Democrats are afraid of violent backlash

[Eddie]

I realize this thread has strayed a bit off topic. I have been trying to read all of the posts before commenting and I want to say something towards the OP:

So, the Dems are afraid of violent backlash...

They were elected by people who placed their trust in them to look out for their constituents best interests. They voted in a bill that their constituents did not support and they did it in a way that was perceived (and is) sneaky and underhanded.

Not everyone responds with nonviolent protests and angry posts on the internet. Not everyone makes mature and rational arguments. When you tick off the masses you don't only tick off the intellectuals; you also tick off the brick throwers and the unstable folks. Those reps wanted to sit in the big boy seats and make big boy decisions and they voted in a way that the people who put them in office did not want them to vote. They should be afraid. When one intentionally angers a large group of people not everyone in that group will respond the same way.

The moral of the story is that just because you have power to do something it is not always wise to do it because angry people do not always respond well to getting hosed.

 

[E5RANGER375]

im a AMERICAN!!!!

F the democrats just as much as the republicans!!!

do any of you guys seriously think any party realy truely cares about YOU???
HECK NO THEY DONT!!!! congress is no longer about serving the little guy, its about serving themselves and their friends , the rich and powerful!!!
we need a strong 3rd party to make the reps and dems return to basics.

 

[SigSense]

Congressional Oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

By not supporting the Constitution, are they not reneging on their oath? Just wondering?

 

[mrjarrell]

Congressional Oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

By not supporting the Constitution, are they not reneging on their oath? Just wondering?

There's no penalty for failure to uphold an oath, except in a court of law. Perhaps, if there were we wouldn't be where we're at.

 

[Perm]

The moral of the story is that just because you have power to do something it is not always wise to do it because angry people do not always respond well to getting hosed.

This implies that some person/group with power must sit idle unless some undetermined number of people are in agreement with a proposed plan.

Surely you don't mean that? If you do, what % of people should be in agreement before any reform is made?

 

[Fletch]

This implies that some person/group with power must sit idle unless some undetermined number of people are in agreement with a proposed plan.

Surely you don't mean that? If you do, what % of people should be in agreement before any reform is made?

100%, obviously.

 

[Perm]

100%, obviously.

Obviously.

 

[smokingman]

This implies that some person/group with power must sit idle unless some undetermined number of people are in agreement with a proposed plan.

Surely you don't mean that? If you do, what % of people should be in agreement before any reform is made?

I think the point is they where elected in to a position of power to represent the people in there district.They where not elected to decide what was best for the people,but to give the people a voice in there government.They have failed to represent the vast majority of the people they are there to represent,and thus are not serving there intended purpose.In answer to your rather dumb question,they should vote the opinion of the majority who elected them.That is how the system works.They represent US,not there own interest.

 

[Fletch]

In answer to your rather dumb question,they should vote the opinion of the majority who elected them.That is how the system works.

Or fails to work, depending on your perspective.

 

[Perm]

I think the point is they where elected in to a position of power to represent the people in there district.They where not elected to decide what was best for the people,but to give the people a voice in there government.They have failed to represent the vast majority of the people they are there to represent,and thus are not serving there intended purpose.In answer to your rather dumb question,they should vote the opinion of the majority who elected them.That is how the system works.They represent US,not there own interest.

Rather dumb question?

So a few points to consider:

1) Eddie (and others) are using dissent as a tacit approval of violence, in so many words. This infers that "you should expect violence" if someone is angry about a decision you have made. I submit that this stance is morally bankrupt.

2) The "majority" of people were also against women's suffrage and integration/civil rights reform. This concept is known as the Tyranny of the Majority.

Tyranny of the majority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is incumbent upon the collective of our elected officials to vote their conscience and be true to their moral compass. It is a fallacy to assume that because 51% of the people in their district favor or oppose something, they are obligated to vote in that direction.

I'd be interested to hear why you disagree with this concept.

 

[sparky241]

It is a shame that it is considered unacceptable to Tar and feather politicians anymore...
That and the fact Dueling is illegal...

