Saturday, October 17, 2009

Guest Gentleman: 9 Months is Not 8 Years

Today's Submission comes to us from Guest Gentleman Mike Onufrak.

It’s a shame that in this day and age, we have to worry whether voting for a candidate will lead to an armed military coup and a rebellion uprising. But unfortunately, that’s exactly what some conservative groups are advocating. That’s right, an armed, militant uprising to overthrow the government and to unseat the president from his position of power. But who is calling for this?

Sure there are the tea-bagger events, where such outbursts are not only tolerated, but are chanted. The frightening thing about these outbursts, however, is that they’re coming from some particularly unsettling places. Such as from US Senators like Michelle Bachman (R – MN), who said,“I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people — we the people — are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.”( Republican Patrick McHenry (NC) who called for, “…removing from office the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States and all U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives effective immediately.” (

The question begs to be asked. Why? Why after a mere 9 months in office are our own policy makers this fed up over not just the President’s actions in office, but his entire presidential organization? Has Obama really done such injustices to us that he must be forcibly removed from office by an armed uprising? Our former president had a solid run of 8 years without any Senator calling for a military uprising against him. Perhaps we should give our current President some of the same consideration.


Jstone said...

I think it's all been building up. Some people like to just call out the Republicans as being overzealous and willingly ignorant, and while I don't doubt there's some of that going on, there's a deeper reasoning. The last 9+ years have been filled with war, economic struggles, energy crises, increasing health issues, environmental cock ups, and a host of things that just feel bad. Well to be more accurate, I would say that all of these things have gotten much better press in the last 20 years, but I digress. Seriously bad shit has occurred. The call for change from the Obama camp was successful and telling of the desire of not just "liberals" in America, but a majority of Americans (I mean he won). But no one feels like anything has changed. Obama set out to shut down Gitmo immediately and yet there's been some floundering am I right? The Democrats secured a double-super-no backies-majority and yet there's all this infighting and partisanship that hasn't pushed any meaningful legislation forward.
Of course people are pissed off, they've been pissed off for several years now. It doesn't help that Afghanistan, which should've been relatively easy given the universal support of the world, has blown up worse than ever and it looks like we're trapped in this war for longer than anyone predicted.
People are maybe less tired of Obama than they are of government in general. George III was just another tyrant to the revolutionaries, his policies just carried on the tradition of all tyrants. The people got tired of tyranny as a whole. Now it seems people are getting tired of this Presidential Republic. Maybe there will be a revolution and we'll shift to one led more so by parliament with a relatively weak executive branch. Or maybe, in 3 years Obama will have a functioning, cheap universal health plan, Gitmo will be turned over to Cuba who has experienced a complete change of government, Afghanistan will have a clear cut pull out date that projections say will be smooth, and the deficit will be chipped away at to the point where we can look forward to a balanced budget after another term under Obama. We shall find out.

Dennis said...

There are always crazies. The media loves them. Links from thinkprogress and freerepublic? Of course they sound radical. They are extreme websites. They sound crazy all of the time.

The vast majority of conservatives haven't considered an armed conflict. There's just a few screaming it loudly and the media likes to focus on them. I doubt even the ones screaming would ever do anything.

Matt Lindeboom said...

Following news of a national bullet shortage ( some people are pointing to the possibility that Americans are stock piling.

Whether thats for fear of a new gun legislation from a Democratic Congress (unlikely), the coming Apocalypse of 2012 (just as unlikely but why not be prepared, right?), or that fringe groups really are stockpiling for armed conflict (scary).

It's probably for some non-crazy reason that I haven't listed here.

Dennis said...

The bullet stockpiling is mostly based on how anti-gun Obama has been in his political career. He voted for a ban on all semi-automatic weapons in Illinois, he's been quoted as saying he believes hand guns should be illegal, he has openly supported restrictive taxes on ammunition, he still spreads errant information on the American gun presence in Mexican drug wars.

I don't see how people think it is more likely that these people are stocking up for an armed insurrection rather than trying to avoid the complications that could be put in place in the coming years by having a president who is adamantly anti gun-rights and also has a democratic controlled congress. (Although, gun control issues do not strictly run down party lines.)

Yes, there are conservative crazies out there. The media likes to focus on them. Kind of like how 90% of the time you hear about Muslims in the news they are declaring jihad, are terrorists or are oppressive. Kind of like how the only time you hear about a pit bull is when one escapes a neglectful owner and mauls/kills someone.

The vast majority of Muslims are normal peace loving people. The vast majority of pit bulls never hurt a fly. The vast majority of conservatives do not want to storm the white house.

Capt. said...

There are so many things wrong with this post, I don't have time to address them all. So let me just address 2.

