Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Eh, this just shows how much disrespect there is for the government.

I am only surprised that the bigoted crowd didn't also call Barney Frank a k--e. Hint: Barney Frank is Jewish.

It is disrespect for two large segments of the population -- the American people. Nobody is any less American for having African ancestry; indeed, every slave earned American citizenship long before he got it. Nobody is any less American for being gay.

Do you want your children to say words like n----r and f----t? The African ancestry of President Obama and the open homosexuality of Barney Frank have no relevance to the issue of health care reform.

The tea bag crowds are heavily Boom, and Boomers are not well known for politeness in political demonstrations. So it was when the Boomers were involved in left-wing protests in the 1960s and so it is in 2010. Boomers tend to go over the top in politics, whether they go Left or Right.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The tea bag crowds are heavily Boom, and Boomers are not well known for politeness in political demonstrations. So it was when the Boomers were involved in left-wing protests in the 1960s and so it is in 2010. Boomers tend to go over the top in politics, whether they go Left or Right.

Indeed.

I remember the Boomer violence on the left-- the race riots, the Weather Underground bombings, Manson, the Patty Hearst kidnapping and robberies-- from the Awakening. It would appear we are now poised for similar attacks from the right... this time aided and abetted by Xers, who've always accepted the Boomer agendae as "normal".

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Indeed.

I remember the Boomer violence on the left-- the race riots, the Weather Underground bombings, Manson, the Patty Hearst kidnapping and robberies-- from the Awakening. It would appear we are now poised for similar attacks from the right... this time aided and abetted by Xers, who've always accepted the Boomer agendae as "normal".

Alot of Xer's are South Park, equal-opportunity haters. So don't take offense since everyone is on the radar.

Just read on DU that some Teabaggers tried to force their way into the House chamber!

Originally Posted by Odin

Just read on DU that some Teabaggers tried to force their way into the House chamber!

Yet Republicans are pandering these crazies.

More Tea Party racism

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/he...-ethnic-slurs/

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Indeed.

I remember the Boomer violence on the left-- the race riots, the Weather Underground bombings, Manson, the Patty Hearst kidnapping and robberies-- from the Awakening. It would appear we are now poised for similar attacks from the right... this time aided and abetted by Xers, who've always accepted the Boomer agendae as "normal".

Manson is a Silent--like Richard Speck (killed 8 student nurses), Carl Starkweather (killed about 8 people in Kansas), Hickok and Perry (In Cold Blood), and Lee Harvey Oswald. When one of those guys let loose, they really let loose.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Eh, this just shows how much disrespect there is for the government.

I found this to be an interesting statement. Why should citizens have respect for our government?

Originally Posted by Copperfield

I found this to be an interesting statement. Why should citizens have respect for our government?

Do you want or prefer anarchy instead? What's government without the respect of it's citizens? It's simply becomes a collection of n-----s, f-----ts or whatever disrespectful term gets added on or directly applied to it. BTW, the government who does not show, acknowlege or extends respect for its citizens, deserve whatever disrespectful comments and terms gets heaped on it or directed at it.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Do you want anarchy instead?

The Greeks (who came up with the idea) defined anarchy as:

"No rulership or enforced authority. A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."

So to answer your question, sure.

Your response isn't an answer however. Do you consider the opposite of "respect for government" to be anarchy? Is this result limited to a specific political party protesting against something they do not believe in? If, for instance, liberals had angrily (or even violently) protested the Patriot Act would that be the same? Should you have to respect government you don't believe in?

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Do you want or prefer anarchy instead?

lol! -nice try CIA. The Tea bagger movement was quickly co-opted and is being used as a tool to a) syphon off boomer anger and more importantly b) justify a counter insurgency. If they can get a coherant program together for a 60 minute entertainment show, what do you think can be done with the same talking points on every channel. Xers are WAY more keen to this & they have a future and children to think about. In light of all that, I hardly think that the Xers are going along with any boomer agenda. To the contrary, Xers are forcing boomers to come up with a coherent plan for our collective future. If you are wondering when Xers are going to get serious as was the name of a thread at one point, here's the answer: When the Grey Champion(s) give us a damn good reason, til then Xers are only going to pull pranks (which are actually hints about which direction for the GC's to go) We know what is called for & we are simply waiting for enough Boomers to mature into GC's. We'd tell you outright, but you've dismissed us so many times in the past that we know you have to figure it out on your own as if you discovered it. Good luck & you wi9ll lose your illusions about the world you thought you were living in. The sooner the better.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

The Greeks (who came up with the idea) defined anarchy as:

"No rulership or enforced authority. A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."

So to answer your question, sure.

Your response isn't an answer however. Do you consider the opposite of "respect for government" to be anarchy? Is this result limited to a specific political party protesting against something they do not believe in? If, for instance, liberals had angrily (or even violently) protested the Patriot Act would that be the same? Should you have to respect government you don't believe in?