Because without these two events what reason is there for a politician to stay honest?!

Who made it unacceptable? The people that were being tarred and feathered that's who. If thousands do it they wont have the room to arrest us or jail us

 

[mrjarrell]

You can't do violence to an inanimate object and, so far that's all we have. Some broken windows. That hardly qualifies as violence. What we have are a bunch of whiners and cowards looking for attention.

 

[E5RANGER375]

TEA PARTY TIME!!!!! instead we will do version 2.0 so that means we will call it a starbucks party, and dump starbucks coffee into the sea. hehehehehe

on a serious note. go back and research the 10 years leading up to the revolution. it started much like this, as the govt spirals out of touch with the people and not by the people or for the people, then the people will spiral towards a change and it will start slow but as it gains momentum it will QUICKLY PROGRESS. im not inciting a revolution, im just calling the facts i see as it pertains to history. i think the government is doing its own very good job of inciting revolution, it doesnt need my help, lol

 

[level.eleven]

Rather dumb question?

So a few points to consider:

1) Eddie (and others) are using dissent as a tacit approval of violence, in so many words. This infers that "you should expect violence" if someone is angry about a decision you have made. I submit that this stance is morally bankrupt.

2) The "majority" of people were also against women's suffrage and integration/civil rights reform. This concept is known as the Tyranny of the Majority.

Tyranny of the majority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is incumbent upon the collective of our elected officials to vote their conscience and be true to their moral compass. It is a fallacy to assume that because 51% of the people in their district favor or oppose something, they are obligated to vote in that direction.

I'd be interested to hear why you disagree with this concept.

The concept of representative government is morally bankrupt. The only person who can represent me, is me. That bankruptcy begins when a man I never met or will meet, who does business thousands of miles from my location, with money he has taken from me at gunpoint, decides he knows whats best for me...and again points a gun in my face to make sure I comply with what is best for me. This brings into question what is the role of my representative. Is he to do what I tell him? Is he to do what the majority of his district tells him? I often hear pundits speaking as bipartisanship is a good thing. Is it? Do I send my representative to Washington to to reach a consensus with everyone else? If so, whats the point of parties? But, this is a whole other topic. I just wanted to respond to something that jumped out at me.

 

[mrjarrell]

^^^What he said. In spades.

 

[level.eleven]

You can't do violence to an inanimate object and, so far that's all we have. Some broken windows. That hardly qualifies as violence. What we have are a bunch of whiners and cowards looking for attention.

When you aggress against property you are aggressing against its owner by proxy. The only possessions you truly own are your time and ability. I contract with others to exchange my time, and by default my literal life, to acquire property. When you aggress against my property, you are aggressing on my life. How's that for some preachy, I'm a junior in college and just finished Atlas Shrugged, bullspit?

 

[mrjarrell]

When you aggress against property you are aggressing against its owner by proxy. The only possessions you truly own are your time and ability. I contract with others to exchange my time, and by default my literal life, to acquire property. When you aggress against my property, you are aggressing on my life. How's that for some preachy, I'm a junior in college and just finished Atlas Shrugged, bullspit?

LOL. It sounds like it. Unfortunately the windows broken are owned by a legal entity and not an individual, therefore they don't have the same standing. Collectivism must sometimes be combated with force, just like Galt did at the end.

 

[Perm]

The concept of representative government is morally bankrupt. The only person who can represent me, is me.

Sounds like anarchy.

 

[miguel]

It is a shame that it is considered unacceptable to Tar and feather politicians anymore...
That and the fact Dueling is illegal...

Because without these two events what reason is there for a politician to stay honest?!

+1

And for a good read on dueling, check this book out: Dueling: The Cult of Honor in Fin-De-Siecle Germany: McAleer, Kevin - AbeBooks - 9780691015941: thriftbooks.com

 

[The Meach]

snip...
That and the fact Dueling is illegal...snip

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You think a Democrat would face you in an honorable duel

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA