain it. That sounds kind of like a communistic goverment to me, although I was say it sounds more like a tyrany that a commi goverment, (I veiw tyrany as worse) Dont you?

I will stop here and read the rest of the posts now, your comment just caught my eye..

Historically speaking, what you're saying here is innaccurate. The Germans held over 90% of the city for over 6 months and at one point controlled all of it except for a 1000m ribbon 100m deep along the river. By all accounts, the Russian army was undertrained and underarmed. If you've ever seen "Enemies at the Gates", the opening scene is actually an accurate depiction of how the 62nd Army was inserted into the city. The 62nd was made up mostly of conscripts who had a few weeks of training and virtually no weapons when they went into the field. They were instructed to pick up weapons from fallen comrades.

At best estimate, 500,000 Germans took and held the city from 1,750,000 Soviet troops, which is the point of my comment. The reason that the Soviets managed to win at Stalingrad was not through the tactical genius of their commanders (although there was some of that) but because they stalled the Germans long enough that they could employ the method that won the Russian Empire so many battles - sheer weight of numbers. A well armed, well trained, battle hardened force held off a poorly organized, poorly trained, poorly armed force over 3 times the size of the former for well over 6 months. With proper supplies, the Germans might have very well continued their advance.

By the way, the Soviets had no problem getting reinforcements or supplies into or out of the city in summer or winter since they had boats for the water and could drive over the ice. There were weeks where this was not possible and that's when supplies ran low.

As for the rest, I don't believe in suicide, which is what an attack against the American government would be. There are other ways to change the system, and we've all seen that non-violent aggitation can cause serious changes in this country. The problem is that people who feel like you are in the minority and have no advocates in positions of power, governmental or otherwise.

flstf · 05-14-2006, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

As for the rest, I don't believe in suicide, which is what an attack against the American government would be. There are other ways to change the system, and we've all seen that non-violent aggitation can cause serious changes in this country. The problem is that people who feel like you are in the minority and have no advocates in positions of power, governmental or otherwise.

A peaceful breakup is certainly preferable to a violent one, and I don't think we are anywhere close to this now. It will take some sort of economic collapse before people get fed up enough to really want to change things.

As far as feeling like we have no advocates in power, I have felt for some time now that the ruling Democrat/Republican party is primarily interested in enriching themselves at our expense. I don't think there is anything evil or sinister in this, it is just human nature and governments just get bloated and corrupt over time. That is why they all fail eventually try as we might to hold them together.

Ustwo · 05-14-2006, 09:06 AM

Oh well now my threads are being deleted out right.

Think when the last mod of this board asked me to join him on another politics board I should have taken him up on it. Guess I still will.

Whoever deleted that post you know what I said is true and now you want to hide it

host · 05-14-2006, 11:16 AM

Is the description and documentation in the lower part of this post:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...53#post2062253

...enough, YET, to presuade anyone to consider participation in relentless peaceful protests and organized acts of civil disobedience....or if not now....
WHEN?

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-14-2006, 11:47 AM

For the record, Guerilla tactics employed against the military is the employment of guerilla warfare; a completely different beast then "terrorism".

Willravel · 05-14-2006, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

For the record, Guerilla tactics employed against the military is the employment of guerilla warfare; a completely different beast then "terrorism".

The terms are not mutually exclusive. Terrorism, at least in it's current meaning, is a group of people who use unorthodox means to defeat a superior force, often using the ability to instill fear instead actual force. Guerilla warfare is irregular warfare. By my understanding, terrorism is a kind of guerilla warfare. Guerilla warfare is the general term, and terrorism is a kind of guerilla tactics.

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-14-2006, 12:44 PM

Terrorists use guerila tactics. Terrorism is the attempt of one group to coerce/intimidate/instill fear on a civilian group to achieve a goal. Just because the founding fathers or minute men got wise and discovered there was a better chance at survival if you didn't stand in lines to get mowed down by a superior british force, didn't make them terrorists. You are right though, they are not mutually exclusive.

dksuddeth · 05-14-2006, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The terms are not mutually exclusive. Terrorism, at least in it's current meaning, is a group of people who use unorthodox means to defeat a superior force, often using the ability to instill fear instead actual force. Guerilla warfare is irregular warfare. By my understanding, terrorism is a kind of guerilla warfare. Guerilla warfare is the general term, and terrorism is a kind of guerilla tactics.

terrorism is the use of violence against non-combat personnel/non-military personnel to achieve a political end.

