Ted Rall Calls for Armed Socialist Revolution

The only people that would be harmed from any rioting would be small businesses and property owners. It is beyond stupidity.

reply to post by Misoir

I wouldn't personally commit violence against people or property but sometimes violence is necessary to defend yourself against tyranny. The Founding Fathers did it for freedom and that is the only thing I would ever advocate doing it for.

I fail to understand how holding a gun to my head and forcing me to pay your medical bills, housing, etc is a defense of freedom.

Perhaps it is my simplistic, brutish mind.

Not scaring fellow people but rather letting the elite know that we are willing to fight them. Which political ideology might that be? I wouldn't support anyone 'submitting' to anything but Liberty.

So... who is the elite?

I'm something of an elitist - not the demeaning type (I don't blame others for sucking so long as they try) - but I generally strive for perfection and hold myself to unattainable standards (which is not exactly healthy - but my nature).

I believe the phrase is: "You're putting the pussy on a pedestal." I believe that can be readily adapted to your envy of social classes. Shut up and go to talk to the "elite." Most are pretty nice people. Some are pricks. Talk to your friends - some are pricks and broke to boot. It's part of the human animal.

What classification of worker are you thinking of here? I am including the small and medium business owners too, everyone except the upper 1% are the working people of this country. We are all workers and all businessmen. What differentiates 'us' from 'them' is that they have unjust power over all of us which has not been given to them by any Constitutional Authority. 'They' are forcing their will onto 'us' and that is not part of Liberty and not permitted in the Constitution.

This bologna needs some sauce. (This wild assertion needs some source or factual/reasonable basis).

CEOs have only a limited say in a company. The board of directors packs the most punch, and stock holders also pack a lot of influence. Government officials only have more power than they should when we let them write more legislation than we can read every year and we keep voting based on party rather than character.

The government and the elite are the same thing, the rotating door is alive and well in Washington. They work against us and we rebel against them. Simple as that.

So, who did you vote for? Same thing, different name - or someone who has some character and will represent the people of their district (regardless of party affiliation)?

reply to post by Hefficide

But it is fun to read this thread and see that my views have gotten me pigeonholed, apparently, as a skinhead, klansman, card carrying member of the Aryan nation. The fact that I think universal medical care is a good idea surely MUST mean I hate minorities and that I warmonger zealously.

About damned time you joined the club. Now you know the kind of welcome I get when I say government social programs are bad and people should be allowed to keep and buy firearms.

Just about the most twisted and absolutely jaw droppingly inaccurate representation of a group of people that I have seen on ATS thus far. The next time that a conservative or TPM complains to me that they are being painted in an inaccurate manner, I am pointing them to this thread to demonstrate that this unfortunate tactic seems to be a two way street.

The difference is, however, while people like Hannity and Beck (generally considered "extreme" right-wing) are advocating against violence - you have heavy-hitters on the left side of the field promoting it.

And you must admit - the side more prone to public demonstrations and riots is the left. They show up to protest the Nazis and go on a riot that results in millions of dollars in damage. That's not to say all leftists are prone to violence, but the personality types that seem to get drawn to public demonstrations often tend to have more in line with leftist mentalities and are also more prone to violence while at those demonstrations.

It doesn't really bother me any, either way. It doesn't matter who fires the first shot or why - it has about the same end result and will impact my life in a very similar manner. I will kill in the most efficient/expedient way possible to survive.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Misoir

 

I fail to understand how holding a gun to my head and forcing me to pay your medical bills, housing, etc is a defense of freedom.

Perhaps it is my simplistic, brutish mind.

Yes, perhaps. But if you read my posts correctly I outlined clearly how I did not support a Socialist Revolution but rather just supported his reasons for wanting a revolution. Big difference there. Maybe next time you could pay closer attention?

So... who is the elite?

I'm something of an elitist - not the demeaning type (I don't blame others for sucking so long as they try) - but I generally strive for perfection and hold myself to unattainable standards (which is not exactly healthy - but my nature).

I believe the phrase is: "You're putting the pussy on a pedestal." I believe that can be readily adapted to your envy of social classes. Shut up and go to talk to the "elite." Most are pretty nice people. Some are pricks. Talk to your friends - some are pricks and broke to boot. It's part of the human animal.

CEO and Board of Directors at Goldman Sachs, Bilderberg Group, CEO and Board of Directors at JP Morgan, CEO and Board of Directors at Bank of America. I think you get my point. The ones at the very top who run this whole cabal against us and our liberty.

This bologna needs some sauce. (This wild assertion needs some source or factual/reasonable basis).

CEOs have only a limited say in a company. The board of directors packs the most punch, and stock holders also pack a lot of influence. Government officials only have more power than they should when we let them write more legislation than we can read every year and we keep voting based on party rather than character.

So you don't believe that these multinational banks and corporations at the top 1% don't control everything? May I ask you a question? Have you been above ground for the past 2 years?

Hank Paulsen was a lead member at Goldman Sachs until he went to the Bush whitehouse and he was the leading man for telling Congress Goldman Sachs needed a bailout or the whole economy will crash. I could create a VERY long list of people in government who have strong ties to these corporate and banking institutions but I really don't have the time or motivation to do so.

So, who did you vote for? Same thing, different name - or someone who has some character and will represent the people of their district (regardless of party affiliation)?

I voted for who I believed would work in the best interest of the ordinary 'worker' and not the wealthy elite. Sorry but I don't think people who support putting deadly chemicals in our food, water, vaccines, air, and the other deadly things they do to us. Every person has their bad attitudes but I don't think trying to kill people and bribe the government to get away with it can be called a 'bad attitude'.

I'd like to assure you all that this "liberals hate guns/liberals are afraid of guns" caricature is utter nonsense.

This unapologetic liberal has spent his entire life around firearms, and i can promise you my aim is as good as ever.

I'll say the same thing to any people on the left that want to start a violent revolution as I do to the crazy righties that want to start a violent revolution.

Whoever tries to start a violent revolution in this country right now deserves to be put down quickly by the military. I would defend my country from any crazy, left or right, that wants to bring war to this country just to push their own personal or group agenda...that's not how we do things here.

You want the system to change...you are going to have to work for it by convincing people with logical arguments as to why your way of doing things are better. If you can't do that..starting violent revolution is not the answer.

Originally posted by negativenihil
I'd like to assure you all that this "liberals hate guns/liberals are afraid of guns" caricature is utter nonsense.

This unapologetic liberal has spent his entire life around firearms, and i can promise you my aim is as good as ever.

This is what happens when you try and put people into two classes. Right and Left... If you take each issue that is in front of us all,we would probably find we agree on much more than we disagree.Maybe it is just the issue that Conservatives don't trust the governments intent. While Liberals are more trusting of the Governments intent.
Conservatives care about the poor and are willing to aid them. Liberals care for the poor and are willing to sustain support to them.

It shouldn't be right verses left.

It should be the people, who are the owners and rightful masters of this nation, verses the dis-functional government.

It is our constitutional/declaritive duty to remove and replace any government that does not serve the best interest of the citizens of the United States. This was an intent of the founders. They openly and repeatedly call for revolution in our founding documents, in the spirit of resistance to an oppressive, overbearing government that is using the people to serve it's own agendas.

"The Tree Of Liberty Must Be Refreshed With The Blood Of Patriots And Tyrants" - Thomas Jefferson

Credit Wikipedia -

New Hampshire's constitution[29] guarantees its citizens the right to reform government, in Article 10 of the New Hampshire constitution's Bill of Rights:
Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

The Kentucky constitution[30] also guarantees a right to alter, reform or abolish their government in the Kentucky Bill of Rights:
All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper.

Similar wording is used in Pennsylvania's constitution,[31] under Article 1, Section 2 of the Declaration of Rights:
All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.

Article I, §2 of the Tennessee constitution[32] states:
That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

North Carolina's constitution of November 21, 1789 also contains in its Declaration of Rights:[citation needed]
3d. That Government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind.

The Constitution of Texas[33] also contains similar wording in Article 1, Sect 2:
All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

End Wikipedia.


And read the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration is often considered to be a "lens" through which the Constitution should be viewed. It provides the principles by which our citizens are entitled to freedom and to removed a government which does not serve their interests.

It doesn't need to be violent and I would hope that it would not come to violence, but I do believe that we are not being served appropriately by our governments, Federal and many cases States.

There is house cleaning to do and the people that we continue elect based on our current habits and customs of politics are NOT going to change a machine that serves THEIR interests. At some point we will be forced to dismantle the sitting government and remove most or all of our representatives in order to return sanity and accountability to it's functions. We will also need to change how the people gather information and choose their representatives. Finally, we will have to change our own views and expectations as a people.

It may come to blows, it may not. It may happen tomorrow, it may take another 200 years.. but we are not functioning properly and those that are taking turns driving the car are not acting in our best interests, neither internally nor externally.

Do we die from the corruption or do we DEMAND by any means required that our government serves US?

Let me leave you with one more quote.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

Where are we now?

reply to post by mnemeth1


Ted Rall, whoever he is, is an unequivocal moron if that's really what he said.

I'm a 'liberal' and I hate that sort of thing. I'm all for disagreement. I'm all for dissent. But sedition...at least sedition in the face of ridiculously silly things, is stupid.

I mean, it's not like Republicans decided to round up Democrats and put them in camps.

This man is clearly not representative...though I'm guessing he'll be shown as such even though he's a rare specimen from the left.

You should not do anything, and let the gov say they where right.