Nancy Pelosi is scared.. Spirit of Thomas Jefferson dances a jig.. (1 Viewer)

Rickboy

Nom Nom Nom Nom.. me hungry for a SuperBowl
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Jan 22, 2000
Messages
15,780
Reaction score
6,875
Age
52
Location
Colorado
Offline
Thomas Jefferson said:
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."



<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ONRySw0uoAk&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ONRySw0uoAk&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
 
She is the reason we shouldn't have 3d TV. Now that would be scary!
 
They should fear being ousted out of government, not fear being killed simply because a group of people who disagree with their policies and lost an election are mad.

The most important part of a Democracy (arguably) is the peaceful transfer of power.. you can't have that if the group that loses is turning to violence to show their opposition. Peaceful protests are the idea.

That said, I really don't like Nancy Pelosi ... at all -- and she needs to stop crying about the "rhetoric", it's their right to spew whatever rhetoric they want. If they start matching violent actions with violent rhetoric.. then we might have something to talk about.
 
<EMBED height=340 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=560 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/ONRySw0uoAk&hl=en&fs=1& allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>
Someday there could again be a very reasonble and peaceful regional movement for a state or group of states to distance itself from the Feds, based on the clear erosion of the constitution.

What would think would happen?

The likes of Pelosi would call the movement "radical" and a "threat".
 
Something tells me Jefferson was talking in the abstract and wasn't condoning acts of festering vitriol born out of illogical appeals to emotion, fear-mongering and hate.

I don't know why I think that but it probably has something to do with his statements about the tyranny of the majority and wanting to avoid pure democracy in part because he feared the irrational exuberance of a country dictated solely by the whims of a fickle public.
 
Last edited:
Someday there could again be a very reasonble and peaceful regional movement for a state or group of states to distance itself from the Feds, based on the clear erosion of the constitution.

What would think would happen?

The likes of Pelosi would call the movement "radical" and a "threat".

As I mentioned in another thread, when she tears up talking about Harvey Milk and Mayor Moscone, she is drawing a bad analogy. Certainly people hated Milk as the first openly gay politician in the 70's, but he and the mayor were actually killed by a fellow politician(D) who was angry over some appointment that was made.

But it makes for a good story, I guess. :idunno:
 
As I mentioned in another thread, when she tears up talking about Harvey Milk and Mayor Moscone, she is drawing a bad analogy. Certainly people hated Milk as the first openly gay politician in the 70's, but he and the mayor were actually killed by a fellow politician(D) who was angry over some appointment that was made.

But it makes for a good story, I guess. :idunno:

There is a lot of speculation, and some evidence that his motivation was also prejudice based. Dont give me he supported some gay stuff, that was merely in an attempt to get a vote for something else, which he didn't get.

But yes, like most analogies, the correlations are rarely 1:1.
 
Something tells me Jefferson was talking in the abstract and wasn't condoning acts of festering vitriol born out of illogical appeals to emotion, fear-mongering and hate.

I don't know why I think that but it probably has something to do with his statements about the tyranny of the majority and wanting to avoid pure democracy in part because he feared the irrational exuberance of a country dictated solely by the whims of a fickle public.

No, he really thought the government should be afraid of its citizens. If they are mad enough to get violent, then you are doing something wrong.

"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure," Jefferson wrote in a letter to William S. Smith, a diplomatic official in London, on November 13, 1787. Jefferson was commenting on Shays' Rebellion, an armed uprising in Massachusetts that had been put down earlier that year by organized state militia forces. "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion," Jefferson remarked. "Let them take arms."
 
Someday there could again be a very reasonble and peaceful regional movement for a state or group of states to distance itself from the Feds, based on the clear erosion of the constitution.

What would think would happen?

The likes of Pelosi would call the movement "radical" and a "threat".
Same thing would have happened if the north east states had said this kind of stuff in 2003. In fact, "way back then" people speaking out against the President were branded as traitors. People were arrested for merely showing up at rallies in tshirts that spoke out against the war. People werent allowed to protest town halls directly and had to do so from Free Speech Zones.

But I guess trying to force insurance companies to honor their contracts with customers is just as evil- if not more so.... right?
 
No, he really thought the government should be afraid of its citizens. If they are mad enough to get violent, then you are doing something wrong.
That all depends on if theyre mad from the government doing something wrong, or mad because theyre idiots buying into hateful rhetoric from gasbags in the media.
 
That all depends on if theyre mad from the government doing something wrong, or mad because theyre idiots buying into hateful rhetoric from gasbags in the media.

Yeah, cause the founding father's never used rhetoric?
 
Yeah, cause the founding father's never used rhetoric?
Thats like a murderer using the defense "Oh what, cause the founding fathers never shot guns?"

There's a difference between rhetoric that points out the flaws in a line of reasoning, and rhetoric that is meant to incite hatred and outrage.

One is called debate, and one is called inciting a riot.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom