Re: Republican writer thinks women shouldn't be allowed to vote

[HairyHeretic]

Considering some of the other things I've seen them come out with, it wouldn't surprise me if there were some who would be quite happy to see those who favour voting democrat prevented from doing so.

Take a read of this little gem as an example

Here is the full text of John L. Perry's column on Newsmax which suggests that a military coup to "resolve the Obama problem" is becoming more possible and is not "unrealistic." Perry also writes that a coup, while not "ideal," may be preferable to "Obama's radical ideal" -- and would "restore and defend the Constitution." Newsmax has since removed the column from its website.


Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention

By: John L. Perry

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.

America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:

# Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."

# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.

# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.

# They can see that the economy -- ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation -- is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.

# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.

# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America's troop strength is allowed to sag.

# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.

# They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.

So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?

Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan's arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?

Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?

What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, "I'm not interested in victory") that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?

Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?

Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America's military leadership is lost in a fool's fog.

Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a "family intervention," with some form of limited, shared responsibility?

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don't shrug and say, "We can always worry about that later."

In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.

[Nimmy]

Firstly, I'm pretty sure that guy is trying to be amusing.  Secondly, do we really have to explicitly say that repealing women's right to vote is not a value generally shared by conservatives?

Seriously are some of you confused by this?  Are there some people here who heard this guy sounding off and wondered whether Republicans in general actually want to disenfranchise half the population?

Listening to the audio clip in the article, he doesn't really sound like he's joking. At least, not to me. And in any case, the topic he's "trying to be amusing" about, if this was his intention, is one that is probably a very sensitive subject, at least to women.

[September]

Hairy, if you think back to the Bush presidency you'll recall that it's not just Republicans who fantasise about using force to get rid of the guy they don't like.  Choosing to judge a party by its fringe elements is to wilfully choose ignorance over understanding.

[Vekseid]

Hairy, if you think back to the Bush presidency you'll recall that it's not just Republicans who fantasise about using force to get rid of the guy they don't like.  Choosing to judge a party by its fringe elements is to wilfully choose ignorance over understanding.

Obama is currently receiving four times as many threats as Bush did. Over thirty a day versus about eight a day - it's actually rather scary.

[HairyHeretic]

Hairy, if you think back to the Bush presidency you'll recall that it's not just Republicans who fantasise about using force to get rid of the guy they don't like.  Choosing to judge a party by its fringe elements is to wilfully choose ignorance over understanding.

The problem, as I see it, as that those fringe elements are being encouraged by some of the more visible right wing figures. Or if not encouraged, then the republican leadership is being strangely silent about calming their more fringe elements. They're allowing lies and distortions of the truth to continue unchecked. To what purpose?

Do you think that carrying an automatic rifle to a venue where the present is to speak is sending out any kind of positive message?

When Bush was in charge, anyone who disagreed with him had words like treason tossed at them, and told they should move to another country. Now all of a sudden, it's the tree of liberty needing watered with the blood of tyrants.

Where do you think that style of rhetoric will end up?

[Vekseid]

Ack, meant to retitle the split.

Regardless, we have a disturbingly recent example of what happens when media personalities are allowed to obliquely incite violence.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Obama is currently receiving four times as many threats as Bush did. Over thirty a day versus about eight a day - it's actually rather scary.

It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.  If it ever does.

We're on the cusp of a rather profound contraction in our standard of living.  Cf. "Weimar Republic" for an example of how that one can spin out.  Not saying it will work out that horribly, but little good can come of a proud, rich people being rather abruptly impoverished and humbled.

[HairyHeretic]

In a similar vein



Keep pushing the rhetoric, keep making loaded statements, encouraging the fringe elements to believe what they already want to believe, and all you need is the one crazy for this to happen.

[Avi]

Hairy, if you think back to the Bush presidency you'll recall that it's not just Republicans who fantasise about using force to get rid of the guy they don't like.  Choosing to judge a party by its fringe elements is to willfully choose ignorance over understanding.

I agree with you, September.  The problem is this:  The Republican Party is increasingly letting itself be visualized by those fringe elements.  In any group, the loudest, most vocal, most outrageous members are often the ones that get the most coverage.

I am a moderate, and what I see is a fairly-reasonable conservative party beginning to give sway to people who are pushing fringe agendas that shouldn't be given a second glance.  Yet, by being silent, or even worse, endorsing those opinions, they give those words power, and that becomes dangerous.

[germwaster]

I agree with you, September.  The problem is this:  The Republican Party is increasingly letting itself be visualized by those fringe elements.  In any group, the loudest, most vocal, most outrageous members are often the ones that get the most coverage.

I am a moderate, and what I see is a fairly-reasonable conservative party beginning to give sway to people who are pushing fringe agendas that shouldn't be given a second glance.  Yet, by being silent, or even worse, endorsing those opinions, they give those words power, and that becomes dangerous.

Sounds like a leadership problem...  If the leadership isn't united with the Republican party, action becomes increasingly difficult.  Perhaps the only thing they can agree on is that they aren't Democrats!

[CWand]

Couldn't that be seen as attempting to incite a civil war?  I mean the suggestion that they do a coup against Obama.  It sounds like inciting rebellion to me.

[Vekseid]

I suspect the reason for the dichotomy between the responses of Obama's and the Bush administration to threats like that is because, in the event of an attempted insurrection, the majority of America's military is quite liberal in nature. Ignoring the minor point that 40% of our military is made up of ethnic minorities.

[Elayne]

Texas Sovereignty or Secession Rally - Larry Kilgore

Texas Sovereignty or Secession Rally - Debra Medina

... These people aren't kidding. 

And they called Anti-Bush people 'un-American.'.

[Nimmy]

... wow. This is more than a little scary.

I wonder if these people are familiar with the death toll of the Civil War... the last time that states seceded from the nation. The low end of the figure, according to some quick googling, is stated at 618,000 people.

Somehow I'm not sure things would be as shiny and peaceful as these people want to believe if Texas tried to secede...

[Kate]

Interesting. Wow this world does lurrve drama.

Strangely "extremists" do have a good effect in the long run when the pendulum swings the other way.

In the short Hilter/Nazi party was very horrible - and removed a lot of happiness from the world during its time. After it though anti-racism/anti-discrimination laws appeared ...

A hard liner like bush - which the effects are obvious for is "good" afterwards as it does allow flaws of approaches to be seen more obviously (likely more personally) - ushering in a mood that appeals to leadership that is more inclusive and less enthralled with "us" and "else" dualism.

Some things not brought to the boil don't evaporate away... they just stay there doing their thing until something makes it rise to the surface.

[The Overlord]

... These people aren't kidding. 

And they called Anti-Bush people 'un-American.'.

You know something, that phrase has gotten so overused that I bet if you called them out on the spot, they couldn’t get you a real and cognizant answer on what exactly it is to be ‘un-American’.


Based on some of the things I’ve seen this country stand for in my lifetime, I’m not so sure anymore that that’s a bad idea. Texas has a high enough proportion of hard-line wackos maybe it is THEY who are un-American.



Texas has been full of attitude for years…if they actually get a majority vote to secede, I say fine, let them.



Then treat them as enemy combatants and bomb the snot out of the cocksuckers. If we have a William Tecumseh Sherman in the army today, let him make Texas howl.

[All Powerful Nateboi]

I did a video rant about that article!

Oppositional Politics

[Cythieus]

The important thing to some of the fringe movements in the Conservative Camp seems to be getting their way, not everyone getting what they want and not democracy working out. I mean I am sure someone's wondering what it would have been like if only white, land owning males were allowed to vote again. Some of them seem to want things back that way.

On the subject of Death Threats, anyone who didn't think he would get a lot should have expected it. He's a black democratic President and every since he's come on the scene the Glenn Becks out there have been casting the guy as the Anti-Christ.

[The Overlord]

America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized...

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

No.


It will be neither bloodless nor civilized, and in saying so, the speech author has proven they know nothing of history, particularly American history. There was nothing bloodless and civilized about the Revolutionary War or the Civil War, and with the sheer numbers of US military and civilians, and the deadly quality and numbers of our weapons, it would be the worst war on our soil by far. Perhaps the worst civil war in recorded history.


First major error in judgement here; that the military would unilaterally commit to a course of what is essentially treason- overthrowing a standing US president. The more likely outcome is that it would split the military, not North vs. South but by traitors vs. loyalist. Military vs. military.



In the event that the majority of units committed to a coup, our own military would be a hostile and occupying force, and citizens would be well within their rights to initiate a guerilla war and kill the personnel of our armed forces in as large numbers as is possible.

This goes for state, county, and local authorities as well. If a police department supports the coup, they too must be marked for death. We would have no choice to do this, because a movement by the right to grab power would pave the way to a totalitarian government.


The means and tactics to prevent this would have to include all options, up to and including the seizing of nuclear weapons to use against the hard right.


If you’re thinking of doing it, be warned; you’re in for the fight of your life.

[Morven]

And in my opinion, for all the talk, there's no guts in them for really doing this.

[Callie Del Noire]

And in my opinion, for all the talk, there's no guts in them for really doing this.

Never assume that there isn't a fool willing to do what he or she thinks is right. That has been a major fallacy through out history. 

[The Overlord]

And in my opinion, for all the talk, there's no guts in them for really doing this.

Never assume that there isn't a fool willing to do what he or she thinks is right. That has been a major fallacy through out history.

Oh I believe the hard right definitely has potential firebrands that could motivate some people to act in this manner…how many is the key.


The momentum to pull it off, or attempt to, is again going to be dependent on how many standing military units they could call to their banner.

Even if it was 75% of our armed forces that fell in line with the stupidity, that remaining 25% with civilian support and most of our active units overseas could give them a hell of a guerilla campaign, if not direct engagement.


Other major points to ponder here-


Moving enough military force into DC to take it is one thing, and maybe to impose initial order in major urban centers, martial law, et al., once it goes down.

But if Iraq can teach our military anything, it’s that taking a thing is one thing…HOLDING it is another entirely. Care to take on a large slice of the population that’s sniping you, setting roadside bombs, etc., and going for civic installations and giving you the Oklahoma City bombing x50?


Do you pull 200,000 personnel home from Europe, Japan, Iraq and Afghanistan all of the sudden? Do you think you can do that without repercussions?

Do you think you can do it all without a siren call to maximum arms and efforts from a hundred overseas terrorists or aggressors that want to see the powers-that-be here crumble?

Detaining or killing Obama is almost certain to trigger a race war against white and conservative America. If it goes down, I’ll be standing in line against them too, because the far right is not white like me. We may share a complexion, but that’s it.

[Callie Del Noire]

Don't see it happening. Sorry. As a former sailor, we were all taught the difference between legal and illegal orders. And the words 'all enemies foriegn and domestic' are in our oath, BUT that doesn't make all service members rabid zombies eager to gun folks down in the streets. Any sort of coup that goes down will definitely NOT have anything big in the way of miliatry support.

That being said, do I see one side or another trying to use the military to seize control. Oh I can imagine radical nuts on BOTH sides of the party divide considering it.

Just don't see a substantial number of guys in the armed services doing it.

[The Overlord]

For the time being, I am not aware of anyone, right or left, that could get this sort of thing going.


There are probably some religious leaders out there, but the kind of rhetoric you’d have to spew to get folks going on this sort of thing…you’ve basically have to prove you’re clever enough but not nutty enough to justify troops going after their own country.


In that light, I don’t see it either. That doesn’t mean, however, that the woodwork out there isn’t crawling with cockroaches like the Westboro Baptist Church that would love to start something on our soil.