We don't live in the world of saint, a philosophical dream or the kingdom of heaven. We live in the world with murderers, corruption, gangs and violence. A world that is still similiar to the world of the Greeks. The opposite of respect for the government is disrespect of the government. Respect is a property of the individual. Respect is not a social comodity or entitlement. So, the answer is no, you don't have to respect government you do not believe in.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

We don't live in the world of saint, a philosophical dream or the kingdom of heaven. We live in the world with murderers, corruption, gangs and violence. A world that is still similiar to the world of the Greeks. The opposite of respect for the government is disrespect of the government. Respect is a property of the individual. Respect is not a social comodity or entitlement. So, the answer is no, you don't have to respect government you do not believe in.

So, now the opposite of respect for the govt is disrespect? What happened to anarchy? It wouldn't be hard to talk you out of your newly found conclusion, except for the fact that it is being challenged now. If you want respect, you have to earn it by posting things that are well thought out. It isn't that I'm being disrespectful, but rather that I am asking you to extend respect to other posters (namely to copperfield) by not jumping to conclusions so quickly about opposites. It could be that the opposite of giving respect is asking for it.

"Respect is a property of the individual." ....????..... The difference between respect and obedience is easily mistaken. In fact, it makes a good deal of sense to train people to confuse the two.

Originally Posted by SaintStephen74

So, now the opposite of respect for the govt is disrespect? What happened to anarchy? It wouldn't be hard to talk you out of your newly found conclusion, except for the fact that it is being challenged now. If you want respect, you have to earn it by posting things that are well thought out. It isn't that I'm being disrespectful, but rather that I am asking you to extend respect to other posters (namely to copperfield) by not jumping to conclusions so quickly about opposites. It could be that the opposite of giving respect is asking for it.

"Respect is a property of the individual." ....????..... The difference between respect and obedience is easily mistaken. In fact, it makes a good deal of sense to train people to confuse the two.

You can ask for and demand respect all day long, but if you don't have respect or show respect, you're not going to earn or recieve respect. Personally, I've never asked or demanded respect. I've always been able to earn it. Do you consider yourself a challenge or threat to me personally? Do you view yourself or think of yourself as now worthy or in a position of demanding my respect? Anarchy is the end result when there is no respect for government.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

You can ask for and demand respect all day long, but if you don't have respect or show respect, you're not going to earn or recieve respect. Personally, I've never asked or demanded respect. I've always been able to earn it. Do you consider yourself a challenge or threat to me personally? Do you view yourself or think of yourself as now worthy or in a position of demanding my respect? Anarchy is the end result when there is no respect for government.

Life, liberty, commerce, entertainment, the family, and every other aspect of civilization cannot survive if we do not obey the law. Yes, at times, non-violent civil disobedience has forced some reconsideration of an unjust law and its overthrow. But Lincoln defined the issue in the civil war very clearly and brilliantly: can an elected government enforce its laws? The answer, fortunately, was yes, and slavery disappeared from the earth as a result. The Republican Party is irresponsibly threatening us with anarchy again. KIA, you do not have the right to disobey the government just because you don't like it. If you did, we wouldn't have a government or laws. You do have a natural right to rebellion, but that means you will be treated as a rebel, and you'll need a lot more like you to succeed. And that, fortunately, is not on the horizon. Hell, without a government, how could retired Republican Congressmen (and Democrats too) become lobbyists?

Most people, other than anarchists in principle and criminals in practice, agree that government deserves respect and we should obey the law. However, there are times when that "natural right of rebellion" comes to the fore in people's thinking, and usually it happens when they feel the government has become something alien. That is more likely to occur in a 4T than at any other time in the cycle. (Second-place goes to a 2T.)

Now that HCR has passed the House and there is no doubt about the Senate passing the changes to its bill or the president signing, what will the activists on the right do? There were signs (literally) in the recent protests that we may see a violent insurgency erupt as a result of the fact that they lost the political struggle. That's particularly true if the Republicans lose the coming election.

At some point, one loses confidence in the political process. When that happens, one either gives up, emigrates, or turns to violence. I suspect that some portion of the right may do the last of those before this is all over.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Life, liberty, commerce, entertainment, the family, and every other aspect of civilization cannot survive if we do not obey the law. Yes, at times, non-violent civil disobedience has forced some reconsideration of an unjust law and its overthrow. But Lincoln defined the issue in the civil war very clearly and brilliantly: can an elected government enforce its laws? The answer, fortunately, was yes, and slavery disappeared from the earth as a result. The Republican Party is irresponsibly threatening us with anarchy again. KIA, you do not have the right to disobey the government just because you don't like it. If you did, we wouldn't have a government or laws. You do have a natural right to rebellion, but that means you will be treated as a rebel, and you'll need a lot more like you to succeed. And that, fortunately, is not on the horizon. Hell, without a government, how could retired Republican Congressmen (and Democrats too) become lobbyists?

