Honduras Smack Down

[akhalteke]

Werd on the street says Columbia's president is trying to push for a 3rd term. We'll see what happens as per public/ international support on this one.

[rob]

You sure seem to take a light stance on violence and "putting a bullet in peoples heads."

 

 

I'm sorry that you gentlemen don't have the balls or the sense of duty to do what needs to be done if such a crime were ever to happen. Thank God there are enough out there that are willing to die for their country and defend it and it's constitution "from enemies both foreign and domestic."

 

WTF are you talking about? I'm a patriot. I just don't think it's OK to say "I'll be the first to put a bullet in his head" when referring to a president who is violating the constitution. That's why we are a nation of laws. If the president violates his oath, we already have ways of dealing with that, and none of them involve you getting to put a bullet in his head because you feel like it.

 

You don't get to hide behind your oath on that one. I don't care how many bullets you have in you. Your statements were wrong & misguided.

[akhalteke]

You sure seem to take a light stance on violence and "putting a bullet in peoples heads."

 

 

I'm sorry that you gentlemen don't have the balls or the sense of duty to do what needs to be done if such a crime were ever to happen. Thank God there are enough out there that are willing to die for their country and defend it and it's constitution "from enemies both foreign and domestic."

 

WTF are you talking about? I'm a patriot. I just don't think it's OK to say "I'll be the first to put a bullet in his head" when referring to a president who is violating the constitution. That's why we are a nation of laws. If the president violates his oath, we already have ways of dealing with that, and none of them involve you getting to put a bullet in his head because you feel like it.

 

You don't get to hide behind your oath on that one. I don't care how many bullets you have in you. Your statements were wrong & misguided.

 

Obviously, this is assuming that any and all legal avenues have been exhausted. As stated before, this is a theoretical excercise. This is the final checks and balances and it resides within every citizen. If it weren't for this innate human nature to be free, we would have silly accents and wear tweed all the time; and our teeth would look like a scree field.

[rob]

But if all legal avenues has been exhausted, and you still didn't like him, would that give you the right to kill him? What if the government said he didn't break the laws, and nobody agreed with you? Are you justified in killing him? It's a pretty slippery slope.

 

And besides, if the president was violating the law, and the justice department didn't care, then what makes you think killing him would fix it? Obviously, at that point, the cancer would be deeper than just one man.

 

It's not the 18th century anymore. The hypothetical you pose isn't really possible.

[Raindawg]

No, pal...you AREN'T learning. YOU are the joke.

 

 

I'm not your pal, guy.

 

 

Oh ya...you're my pal alright, Rev. Spaghetti, and I'm THIS CLOSE to trading you for a pack of cigarettes:

 

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

You sure seem to take a light stance on violence and "putting a bullet in peoples heads."

 

 

I'm sorry that you gentlemen don't have the balls or the sense of duty to do what needs to be done if such a crime were ever to happen. Thank God there are enough out there that are willing to die for their country and defend it and it's constitution "from enemies both foreign and domestic."

 

WTF are you talking about? I'm a patriot. I just don't think it's OK to say "I'll be the first to put a bullet in his head" when referring to a president who is violating the constitution. That's why we are a nation of laws. If the president violates his oath, we already have ways of dealing with that, and none of them involve you getting to put a bullet in his head because you feel like it.

 

You don't get to hide behind your oath on that one. I don't care how many bullets you have in you. Your statements were wrong & misguided.

 

I have to agree with Rob on this one.

 

No matter who is in power, we have a group shrilly accusing them of "shredding the constitution and trampling our rights". It's not a big step from this kind of thinking coupled with the "last resort" option proposed by Scott that leads to anarchy.

[akhalteke]

But if all legal avenues has been exhausted, and you still didn't like him, would that give you the right to kill him? What if the government said he didn't break the laws, and nobody agreed with you? Are you justified in killing him? It's a pretty slippery slope.

 

And besides, if the president was violating the law, and the justice department didn't care, then what makes you think killing him would fix it? Obviously, at that point, the cancer would be deeper than just one man.

 

It's not the 18th century anymore. The hypothetical you pose isn't really possible.

 

So what would you do? Nothing? I find that depressing; and likely the reason that our country is falling into shambles. It matters not what century it is. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

 

The code of conduct in this country is...well was very simple. My right to swing my fist ended at your face. Now, the right for me to make coffee ends at your ineptitude to not spill in in your crotch.

 

If you speak for the masses with your apathetic attitude and would relinquish our country to tyranny it is indeed a lost cause; this experiment.

[akhalteke]

You sure seem to take a light stance on violence and "putting a bullet in peoples heads."

 

 

I'm sorry that you gentlemen don't have the balls or the sense of duty to do what needs to be done if such a crime were ever to happen. Thank God there are enough out there that are willing to die for their country and defend it and it's constitution "from enemies both foreign and domestic."

 

WTF are you talking about? I'm a patriot. I just don't think it's OK to say "I'll be the first to put a bullet in his head" when referring to a president who is violating the constitution. That's why we are a nation of laws. If the president violates his oath, we already have ways of dealing with that, and none of them involve you getting to put a bullet in his head because you feel like it.

 

You don't get to hide behind your oath on that one. I don't care how many bullets you have in you. Your statements were wrong & misguided.

 

I have to agree with Rob on this one.

 

No matter who is in power, we have a group shrilly accusing them of "shredding the constitution and trampling our rights". It's not a big step from this kind of thinking coupled with the "last resort" option proposed by Scott that leads to anarchy.

 

So, if you had exhausted all legal avenues, you would just give up? Wow.

[akhalteke]

I suppose I am the only one here that believes that the 2nd amendment is the final checks and balances against tyranny.

[Kimmo]

So, if you had exhausted all legal avenues, you would just give up? Wow.

 

i don't think anyone is saying that; they are saying that legal means must be extinguished before attempting your solutions.

 

what's the saying? young, something something and full of ...."?

 

bad for thoughtful action , but excellent for military commanders.

[j_b]

Honduran Coup Turns Violent, Sanctions Imposed

by Laura Carlsen

 

Thousands of Hondurans are now in the streets to protest the coup d'etat in their country. They have been met with tear gas, anti-riot rubber bullets, tanks firing water mixed with chemicals, and clubs. Police have moved in to break down barricades and soldiers used violence to push back protesters at the presidential residence, leaving an unknown number wounded.

 

If the coup leaders were desperate when they decided to forcibly depose the elected president, they are even more desperate now. Stripped of its pretense of legality by universal repudiation and faced with a popular uprising, the coup has turned to more violent means.

 

The scoreboard in the battle for Honduras shows the coup losing badly. It has not gained a single point in the international diplomatic arena, it has no serious legal points, and the Honduran people are mobilizing against it. As the military and coup leaders resort to brute force, they rack up even more points against them in human rights and common decency.

 

Only one factor brought the coup to power and only one factor has enabled it to hold on for these few days-control of the armed forces. Now even that seems to be eroding.

 

Cracks in Army Loyalty to the Coup?

Reports are coming in that several battalions-specifically the Fourth and Tenth-have rebelled against coup leadership. Both Zelaya and his supporters have been very conscious that within the armed forces there are fractures. Instead of insulting the army, outside the heavily guarded presidential residence many protesters chant, "Soldiers, you are part of the people."

 

President Zelaya has been remarkably respectful in calling on the army to "correct its actions." It is likely the coup will continue to lose its grip on the army as intensifying mobilizations force it to confront its own people.

 

more: International Community Imposes Sanctions - Attack on Freedom of Expression

 

 

[billcoe]

This is the final checks and balances and it resides within every citizen. If it weren't for this innate human nature to be free, we would have silly accents and wear tweed all the time; and our teeth would look like a scree field.

 

 

 

BTW, most of us do know exactly what you mean, and I for one, find it a comfort that concerned citizens still care at the deepest level and that morals and beliefs can be so firm. Rob, no one is talking about stepping up and doing anything to a legally elected President who will be legally voted out or in again in the next election. I would see more of a situation where a Nixon, NOT stepping down, cozys up to the military and with their backing decides that any more US elections are fruitless and for the birds and he will finish when he's damn good and ready and not before. So he enacts a martial law crackdown domestically and deploys troops to enact that very scene. Frankly, I don't think we were too far away from that exact ugly scenario as when congress had mandated he step down, he had approached the military and God Bless them, they had sworn a oath to the CONSTITUTION and they meant to uphold that oath. Furthermore, the fact that the citizens are armed is the underlying theme there for all involved.

 

Stalin made a crack to Churchill once about the Allies executing an estimated 50,000 German prisoners to make a point. Upset and angry, Churchill stood up to leave and in shock said something directly to Stalin to the effect that he would rather saw his arm off than ever do anything so low and morally wrong and would never participate in such a mean and low crime. This was at a time of great peril for his country during WW2, and they Germans were doing many horrid things to his country and countrymen. Yet Churchill had and kept his morals. Stalin tried to pretend it was a joke and Churchill was persuaded to return.

 

Solzhenitsyn once lamented the fact that more of his countrymen didn't care enough to even try and stand up and toss a fist out when the authorities were pushing people around, he strongly felt that even small efforts would have help keep his country from falling into the hell that was the gulags of post WW2 USSR.

 

Bless you and yours Scott.

 

(had to add the part about Nixon)

Edited July 1, 2009 by billcoe

[rob]

Sorry, Bill, that sounds beautiful but he's still wrong. No amount of pithy world war II stories will change that.

 

I know Scott is a nice guy, and wouldn't assasinate a sitting president, because he's not crazy. However, there are a lot of crazy people out there who share your and Scott's views on the right to use deadly force to enforce liberty. However, not all of them are as rational. There are plenty of people out there who consider what our current president is doing to be treason, and that he's destroying the constitution. Should someone "put a bullet in his head" too? Because that's the solution Scott is proposing, hypothetically or otherwise.

 

His comments are misguided, and irresponsible. There are a lot of people out there who don't understand what Scott is trying to say, and as a result his comments are lending strength a lot of people's crazy ideas.

 

1) The right to overthrow tyrannical dictators does not require a constitution.

Tyrannical according to who, Scott? Lots of people think Obama is tyranical.

 

Please explain. Did Bush enlist the JCS to campaign for a term limits extension, fire the Chairman, and then refuse to follow an act of congress codified by the Supreme Court?

Exactly; try that in this country and I will personally put a bullet in your head

 

So; if the president breaks the law you'll shoot him? Personally? Well, lots of people think he's not even qualified to be president because he's not a citizen. I guess you better go get your gun.

 

Weak, Scott. I understand your passion but your words were still misguided.

[StevenSeagal]

Honduran Coup Turns Violent, Sanctions Imposed

by Laura Carlsen

 

Thousands of Hondurans are now in the streets to protest the coup d'etat in their country. They have been met with tear gas, anti-riot rubber bullets, tanks firing water mixed with chemicals, and clubs. Police have moved in to break down barricades and soldiers used violence to push back protesters at the presidential residence, leaving an unknown number wounded.

 

If the coup leaders were desperate when they decided to forcibly depose the elected president, they are even more desperate now. Stripped of its pretense of legality by universal repudiation and faced with a popular uprising, the coup has turned to more violent means.

 

The scoreboard in the battle for Honduras shows the coup losing badly. It has not gained a single point in the international diplomatic arena, it has no serious legal points, and the Honduran people are mobilizing against it. As the military and coup leaders resort to brute force, they rack up even more points against them in human rights and common decency.

 

Only one factor brought the coup to power and only one factor has enabled it to hold on for these few days-control of the armed forces. Now even that seems to be eroding.

 

Cracks in Army Loyalty to the Coup?

Reports are coming in that several battalions-specifically the Fourth and Tenth-have rebelled against coup leadership. Both Zelaya and his supporters have been very conscious that within the armed forces there are fractures. Instead of insulting the army, outside the heavily guarded presidential residence many protesters chant, "Soldiers, you are part of the people."

 

President Zelaya has been remarkably respectful in calling on the army to "correct its actions." It is likely the coup will continue to lose its grip on the army as intensifying mobilizations force it to confront its own people.

 

more: International Community Imposes Sanctions - Attack on Freedom of Expression

 

 

This is the right way to handle an elected commie who refuses to let go of the reins of power when his term is up, defies the nation's supreme court, orders the army to campaign for him, and cozies up with the likes of Hugo Chavez. Preferable to the descent which has taken Venezuela into authoritarian rule. Viva Honduras!

 

Good thing they saved Honduras from authoritarian rule!

Viva Honduras!

[Fairweather]

 

Stalin made a crack to Churchill once about the Allies executing an estimated 50,000 German prisoners to make a point. Upset and angry, Churchill stood up to leave and in shock said something directly to Stalin to the effect that he would rather saw his arm off than ever do anything so low and morally wrong adn would never participate in such a mean ad low crime. This was at a time of great peril for his country during WW2, and they Germans were doing many horrid things to his country and countrymen. Yet Churchill had and kept his morals.

 

...Then he turned the RAF loose on Dresden, and in three nights of bombing incinerated 40,000 German civilians instead.