Willravel · 05-14-2006, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

terrorism is the use of violence against non-combat personnel/non-military personnel to achieve a political end.

....then the al Qaeda aren't terrorists? Last time I checked, the Pentagon is a military target full of military personel. The al Qaeda was also responsible for the 2000 bombing of the U.S. destroyer Cole which killed 17 sailors.

ASU2003 · 05-14-2006, 01:43 PM

I think if the American settlers had traveled back over to Britian and blew up some pubs and demanded that they allow the colonies to be independant, that would have been terrorism.

Would al Qaeda attack the US again if we pull out all of our troops from the Middle East? Most people aren't willing to take that chance. If they would have only hit the pentagon, and used empty 747s, that would have been different, but still it is a grey area.

dksuddeth · 05-14-2006, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

....then the al Qaeda aren't terrorists? Last time I checked, the Pentagon is a military target full of military personel. The al Qaeda was also responsible for the 2000 bombing of the U.S. destroyer Cole which killed 17 sailors.

and how many of the WTC victims (dead or alive) were military personnel? How many of those beheaded on video were US military?

Don't try to vindicate AQ because a few targets were military, they are a terrorist organization. Their intent is to fear the populace in to electing a government that has weak foreign policy.

host · 05-14-2006, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

and how many of the WTC victims (dead or alive) were military personnel? How many of those beheaded on video were US military?

Don't try to vindicate AQ because a few targets were military, they are a terrorist organization. Their intent is to fear the populace in to electing a government that has weak foreign policy.

Or to elect a criminal, untruthful one.....

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Sep7.html

COLUMBIA, Mo., Sept. 7 -- Vice President Cheney warned on Tuesday that if John F. Kerry is elected, "the danger is that we'll get hit again" by terrorists....

Quote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...-19-hype_x.htm

Tuesday in Charleston, W.Va., Cheney found a way to paint an even more apocalyptic picture: "The ultimate threat we face today is the possibility of terrorists in the midst of one of our cities with that kind of deadly capability that would threaten the lives not just of a few thousands of us, but hundreds of thousands of Americans."

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/21/na...erland&emc=rss

"The United States faces a ruthless enemy," Mr. Rove said, "and we need a commander in chief and a Congress who understand the nature of the threat and the gravity of the moment America finds itself in. President Bush and the Republican Party do. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many Democrats."

filtherton · 05-14-2006, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

terrorism is the use of violence against non-combat personnel/non-military personnel to achieve a political end.

Does "collateral damage" count?

rainheart · 05-14-2006, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Does "collateral damage" count?

By those standards, the United States becomes one of the largest terrorist organizations of the world.

So I'd be careful with that one.

dksuddeth · 05-14-2006, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Or to elect a criminal, untruthful one.....

host, imo, it wouldn't have mattered whether bush was re-elected or kerry was elected. an attack of such magnitude requires planning, many years of it. cheney and rove were no more correct in their statements than i would be if I said that they really didn't send timothy mcveigh to prison. They used those remarks to embellish the possibility of terrorist attacks and alot of people bought it. Blame the press for reporting it.

05-12-2006, 11:47 AM	#86 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Armed insurection has always worked so well against the American government, I'm surprised that more people haven't tried it. Seriously, numbers mean nothing in this kind of conflict. It would be nothing but a slaughter. A force of 3,000,000 trained professionals with modern arms would completely tear apart 20,000,000 unorganized irregulars with only sidearms. I'm sorry, but I can't imagine any realistic scenario where rebels would emerge victorious. There are reasons why 100,000 Germans held off 2,000,000 Soviets at Stalingrad for 6 months. Any rebeling force would be disorganized at best and a mob in its most likely incarnation. You can't tell me that a highly organized, trained rebel army is going to spontaneous arise from nowhere in this country. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-12-2006, 11:49 AM	#87 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	guys, with all thats going on, 3 things will happen.... So many leaks and stories will come out that will without a doubt prove the bush admin broke the law and a) The republican majorities, in order to keep their majority, will impeach and convict bush, cheney, and anyone else involved, and hope that the american people will acknowledge and accept that the republicans disciplined their own, b) The republican majority will convince Bush to resign (ala Nixon) in order to save the partys face, and start billboarding their ignorance that Bush was breaking the law and hope for the best, c) The republican majority will do anything and everything necessary to stifle, block, and classify any and all information proving Bush broke the law, pass whatever they need to criminalize anyone who discloses, investigate anyone who discloses, and basically start the police state type crackdown, d) do absolutely nothing and hope for the best. It doesn't matter what they do, it's what WE do. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

05-12-2006, 12:37 PM	#91 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	It would all gain momentum jazz, eventually people would get wise and see that the government is not arresting terrorists or rebels, but are actively persecuting american citizens. it would/could happen. the sad thing about this is twofold 1) the death toll would be absolutely horrendous. we're talking millions, maybe even tens of millions. 2) in order to prevent this kind of genocide, the populace would have to be disarmed in some way.......oh wait, they're already doing that. hmmmmm __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

05-12-2006, 01:29 PM	#92 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	OK, color me confused. If the government is actively arresting those who are plotting the violent overthrow of the government, how do those folks NOT qualify as terrorists or rebels? It seems by their very definition they would be at least be rebels. There is specific language in the Constitution that allows the government to protect itself from insurrection, and anyone planning to violently overthrow the government would, fundamentally, be a rebel. Yes, they would still be American citizens, but they're no more worthy of Constitutional rights than a common criminal. In fact, they would only deserve those rights that criminals are afforded. I agree that if an organized insurrection somehow magically appeared on the scene, the death toll would be horrendous. However, it's not going to appear out of thin air, would likely not be very organized, and would certainly be doomed to failure from the very start. Air superiority alone would dictate that most of the rebels wouldn't survive the initial attack, and you're presupposing an American government that's so vastly unpopular with its citizens that a significant minority decide to risk their lives, comfort and livelyhood to rebel. So long as Americans are placated with cheap goods, readily available entertainment and the ability to live their lives largely as they see fit, no rebellion is imminent. There will always be fringe groups unhappy with the status quo, but personally I file them all under "nut jobs". No offense intended. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-14-2006, 09:06 AM	#108 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Oh well now my threads are being deleted out right. Think when the last mod of this board asked me to join him on another politics board I should have taken him up on it. Guess I still will. Whoever deleted that post you know what I said is true and now you want to hide it __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 05-14-2006 at 09:08 AM..

05-12-2006, 12:02 PM	#89 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	And people wonder why terrorists do what they do. If there were to be an armed resistence, it would be what is now known as terrorism. There would not be massive civilian armies a la Revolutionary war. There would be blacked out terrorist (or rebel) cells located all over the country. The military could find some of them, but never all of them. These cells would carry out totally independant attacks on government and military targets randomly (which is why I couldn't be directly involved: I don't kill people). Eventually the president and key government figures would go into hiding, martial law would be declaired, and things would get pretty bad for a while. Secret arrests and murders would turn many American citizens against the government, and then the rebelion would gain more and more support. Eventually it'll be a shrinking military vs. a very big rebelion. Then again, maybe the Republicans will grow balls and stand up to their BS leadership. One can only hope.

