I just watched the video again. It's just under ten minutes. The two parts that you quoted take up about thirty seconds of that ten minutes, and do not represent the context of what she was talking about.

She did spend a good amount of that ten minutes telling people that if they want to retain their freedoms, like that to peaceably assemble, that they needed to sacrifice some of their time to become invloved in the governmental process.

You are cherry picking comments that she made about the founding fathers recognizing the possible necessity of physically confronting a tyrannical government.

I'm generally pretty sensitive to extreme rhetoric, but when I watch this video, there isn't anything said that puts up red flags for me. I would admit it if it did.

When you watch the entire video, and you listen to what she is saying, you should understand the context under which she is commenting about the use of arms. She is not signaling to people that she believes that we've reached that point. She is not telling others to do so. She IS acknowledging that the founding fathers understood the need for well regulated militias.

To be honest, I though that I was about to conceede here. Not after watching the video again. No, after watching the entire thing, and listening to what she said, I really believe that you are making some pretty bold assumptions. Little fact, bold assumptions.

She may be crazy and may need to be medicated, but she did not attempt to incite people to violence to overthrow the government.

 

Gotta hand it to you habs, you did a great job stirring the pot here with your typical misrepresentations. Congrats !


In closing, I'd suggest people actually watch the video in it's entirety instead of taking Habs' word for it (not that you all would've)

 

I've never taken Habs' word for much of anything, at least when it comes to politics.

 

So in post 17 when you said:

But now after listening/watching the video again, you now see that she did in fact say those words, but this time I took out out of context?

I'm sure you guys are great guys outside of political discussions but I gotta tell you, when it comes to this stuff you're like the typical mom of a serial killer.
You know the mom that when confronted with the overwhelming evidence still sticks up for her boy...

"Oh he was such a good boy, he didn't mean to kill those 37 people, you just don't understand him"

I think that's the key difference between the Tea Party and Liberals.
I've met some level headed and honest Conservatives in my day, so I'll give them some compliments as well)
You show me some wack job Liberal and I will be the first person to say "yeah man, that guy is nuts", but you guys are so hell bent on towing the party line you won't say poop about a person even if you have a mouth full of it.

Tow the party line at all costs even if it means being dishonest.

I suppose on this one we'll just agree to disagree.
The chick said it, she was practically foaming at the mouth when she said it, and we all know how she meant it, to say otherwise is simply not true.

I never expected Frank to be honest because he's a little Tea Party puppet who salivates over their every move, but I did expect a little more honesty from you.

Peace

 

No of course not but "Honest Frank" is the poster boy for honesty.

 

Oh brother.


Those words? What words? The only thing that I see different after watching the video for a second time, is that any doubt that I had about my opinion on this subject is gone.

She did not say that if the mid term elections didn't go the way she wanted them to go that she advocated the use of force to get her way. She did not incite people to violence. Context is important. Anyone who watches the entire video can see the context she made comments about the use of arms.

You can compare us to the parents of serial killers. That's not accurate but you can do it. Like I said at the beginning of this discussion, in the thread that was deleted because of name calling, there are better examples of extremists on the right. This is really a poor example, and you have to pick a couple sentences out of a ten minute clip to make your point.

If you bring us an example of a true radical righty, I'll condem them just like you claim you'd condem a radical lefty. No one is towing the line here. The video can be watched in it's entirity, and people can clearly see what she was talking about. She did not say that if the mid term elections didn't go the way she wanted them to go that she advocated the use of force to get her way. She did not incite people to violence. She acknowledged the founding fathers wisdom, that they were so complete in their construction of our Constitution that they included provisions for defense against a tyrannical government.

I can't say that I understand your personal vendetta against Frank, but I'd like to inject some accuracy here. Though I may have just missed it, I don't recall Frank mentioning that he's been to Washington DC, or has attended any other "Tea Party" event. I have been to DC twice and have attended many "Tea Party" type events. I am not a puppet of anyone and I don't salivate any more than normal because of any "move" the "Tea Party" makes. I will not apologize for becoming more involved and more educated about our political system. I will not apologize for knowing who my representatives are and knowing where they stand on various issues. I will not apologize for knowing who all of the candidates were on my ballot, and where they stand on the issues. I will not apologize for having a greater understanding of the issues.

I have never understood the necessity to be honest with my self as much as I have over the past few years. I believe that I'm succeeding. You are free to dissagree.

 

"If ballots won't work, bullets WILL!"

Yep, totally out of context, that's the smooth talking Republican party I have belonged to all my voting life. She really didn't mean that, what she meant was if the country was completely in control of a liberal mindset, and all of our personal freedoms were taken away, if our salaries, investments, business, etc. were all made public property, then we should rise up in arms and fight the mighty tyrants that choose to distribute our personal wealth to every man, woman and child that has not lifted a finger to earn it.

 

No, I'm quite sure she did mean it. It seems that what she meant was a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. If our founding fathers didn't add a second amendment, where would we be today? Who determines at what point our government is altered or abolished? I believe that the Constitution spells it out.

It's right there for everyone to see for themselves. This is about a minute and a half of the almost ten minute video. She spent a majority of the time trying to convince people to be active in their governing. At this point she is not advocating an armed revolt, but is pointing out that the founding fathers understood the necessity of people to defend themselves from a tyrannical government.

 

Wit,

I agree with the fact that she was trying to entice people to vote for most of her speech.

I'd also buy into your take on her merely supporting the 2nd Amendment, if it weren't for her later reference to take to the hills with her cache of ammo and make a stand. She a bit on the lunatic fringe any way I look at it.
I can't imagine a point in our near future where you and I would be willing to make and support such armed statements.

 

I guess I missed the part about the cache of ammo in the hills.

In all the words that I've typed in this thread, you will not find the ones that say I believe she is right with her faculties. I admit that she may not be.

I don't ever want to have to see a day when people believe that it is necessary to protect themselves from their government with weapons. A look at this countries not to distant history shows us that the past few generations have allowed the government to take more power from the people in the name of security. I believe that in time, a majority of the American people will reverse this trend.

 

Come on serotta admit it, under NO circumstances would you EVER be willing.

Let's say for the sake of argument that 'something' would happen in the future, no liberal I know of would ever have the fortitude to do what the founders did and risk life and wealth for anything they believe in. They would do what they always do and live with the chains of gov't. Not only that, but embrace it.

Samuel Adams said it best, "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

 

Frank, I spend a year in Vietnam, I spent my time proudly in the US Army and would do it again in a heartbeat if I wasn't too old to serve at this point in my life. You should be asking yourself those questions.
I'm more patriotic than most, not as much as some, I"m sure. Depending on how you stretch the definition of patriotic.

 

If you really served in Vietnam, I thank you for your service. It was a noble war, no matter how the MSM spun it. But you can thank liberals like Cronkite for the loss of that war. Especially his lies and misrepresentations about the Tet Offensive. I have an uncle that served over there and I know it wasn't easy.

 

To carry this hijack just a bit further: Frank, I was in Vietnam too. It was NOT Cronkite who lost that war. It was the lies and misrepresentations from the Exectutive Office that lost that war (that never should have been started in the first place).

But this thread is NOT about Vietnam, is it?

Isn't it about what is perceived by some as "advocating violent overthrow of the US Government"?

Let's try to keep it on track and do our best to avoid slinging insults in the process.

- Jack

 

Some misinformation did come from the LBJ and Nixon administrations. That does not excuse how things were portrayed by the media (especially Cronkite) at the time. You are obviously entrenched in your opinions of the representation of the war by the MSM. We agree to disagree.