[Elayne]

You know something, that phrase has gotten so overused that I bet if you called them out on the spot, they couldn’t get you a real and cognizant answer on what exactly it is to be ‘un-American’.

Based on some of the things I’ve seen this country stand for in my lifetime, I’m not so sure anymore that that’s a bad idea. Texas has a high enough proportion of hard-line wackos maybe it is THEY who are un-American.

Texas has been full of attitude for years…if they actually get a majority vote to secede, I say fine, let them.

Then treat them as enemy combatants and bomb the snot out of the cocksuckers. If we have a William Tecumseh Sherman in the army today, let him make Texas howl.

Well, I have a few counter points to that.

1)  There are nuclear missile silos in every state of the union.  If the USA breaks up, we could all of a sudden have 50 nuclear armed nations on our continent, with the threat of a civil war looming.

2)  If you think of Texas' 'creation myth', it's the Alamo.  Given that alot of the political players in Texas 'remember the Alamo' and also believe in the Apocalypse and Revelations, I think that if they were a seperate nation on the verge of being overwhelmed by Union forces, they'd actually go nuclear and damn the consequences.

3)  If you think of what being "American" is, supporting the "United States of America", probably a good indicator.  So, opposing that Union, wanting to break the Union up, it's the text book definition of un-American to my mind - You literally oppose the Union of States and want to break up the Americas.

[The Overlord]

Well, I have a few counter points to that.
  So, opposing that Union, wanting to break the Union up, it's the text book definition of un-American to my mind - You literally oppose the Union of States and want to break up the Americas.

And congratulations, our debate is over before it’s even begun, because you stuck a label on me and made an accusation here; a heinously incorrect one at that.

Next time, learn to actually read a post before responding to it.

[Oniya]

One thing though - there is nothing in the laws of this country that says that they don't have the right to secede.

However, when you consider the fact that they would have to start dealing with import/export issues with the rest of the states, it probably wouldn't be economically sound.

[kylie]

One thing though - there is nothing in the laws of this country that says that they don't have the right to secede.

     While I recognize that there is always a certain room for tension with regard to which choices are left to the states, I think it can be argued that representatives of those states historically locked them in.  At the least, secession implies some rationale by which reducing the size of the Union may be explained as not contrary to being under the Union in the first place.  Once you're under it, without an explicit justification, how do you legally declare yourself exempt from your own agreements?  I think that logically, there would have to be some kind of positive, very compelling exception.  Of course, in the Civil War people did take exception -- but they could not market it in a way that avoided conflict and the North's policies could be logically based upon the Constitution.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html  (Adding emphases.)
Preamble to the Constitution
     We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article VI.
     This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
     
     Just from this, I would say there is actually a tendency here against secession unless that breakup is found to serve some greater good of the Union by most or all parties concerned.

[Elayne]

And congratulations, our debate is over before it’s even begun, because you stuck a label on me and made an accusation here; a heinously incorrect one at that.

Next time, learn to actually read a post before responding to it.

Uh, I didn't put any labels on you or complain about anything that you've posted. 

Not exactly sure what you're upset about.

[Oniya]

It looks as if The Overlord took your use of 'you' in the generic:

You literally oppose the Union of States and want to break up the Americas.

to be a 'you' in the specific - i.e., 'You, the person I am talking to, literally oppose...'

[Elayne]

I don't really oppose anyone.  :P  I just put up articles or points I consider interesting and let other people discuss them.

[Inkidu]

It looks as if The Overlord took your use of 'you' in the generic:

to be a 'you' in the specific - i.e., 'You, the person I am talking to, literally oppose...'

And now you know why you is not to be used in formal writing. They hate it for that reason. You is far too personal heck even Britain uses the royal we.

[The Overlord]

Uh, I didn't put any labels on you or complain about anything that you've posted. 

Not exactly sure what you're upset about.

Apologies if I misinterpreted.