Is right wing setting trap for progressives?

[scudrunner]

I have noticed on several mainstream progressive forums,the idea of stopping the administration by force.It makes me wonder if they are plants by the right wing.Are we going to hear Hannity,some night read these posts on air as proof that we enemies of the state?

[Jackpine Radical]

1. I don't know why they'd bother.

They make most of their lies up out of whole cloth.

[MADem]

2. Force?? What force??? Progressives are not known for their arsenals

Progressives use WORDS, not violence, to get their points across.

Unless we can stone them with tofu pups and fresh broccoli, I can't see that idea getting much traction, frankly.

I like non-violent resistance, myself. The MLK idea. Mass numbers, in the streets, peacefully demonstrating....

[pretzel4gore]

3. fukk the rightwing. we need a 'national hunger strike'

an organic political movement to force paper ballot use in '06 polls, outlaw diebolt and other electronic bs systems.....the rw almost certainly trying to entrap the liberal left etc, but that's the nature of the bush monkeyfarts, to fill the air with foulness..a 'hunger strike' would be something millions of induividuals could THREATEN, and if the numbers were vast enough, the bushviks lose control of the media story.....(no one, goddamit, has to actually starve until the momentum was unstoppable, or fuggetaboutit klol!)

[pansypoo53219]

13. better solution

stop shopping. plant a garden. VICTORY gardens. reuse reuse reuse. save.

[Burning Water]

16. Remember, Maggie Thatcher taught

the RW how to actually handle hunger strikes. Let the poor deluded bastards starve. I don't think Bush or his cabal would move until thousands had died, maybe not even then. And you think just the threat of millions is going to move them?? I don't think so. They'll consider it like a judge considers a civil contempt of court citation, the prisoner holds the key to his cell, and nobody's forcing these people not to eat. Beside, they know for a fact, and so do you, millions of American citizens are not going to starve themselves. And those that do, won't get to vote Dem in the next election.

I think the left has to move beyond street theater. Now that they control the media, they audience for this type of thing is small and ineffective. The left needs to start figuring out how to win elections, or at least how to keep them from being stolen.

Clark may, I repeat, may be the man to do that.

[pretzel4gore]

26. there's never been a national hunger strike....

this is amazingly difficult to get across but no one needs to starve! the theatre aspects is exactly what's needed (and remember, being an ad hoc, unorganised entirely voluntary movement springing entirely from private initiative, it cost the anti bush movement nothing, while doing something the bushviks cannot stop: get the news that vast numbers of americans opppose bush enough to.... etc etc) No one has to actually starve; the point being the THREAT OF 30 MILLION PEOPLE (?) to starve themselves would destroy the bushviks in their holes, like an attack of enviro friendly raid on a nest of creepy bugs....lol And the point is, IF only a few million people, say 5 million or 10 million, signed up to threaten to go on hunger strike, then the strike could be foxnews'ed (we was just joking haha my furore!)
thatcher was acting against ira thugs who were in jail, btw, and letting sands etc die exposed thatcher's powerlessness (and you think she aint afraid of meeting those guys when her turn to die comes?)

[Burning Water]

27. OK, first, how did

letting those guys die expose Thatcher's powerlessness? I would have thought it exposed their powerlessness. They had one weapon, and it failed.

Second, nobody is going to believe that 30 million people will have the discipline to actually starve themselves. Especially seeing as how the left is building this up by saying that no one is actually going to have to starve. I know it's hard to believe for some people, but the RW can actually read, and they monitor LW sites such as this one. I have already seen a somewhat mocking thread about this very subject when I went slumming over at FR a few days ago.

But anyway, let that go. You know, when you pull a gun on a burglar, say, you have to be prepared to shoot him. Otherwise, he's likely to take it away from you, and use it on you, instead. This seems to me to be the same thing, in a way. If it's to be done at all, we can't go into it with the expectation that Bush will immediately fold. He won't. He will call the bluff, so it had better not be a bluff. Otherwise, as I see it, we will be worse off than before.