05-12-2006, 06:01 PM	#94 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I agree that it would have to be something even more major than what is currently going on to incite a violent overthrow of the government. The actually asked if you have attempted or supported the 'violent' ovrthrow of the government on the security clearance questionaire... So I don't support a French revolution style overthrow because it will never work. The_Jazz is right, the FBI, local cops, state cops, national guard and regular military would be able to take out anybody causing trouble. They could get the media to not report about it, or spin it like they always do. This is sounding more and more like this event if anybody tries this. http://www.cnd.org/HYPLAN/yawei/june4th/ (Banned in China) What I would worry about is an attack on the rich & religious from the poor. Basically, the main Republican voters are the rich white guys and the extremely religious ones. So, if we have a civil war, that would be one way to eliminate enough of the voters of the opposite party so your guy wins in the next election. I would have to trust that even a very Republican Congress (Or Democratic one if the Dems have the Presidency), would be strong enough to oust the President if they do something really bad. If for instance Bush called for the imprisonation and execution of all Muslims in the US and abroad. There would be major protests, but they would get arrested too. I don't know what actions the general populance could take against this government besides asking for help from a foreign country. Or moving to one.

05-12-2006, 08:25 PM	#95 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Dk, I understand your passion for reclaiming the government of "we the people," but my personal experience of our history tells me that a more effective revolution is possible. Please recall the anti-war and civil rights militants of our past. They were certainly destructive and got a great deal of press for that reason, but they ultimately failed in garnering main stream support. That support is absolutely necessary in making a fundamental change in government decisions. I believe the militants did more harm than good in prompting government change. The other more likely avenue for change is civil protest, and sometimes civil disobedience. Don't you find it remarkable the amount of press a few anti-war grandmothers have had? There is a sea change occuring now that should be obvious to most. The abuses of this administration are being condemned by conservatives and progressives alike, which gives "we the people" more power than has existed in our current one party system. Both sides will be scrambling for every vote, and lets make them earn each one. Dk, "we the people" have the opportunity to exercise our power within the law. I advocate that approach and I hope you will agree after considering our history.

05-12-2006, 08:41 PM	#96 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	I don't think we are anywhere close to worrying about an armed revolution yet. When it comes I would expect the young men and women in the military to resist shooting their fellow citizens. Our country came close to breaking up once in our short history. I hope if it comes to this again that the breakup can be accomplished without much bloodshed maybe something like the recent Soviet Union breakup. I guess it will depend on how adament the feds are to maintain power. I guess our original freedom fighters were considered terrorists by those who wished to continue to rule them.

05-13-2006, 10:50 AM	#104 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I just voted in Ohio a few days ago and there is a paper receipt that gets printed and stored inside the machine. The voter never touches the paper receipt and can't add their own into the machine. But, I'm not sure what happens to the discarded ones. And coould real votes be discarded? Second, is it possible to hack into the machine somehow and change the numbers, either at the machine by a person, or in the software by saying for ever 2 votes the person I don't want to win gets, it will automatically add 1 vote to the 'good' guy total in addition to all of the other votes they get. I like electronic voting, but I agree that there needs to be oversight by anybody in the public into every aspect of it.

05-14-2006, 11:16 AM	#109 (permalink)
host Banned	Is the description and documentation in the lower part of this post: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...53#post2062253 ...enough, YET, to presuade anyone to consider participation in relentless peaceful protests and organized acts of civil disobedience....or if not now.... WHEN?

05-14-2006, 11:47 AM	#110 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	For the record, Guerilla tactics employed against the military is the employment of guerilla warfare; a completely different beast then "terrorism". __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

05-14-2006, 12:44 PM	#112 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Terrorists use guerila tactics. Terrorism is the attempt of one group to coerce/intimidate/instill fear on a civilian group to achieve a goal. Just because the founding fathers or minute men got wise and discovered there was a better chance at survival if you didn't stand in lines to get mowed down by a superior british force, didn't make them terrorists. You are right though, they are not mutually exclusive. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

05-14-2006, 01:43 PM	#115 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I think if the American settlers had traveled back over to Britian and blew up some pubs and demanded that they allow the colonies to be independant, that would have been terrorism. Would al Qaeda attack the US again if we pull out all of our troops from the Middle East? Most people aren't willing to take that chance. If they would have only hit the pentagon, and used empty 747s, that would have been different, but still it is a grey area. Last edited by ASU2003; 05-14-2006 at 01:46 PM..