I'm not Republican party. I'm the US citizen your liberal twit in Washington IGNORED and directed his party to IGNORE! Do you enjoy the life, liberty, commerce, entertainment, the family and every other aspect of life that your paycheck, your job, your future benefits and your financial/social connection to the government provides? When governments go rouge, ignores and defies the will of the people, imposes its will on those people in the name of it's own political sake and political interests, the people who are not politically related HAVE a right to get FUCKING PISSED! There is nothing worse than a low life prick who wheres a nice suit, flaunts his money and drives around in a nice car. We call them PIMPS! Hell, without government and the fruits of government, how would you be able live and survive?

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

When governments go [rogue], ignores and defies the will of the people, imposes its will on those people in the name of it's own political sake and political interests, the people who are not politically related HAVE a right to get FUCKING PISSED!

Once again, you are confusing "I" with "we." You are just you -- one person. You think most people share your mindset. You're wrong. Most people either approve of the recent HCR bill, or wish it had gone further. The government is not defying the will of the people, it's just defying YOUR will. It was either that, or defy the will of MOST of the people.

Sure, the losers are "fucking pissed." But those of them that turn to violence as a result are going to end up fucking dead or in fucking prison.

Originally Posted by Wes84

There's more to it than just disrespecting the government. Their fear of the impending vote and their lack of political sophistication has given them no other choice (in their minds) but to intimidate certain members of Congress (namely those who are homosexual and African American)through spitting and racial/homophobic insults.

I assure you the anger you see is not fear induced, it is pure anger.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Most people, other than anarchists in principle and criminals in practice, agree that government deserves respect and we should obey the law. However, there are times when that "natural right of rebellion" comes to the fore in people's thinking, and usually it happens when they feel the government has become something alien. That is more likely to occur in a 4T than at any other time in the cycle. (Second-place goes to a 2T.)

No disagreement at all.

Now that HCR has passed the House and there is no doubt about the Senate passing the changes to its bill or the president signing, what will the activists on the right do? There were signs (literally) in the recent protests that we may see a violent insurgency erupt as a result of the fact that they lost the political struggle. That's particularly true if the Republicans lose the coming election.

Wanna bet Texas tries to pull ye old seccession, yet again? Followed quickly by a move to do so in Viriginia since they're a "commonwealth" and not a state, & justifying that "technically" there's no limits on commonwealths secceeding from the union? Heck, part of Pennsylvania may try it. We're going to be kicking the Governor out of office soon--no one likes Rendell anymore & he's served for eight years, and unless the Democrats in the state can choose a golden boy/girl, we might end up in Tea Party influenced Republican hands.

God, it's at times I wish there were a strong Independent Candidates running on the state level that weren't wildly insane, or relatively unknown.

At some point, one loses confidence in the political process. When that happens, one either gives up, emigrates, or turns to violence. I suspect that some portion of the right may do the last of those before this is all over.

I was actually surprised not to see riots in the streets this morning, but I guess this is the moment one calls the "quiet before the storm".

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

When governments go rouge, ignores and defies the will of the people, imposes its will on those people in the name of it's own political sake and political interests, the people who are not politically related HAVE a right to get FUCKING PISSED

For sure, that's why we got rid of the GOP Congress in 2006 and the GOP executive in 2008.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I was actually surprised not to see riots in the streets this morning, but I guess this is the moment one calls the "quiet before the storm".
~Chas'88

BR, Rani, and now Chas88 sound like they are almost wishing for violence to break out. As if we should settle things once and for all in one big orgy of violence.

I pray to God this does not happen. Once you begin justifying political violence, it is hard to pull back. It would be a bloodbath. Governments would fall, armies would mutiny, the economy would collapse. 4T or not, I urge you to cool the triumphalism a little bit.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

BR, Rani, and now Chas88 sound like they are almost wishing for violence to break out. As if we should settle things once and for all in one big orgy of violence.

I pray to God this does not happen. Once you begin justifying political violence, it is hard to pull back. It would be a bloodbath. Governments would fall, armies would mutiny, the economy would collapse. 4T or not, I urge you to cool the triumphalism a little bit.

James50

Predicting that something may happen is not the same as wishing it will happen.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Predicting that something may happen is not the same as wishing it will happen.

Correct. I am trying to warn against the dark side of the S/H 4T way of thinking: that we begin to wish for the apocalyptic moment as a way to justify all our beliefs.

James50

Originally Posted by The Rani

Do what? Where did I say that?

I think the thread was:

BR "But those of them that turn to violence as a result are going to end up fucking dead or in fucking prison."

Your response:

"Let the 4T begin."

Or at least that was how I threaded (heard) it.

(You do love asking questions, don't you? I prefer declarative statements. I hope you will make a few.)

James50