If ANYONE tried to "take over"...

[SDuderstadt]

they'd come face-to-face with Congress' power to suppress insurrections pretty quickly.

[tekisui]

1. One could take over through legitimate means.

[DJ13]

6. Already happened

The corporations, frankly own the place.

(paraphrased from Durbin's comments about banks)

[calimary]

39. Already happened. Selection 2000.

[SDuderstadt]

7. That isn't a "takeover"...

that's called an election.

That's why they're such a formidable force already.

(I assume the sarcasm emotion isn't necessary)

[tekisui]

9. An election where party power switches, especially if it were a third party,

could be considered a take over.Even if it happened over the course of several elections, it would be a take over.

[SDuderstadt]

11. Not really...

it's called an "orderly transition".

[tekisui]

61. Or a take over.

It can still be a take over absent the use of force.

[SDuderstadt]

62. I thought most posters would notice...

the juxtaposition of "takeover" and "insurrection". Since winning a majority in a fair and free election, by definition, is not an insurrection, I assumed it needed no further elaboration.

It appears I was wrong.

[tekisui]

64. You should have said insurrection if that is what you meant.

Take over is not the same as insurrection. Don't beat yourself up. I am sure it isn't the first time you were wrong.

[SDuderstadt]

65. Notice the quotation marks around the word...

"takeover"? I think it's inexplicable, given the context, that someone could take that to mean "orderly transition of power through a free and fair election".

I don't recall suggesting the GOP House victory of 2008 was an "insurrection".

[tekisui]

66. Don't beat yourself up.

You can be clearer in the future.

[SDuderstadt]

67. I have a hard time believing anyone...

could possibly take it to mean that Congress could declare a free and fair election an "insurrection".

Too funny.

[tekisui]

68. There is not nor has there been any threat of an insurrection.

Nor will there be.

I assumed your post was a reaction to a previous post where the poster was afraid of a Communist take over. Maybe you and he should get together and figure out your definitions. If your OP was of its own accord, not related to the other, you should have provided more context. Otherwise you open yourself to being mistaken.

[SDuderstadt]

69. Look up...

Hutaree Militia, dude.

[tekisui]

70. LOL! They were such a viable threat.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

dude

[SDuderstadt]

71. Because their plot got...

interrupted.

How about the Business Plot? Do you think Congress should have suppressed that if it had gotten far enough along? I don't think RW plots are anything to take lightly, dude.

[tekisui]

72. Whatevs. You are going down a path that has nothing to do with

your OP or the post your OP was a response to. Have fun, dude. I am getting off here.:hi:

[SDuderstadt]

73. Yes...

neither one of those have anything to do with insurrection. Remember that from the OP.

Maybe it IS better that you get off here.

[Autumn]

2. Corporations not included.

They have been well aided by congress in their "take over".

[socialist_n_TN]

3. Yeah. Money's taken over without firing a shot...........

nm

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Would we provide them with a "no fly zone" first? And, promise "no boots on the ground"?

[WillyT]

5. And If We Could Stage An ACTUAL National Strike...

and shut down their corrupt system, they might have to pucker up and kiss our collective asses.

:D

[Motown_Johnny]

8. They are already trying to take over, they just paid off some members of Congress first

You don't need to come face-to-face with people you have paid to look the other way.

[pipi_k]

10. But what if Congress tried to take over?

Do we turn to Obi Wan to save us?

:scared:

[Autumn]

12. If Congress tried to take over

we would all see the corporations power to suppress insurrections pretty quickly.

[SDuderstadt]

13. Congress "taking over"...

wouldn't be an insurrection.

[Autumn]

14. That would be because they go along with

the corporations. :shrug:

[SDuderstadt]

15. That's a rather broad...

overgeneralization.

[Autumn]

16. It's strictly my opinion. That's the way I see it, n/t

[SDuderstadt]

17. I prefer to...

deal in facts.

[Autumn]

18. Deal all you want to, with whatever you chose

to call it.

[SDuderstadt]

19. Why not deal with actual facts? n/t

[white_wolf]

20. The fact is that corporations own our government and will crush any attempt to change that.

[SDuderstadt]

22. They have far too much influence...

they do not "own" our government. If they did things would be far worse than they already are.

[Autumn]

21. I believe it to be a fact that

Congress is in the pocket of corporations. I call it like I see it. I would never dream of imposing my beliefs on you or anyone else.

[SDuderstadt]

23. Except your broad overgeneraluzations are...

simply not true and confuse the debate.

[Autumn]

25. You are entitled to your opinion.

Have a nice day.

[SDuderstadt]

27. As are you...

however, in the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, you are not entitled to your own facts.

[Autumn]

28. Oh my God you convinced me

I am entitled to your facts.:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Sorry had to add, entitled

[SDuderstadt]

29. If you're not interested in debating facts...

there are lots of other things you could do.

[sudopod]

24. This entire sad thread is an argument better suited to the Merriam-Webster forum. nt

[SDuderstadt]

26. My OP...

my definition.

[hayu_lol]

30. SD...don't always agree with you...

but your definition is absolutely priceless and is one to which there is no answer.

Good job.

:^)

[Zhade]

31. LOL, guess you forgot about the 2000 Coup and Congress' cowardice.

I remember the Congressional Black Caucus BEGGING for one senator to step up against the electoral fraud that installed bush in office -- AND BEING UTTERLY ABANDONED.