Frankly, I think ten serious men who fully intend to starve themselves to death will have more impact than 30 million who intend to wear a colored ribbon of some sort to indicate that they support a non-existent hunger strike. The 10 men might die, probably will if they are serious, 'cause Bush won't budge. But it would be more effective theater, IMO.

Remember what Stalin said, "One death is a tragedy, one million deaths is a statistic."

[pretzel4gore]

28. you're probably right....fukkit!

when you pull a gun on a burglar, he presumably knows he's a crook and thus you better be ready to shoot (in reality, why not just kneecap the goof and call cops/ambulance, he'll thank ya, and you can claim it twas accident!) with the bushviks, otoh, they cannot act like crooks in broad daylight, in front of the watching public, so you don't have to pull any guns or anything. Gandhi used a hunger strike to force the hindi/muslim communities to stop fighting; he FORCED both communities to send reps who literally begged Gandhi to eat. If 30 nmillion americans said they'd go on a hunger strike to force the gov to use paper ballots, with bipartisan counts etc, then it would crack the bushvik news monopoly, before the strike even started.

[Burning Water]

29. Well, I wish I could return the compliment, but

I have several disagreements.

in reality, why not just kneecap the goof and call cops/ambulance, he'll thank ya, and you can claim it twas accident!) VERY BAD! He goes to the hospital, sues you, writes a bestseller. You lose your house, then your wife, maybe wind up in jail. No, just shoot the creep, then no one can dispute your version of events. :sarcasm: ?? You decide :)

Secondly, you might get a one-night story out of it, but that wouldn't be enough. It has to pound the public, night after night, or they go off on another track. I doubt people saying they will go on a hunger strike will play two nights running.

You have to see people starving. Gandhi, now. Was he actually starving? Or did he get those people coming to see him to make him stop saying he was going to go on a hunger strike?

I think it makes a difference. One is an actual action, passive as it is. The other is just whining. Gets tuned out pretty fast. Gandhi did a lot of good, of course, but I think the old tactics will no longer work.

Voting, that's what needed. I think Clark is the man.

[Yollam]

4. Not that I condone violence...

But things *ARE* that bad. I don't doubt that there are a lot of people who think the time has come. This is not just a few partisan disagreements with a regular republican administration. This is a power-mad would-be dictator who is literally shredding the Constitution and our rights to shreds. A lot of people sincerely think that its only a matter of time before they start rounding up liberals, leftists, intellectuals, etc. to put in camps.

So in that kind of environment, why on earth would you think that the only people hinting at violence would be Bushco plants?

[scudrunner]

6. I.'m sure many have entertained the thought of violence....

Its hard not to when you feel threatened.I just had the fleeting thought that it would be an easy way to discredit sites like DU

[KoKo]

8. DU Admins will delete anyone who advocates threats against life or limb

of anyone. So, I don't know what you think you saw...perhaps you misinterpreted a rant somewhere that was then deleted.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AnnInLa]

19. And, your original post seems designed

to elicit just those types of responses.....then those responses are used on RW boards to say, "See, the Moonbats are advocating force!"

If I am in error with regard to your motivation, then So Solly.....just the way it seems to me.

[wtmusic]

5. This Republican says it's OK

"This country belongs to the people and whenever they shall grow weary of their government they can exercise their constitutional right to amend it, or revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."

- Abraham Lincoln

[jwirr]

9. I am not for violent means either but along with Lincoln

we should remember that the founding fathers put a clause in the declaration/constitution that said about the same thing. Plus THEY were revolting against their legal government.

[wtmusic]

10. The idea of 'last resort', in historical perspective

seems to be the most successful. It would have been far more successful in Iraq than this "pre-emptive" nonsense.

Let's hope it doesn't get to that point.