1 - You clearly did not learn the difference between being literal and a figure of speech in ha scrool.
The Senator said she wanted people to be armed and dangerous on this (wait for it, here it comes) ISSUE. Meaning she doesn't want people to become complacent and allow this BS to happen to them.

2 - You are either very naive or just as much of a hypocrite as most liberals.
95% (at LEAST) of Dems and Libs did not give Bush the benefit of ANY doubt, since most of them voted to support the war.
You are clearly also missing the Nobel Peace Prize winner who openly mentioned numerously about how she fantasized about killing President Bush. Bush never threatened people who were using freedom of speech to speak out against his policies, or told the press to stop treating PMSNBC like a legitimate news organization because they weren't being his personal propaganda machine.

Use your brain and go back the last 7 years and see what all your Lib friends were actually saying about Pres. Bush.
You also should realize you should be just as pissed at where the "anointed one" (meant sarcastically) is taking this country.

And as for the Tea Parties: Don't pretend you all didn't have hundreds of protests and marches against Bush. I guess Obama would be happy knowing that you are following his example of trying to guilt/take away peoples' right to assemble and the freedom of SPEECH.

David Pratt said...

@Capt -

Incorrect, sir.

Broad generalizations aside, your post is equally as blind to the issues at hand as you make our Guest Gentleman's out to be. 95% of liberals are hypocrites now? Really? What does that make the conservatives who sang his praises and now condemn Obama, despite the fact that he's held on to a number of Bush Administration policies?

President Bush never tried to marginalize the people speaking out against him? Does "If you're not with us, you're against us" not ring a bell? "Emboldening the terrorists?" "Weakening America?" None of this sounds familiar? Because it was said by Bush or Bush administration officials or Fox News anchors whenever someone spoke out against his policies.

And you know what? A quick note on Fox News. It IS opinion reporting gussied up as journalism. When Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck says something outrageous, that's fine. They're pundits, commentators, it's their job to appeal to their audience. But when their lead anchor (whose name escapes me, the guy with the really intense eyes) cuts off the feed of two South Ossetian women thanking the Russians for saving them because the network is trying to put a pro-Georgian slant on the story, that crosses a line. That becomes pushing an agenda rather than a story. And that's just one example of what they consider "Fair and balanced."

Back to the main point, where exactly is Obama taking this country? Because from where I stand it looks like he's trying to make people listen to reason and our duly elected Senators and Congressmen, Republican and Democrat alike, are doing all they can to stand in the way of progress. Do a little research on what exactly the powers of the office are.

There's nothing wrong with the country now that wasn't wrong with it 2, 3, or 4 years ago. People talk about the mess Obama has caused as if he's done anything so far but try to untangle the snarl left for him by the previous administration. To Bush's credit (which I do believe he is not given enough of) he did make the transition of power as smooth and easy as possible, but there was just so much to do. It's not going to be easy or fast in getting things to a better place, which is something Obama has himself repeated on several occasions.

Moreover, I just hate your tone. There's never going to be any progress made at all as long as Americans keep assuming that there's two absolutes, conservatism or liberalism, right and left. You know something? There's no right or left anymore. Look at policy of the last 100 years and how things have shifted. The left is the right now, and the right is just insane. Centrists are the new liberals, and real liberals are aging hippies.

Some things are better to keep a conservative eye on, other things need liberal ideas to work right, and that's just the way it is. If you assume one or the other for all situations, you will almost certainly end up wrong.

So much of what you said exemplifies everything that is wrong with dialogue in this country that I was compelled to comment. It feels good to vent.

Vote for Universal Health Care.

Max Nova said...

@capt - sorry what was that you said? I couldn't hear you I had NPR on my headphones and was hugging a tree shaped like al gore.

@Dennis- explain the need for people to have semi automatics. Honestly, please do. I can at least see some rationale in hunting rifles and handguns, but semis, really?

Damo said...

@David, you are really starting to impress me, sir.

Dennis said...

The vast majority of hand guns and hunting rifles are semi-automatic. Semi-automatic just means that the loading mechanism of the gun is automatic a.k.a. you don't have to manually load each individual bullet and/or cock the gun before you fire. You just pull the trigger for each bullet until the clip/chamber is empty.

All sport shooting besides distance rifling would be impossible without it. It would affect (bird) or eliminate(bear, big game) the types of hunting that can require multiple quick shots. It would just be a pain to have to re-load every time you fire for people who shoot for leisure.

Matt Lindeboom said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stephen said...

Ok for the record just because no one else seemed to notice/bother to point this out, Michelle Bachman is a US Representative, as in a member of the house. Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar represent Minnesota in the US Senate. Incidentally, Minnesota's 6th congressional district was held by republican Mark Kennedy, who's failed effort against Klobuchar in 2006 allowed an opening for Bachman.