You're living in a fantasy if you believe they have our backs.

[SDuderstadt]

32. As appalling as the decision in...

Bush v Gore was, that hardly amounts to a "coup" or a "takeover". Even Gore did not want anyone in the Senate to vote against certification of the EC vote.

[Shandris]

33. I'd say that every single power empire or nation in decline...

...had someone who had said that phrase, or one similar to it, at some point in time.

"Psh, Decilius, if anyone tried to 'take over', they'd see just how strong the Senate and Legions truly are."

It's really a pointless expression.

[SDuderstadt]

34. It's in the Constitution...

check the section dealing with the powers of Congress.

[Doctor_J]

35. Alot of things are in the Constitution

Like Congress having to declare war, and people having equal rights. That doesn't make them true.

[SDuderstadt]

36. Are you claiming that Congress does not have the power to...

suppress insurrections??

[Shandris]

37. It was in the charter for the Legions, too.

Didn't make them respond any damn quicker, now, did it?

You're right that there are words that give them the power. Words can give anyone power over anything, but it doesn't necessarily mean anything.

[SDuderstadt]

40. Simple question:

Are you saying they do not have that constitutional power?

[Shandris]

42. Of course not.

From a purely pedantic point of view, you're absolutely right.

Power given is not power realized, however. I guess this is what passes for 'fun'? A closed conversation about a pedantic use of a single word? You always struck me as more meaningful than that. Maybe I should take up drinking again or something.

[SDuderstadt]

46. I think you already....

have.

[Doctor_J]

44. Are you claiming that everything written in the constitution is a reality?

??

[dionysus]

38. why SDuderstadt, you're not wearing bustle!...

:D

[SDuderstadt]

41. Let's not go back for the...

bags.

[dionysus]

43. i.. i.., i was just foolin' about.

[SDuderstadt]

45. Hand'em over

Curly Bill!

[dionysus]

47. well.

[SDuderstadt]

49. Your friends may get me in a rush...

but not before I make your head into canoe.

[dionysus]

53. you're no daisy! no daisy a'tall!! raise that arm! raise it johnny!

:rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

56. Oh, I wasn't quite as sick as I...

made out to be, Wyatt.

[Thunderstruck]

48. Oh brother...

[SDuderstadt]

50. The Libyans are fighting against a dictator....

slightly different situation, doncha think?

[Thunderstruck]

51. Yes, it's different. That's why once I re-read it, I took out that part.

The oh brother still stands.

[SDuderstadt]

52. My OP is...

factual.

[Thunderstruck]

54. Well, you've convinced me. I'm scared shitless.

Color me shaking in my slippers.

[SDuderstadt]

55. Yeah....

who cares about preserving a democratic republic, right?

[Thunderstruck]

57. Like I said, you've convinced me. I cower at our Congress overlords.

I'll be a good little consumer, boss.

Please don't hurt me and my family.

ETA: Actually, I neither condone nor promote any attempt at a violent "take over" of our government. I believe, just as you do, any "revolution" that takes place should be exercised at the ballot box and not with torches and pitchforks. But I'm not going to cower from Congress just because you say so.

[SDuderstadt]

58. It kinda comes in handy if...

any of the many RW militias attempted to violently overthrow the government, doncha think?

[Thunderstruck]

59. It has and it does. Thank God.

[TheKentuckian]

60. Easy, peasey. Purchase the political parties and all their face men for pennies on the

return on investment.

That way the rubes keep pretending they have an impact on affairs and the robber barons continue to collect.

[SDuderstadt]

63. Is this another one if those...

"there's no difference between the Dems and the GOP" posts?

[TheKentuckian]

85. I think your reading comprehension is better than that. I guess anything to avoid the clear

threats by the current set up because I doubt your logic is that weak.

I said if you want to take over you corner the market on political parties.

Hell, if you can buy one lock, stock, and barrel then a few choice picks in the other will give you a functioning majority. If you can exert influence on the available leadership then you will generally get your way.

There is absolutely no systemic check on this and that is probably why many of the founders wanted no role for parties. There can and will be differences in organizations under the same or similar ownership, especially when they serve different customers. You aren't going to sell liberals, minorities, and poor folks the same ways you attract NASCAR dads and religious fundies but you sure can get them to buy the same stuff.

I will say the fundamental difference in the parties is constituency, at this point. You have to hold your voters but that isn't what the post you responded to stated nor did I compare or contrast any parties.

[alfredo]

74. If the weapon used was cold hard cash, they'd find little

resistance in the halls of Congress.

[inna]

75. for once, i (at least partially) agree with the point you made.

the system that is set in place has some amazing control mechanisms.

[SDuderstadt]

76. Yeah...

the Constitution is pretty amazing, huh...


Do you know what the word "insurrection" means?

[inna]

77. do not appreciate condescension and attitude

:thumbsdown:

[SDuderstadt]

78. Well...

I don't appreciate the claim that the Constitution is a "control mechanism".

[inna]

79. welcome to ignore, finally - and long overdue

[SDuderstadt]

80. Yes...

run away.

[sudopod]

81. lol, what's going on in here. nt

[SDuderstadt]

82. Oh, who the hell knows? n/t

[HCE SuiGeneris]

83. Go back to the 911 room. You're embarrassing yourself. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

84. Wanna take factual issue with...

the OP?