[Mal_Con]

So it goes.

[Bosterson]

I suppose I am the only one here that believes that the 2nd amendment is the final checks and balances against tyranny.

 

Thankfully there has never been actual tyranny in this country.

 

However, vis a vis the revolutionary war, I'm inferring that your ultimate point is that we should all have rights to self determination, to free ourselves from the shackles of outside rule. Right? The states were a colony of Britain. The revolution was for autonomy. We are a colony no more.

 

So my tangential question, then, is do you feel the same way for other colonized peoples? Europe colonized much of Africa and Latin America (as well as India, etc.) - I assume you must also agree that those peoples should have had the right to rise against their colonizers?

 

And then, by extension, shouldn't peoples who are economically colonized (again, much of Africa and Latin America) be right to rise against their oppressors?

 

Even when their oppressors are Europe or the United States? Even when the oppressed are people you would call "communists" or "dictators?" (Like you, Mossadeq and Arbenz and Allende were nationalists, and they were elected by their people and overthrown by the United States.)

 

How do you define international tyranny? Should we, the people, rise against our own government when it betrays our own principles abroad?

 

How does this relate to the discussion? It doesn't. As far as I can tell, Zelaya has never done anything that could be construed as tyrannical. So I guess this isn't exactly relevant, but I'm curious how far your code of morals goes.

[JosephH]

I suppose I am the only one here that believes that the 2nd amendment is the final checks and balances against tyranny.

 

What a joke. Shutter less than 200 food distribution points, a handful of gasoline pipeline terminals, and McDonalds and the country folds like a piece of paper - not a shot fired. Yeah, you and you gun are a real threat to a determined Cheney.

[StevenSeagal]

Tyrannical according to who, Scott? Lots of people think Obama is tyranical.

 

Heard this morning on Glenn Beck:

 

"we need to have a revolution...peaceful of course...before your freedom is taken away forever!"

 

Any takers?

 

Edit- right after, lady calls the show on the phone "to express her anger" because when she called her congressman's office to gripe about his vote the staffer said she "sounded like one of those right wing wackos who listens to talk radio".

 

Anyway, Beck (aka Rush's retarded little brother) is working hard to organize a peoples coup d'état. Peaceful, of course! First thing is to get more people out for tea bagging parties this weekend- they need more people, what's with the apathy??

 

 

Edited July 1, 2009 by StevenSeagal

[Brianmoore]

Tyrannical according to who, Scott? Lots of people think Obama is tyranical.

 

Heard this morning on Glenn Beck:

 

"we need to have a revolution...peaceful of course...before your freedom is taken away forever!"

 

Any takers?

 

 

 

I don’t remember Glen Beck or Michael (wacko nutjob) Savage asking for a peaceful revolution when Bush was slowing “taking away your freedom”. What a bunch of hypocrites.

[StevenSeagal]

No, Savage was too busy demanding we drop hydrogen bombs on every middle east capitol city and worrying about gays and mexicans taking over the country.

[billcoe]

No, Savage was too busy demanding we drop hydrogen bombs on every middle east capitol city and worrying about gays and mexicans taking over the country.

 

No Shit! I flip through all my radio channels and listen to about everyone at some point. Occasionally I'd stop on Michael Savage (real name Michael Weiner AKA Ratso Rizzo). One day@ 2 years ago I heard him start yelling (I had an image of spittle blowing out his mouth as ye yelled into the microphone) that we needed to drop an H bomb on Damascus...no shit, he was yelling it. He wanted to kill every last one of "them". I couldn't believe it! I resolved to not listen to the prick again, a resolution I occasional break for a brief moment or 2 as my channel changing finger does it's magic in rush hour, to my regret every time it lands on his show.

 

Now the little bitch is whining because the British won't let him in the country. F* RATSO RIZZO is my thought, we should toss his bitch ass out as well. What a worthless yoink.

 

 

In no way do I mean to degrade one of the greatest American actors by comparing this radio lowlife to him. But Dustin Hoffman's awesome portrait of a lonely, thieving, lying, self-centered, angry, 4th rate con man really reminds me of Savage, including the accent.

 

ps, he owns part of the energy drink Rockstar with his son, another "Weiner", so if you do not support the asswipe, avoid it and drink Red Bull.

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/256199/The-Truth-About-Rockstar-Energy-Drink

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockstar_(drink)

 

Boycott Rockstar and this putz's radio show.