[KoKo]

7. What kind of "force" are you talking about? Impeachment?

What mainstream progressive forums are you talking about. Give some names or examples so we have some idea of what you are talking about. :shrug:

[AnnInLa]

11. I find your post rather strange

Since it's on the RWinger boards that force is advocated. And, people brag about their weapons that they have stored in preparation for some type of "Civil War." Individual RWingers advocate using force agains liberal, for example, Ann Coulter and MM.

I haven't encountered any suggestion of using force to take back the gov't on liberal blogs or message boards.

Which, to my mind, makes your original supposition rather weird.

[scudrunner]

18. So you find it weird I might think the right wing might use posts.....

advocating force to discredit progressives?

[Lex]

12. A question for you.

Specifically which "several mainstream progressive forums" are advocating stopping this administration "by force?"

Links?

[scudrunner]

14. This is the post that got me thinking

On huffington Post this morning:


The Cabal have hijacked our nation and are using it's global might to serve their good pleasure - our system of checks and balances is out of business - I think we're going to have to take The Cabal out by force, I just don't see any other expedient way out - every day that Bush stays in power is exponentially damaging to this country, and indeed the world.
Posted by: IntelligentDesign on February 04, 2006 at 11:17pm

[Lex]

21. In a forum where thousands post each day

I don't think a post such as that means that the HuffPo as a forum advocates this type of thing.

Just the same as if a poster here posted such a thing it doesn't mean DU advocates it (in fact, if it were here at DU, the post would be deleted however, as against our rules).

The rules can be found here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html


More specifically:

National Security

Do not post messages that could be construed as advocating harm or death to the president or other high-ranking official in the United States government. In the case of the president, do not even post jokes, as the Secret Service is not known for its sense of humor.

Do not post messages that could be construed as advocating armed revolution or violent overthrow of the government of the United States.

Do not post messages that could be construed as advocating violence or military defeat against the United States, the U.S. military, US service people, or the people of the United States.

[Zodiak]

15. Personally, I like a general strike much better

Americans are too selfish to die in the streets in an armed insurrection. Too fat and happy.

But a general strike requires nothing but not showing up to work. Hell, half of us don't want to go to work anyways. In my opinion, a general strike is VERY compatible with the American psyche.

And it would be devastating in a country that measures its economic success only by growth of production. A one-week stoppage would shave off our entire growth rate and plunge our economy into recession.

Who wants to take a week off to save this country?

One more thing: if force is ever used to get Bush (or the neocons) out of office, it will not be the force of American citizens' weapons...it will be the force of foreign weapons owned by countries that had to put a rabid dog out of its misery.

[gratuitous]

17. Answer: Constantly

But we adhere to principles of governance, rather than "me first", the attitude of the right wing. We believe that the ends are the means, and that how something is accomplished is quite as important as what is accomplished. Both right wingers and progressives wanted an end to the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. Progressives weren't willing to spend the nation into bankruptcy and kill thousands and thousands of people to do it, however.

So, what was this "trap" you were talking about?

[SmokingJacket]

20. I don't believe you: show me where they advocate this.

Talk about absurd -- what force???

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. LOL Yes On Several Fronts, But No On This One.

Firstly please provide links to these mainstream progressive forums, that way there is some context that can be digested.

Secondly, Hannity reads and lies about hateful crap all the time to make us look bad. This wouldn't make an iota's difference. Not to mention I don't see how this sets anything up for anything. What outcome do you think will come? You posted very generally without any context of substance to your beliefs on the matter and I would like to know more where you are coming from. If this was a setup, what do you feel the outcome would be? Are you implying that we progressives will rally behind taking the administration by force, and then Rove turns around and says "gotcha" and locks us all up in concentration camps, while the country cheers that the radical liberal terrorist aiders are now no longer running wild in the streets?

I wouldn't sweat it. We are being set up in far worse ways than this, but we are strong enough and smart enough to overcome their feeble minded traps. :hi:

[scudrunner]

24. Ok then ,thanks all for answering my question.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

25. Link some examples perhaps?