Ballot Box… Soap Box… Cartridge Box?

Posted by BambiB 5 years, 10 months ago to Politics
47 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

It seems pretty clear that there are a lot of politicians who will not be satisfied until America is destroyed. Voting doesn't seem to accomplish anything because the average voter is a moron. How else can you explain that our candidates have been Bush, Romney, Gore, Kerry, McCain and Obama over the past 4 cycles?

The Founding Fathers suffered the insults of the crown as long as they were tolerable - then they revolted. They didn't revolt by saying, "Pretty please, may I keep what I've earned?" They did it by shooting the enemy.

I've often wondered what the most effective means of revolt against our current (unconstitutional) government might be. Is it unarmed protests like the ones to block buses full of criminal aliens in Kalifornia? Is it armed obstruction of the sort that took place at the Bundy ranch? (You didn't think the Feds backed down because they were being NICE, did you?) Or is to going on the offensive - perhaps a few hundred sniper teams taking out filthy politicians across the Country? One thing the Virginia area snipers taught us was that even two dimwits can terrorize a substantial part of the Country by shooting from inside a car. What would the politicians do? Would it be a successful means of forcing a return to Constitutional values?

I know many here are "anti-violence". They don't have a problem with the government repeatedly raping them. And women especially seem to be willing to give up freedom for the illusion of safety. But consider: Everything you love about our government as it was founded first came out of bloody revolution. What are the alternatives?

Discuss.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by LetsShrug 5 years, 10 months ago
    UGH.. you almost ended without a slam against women, but ya snuck one in there right at the end. This is the gulch! The woman in here are NOT freedom giver uppers!! Save those comments for your other forums.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 5 years, 10 months ago
      Which does not mean that we shouldn't recognize (present company excepted - maybe) that the biggest problem with the current system is that the majority of voters (women) vote for socialist, statist, nanny control and the illusion of safety over freedom - every single time.\

      As one who claims not to be of that sort - what is YOUR solution for dealing with all the women who would be perfectly happy to enslave us all if it meant they could "feel" safe?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 5 years, 10 months ago
        Well by your criteria only white males would be allowed to vote. I can 't stand the group think. It is a war of ideas we have to win and there are plenty of female, black, latino, asian warriors out there working on it. You are on a site inspired by the big ideas of awoman you would deny the vote.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LetsShrug 5 years, 10 months ago
        I wish I knew. I've tried talking to them, they seem to be incapable of discussion yet masters at avoidance and subject changing. OR they all just get up and leave the table. I think they tell themselves they don't want to offend anyone in the room by having such a talk, but I really think it's because they are not equipped to discuss much. Weak as hell either way. I.HATE.IT.
        Who said I had a solution and why do you ignore the wussification of males that's going on in this country? And what did you mean by "maybe"??!!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 5 years, 10 months ago

          Wow! There you are slamming women for being incapable of discussion and avoiding the subject! ;-) I view the stupidity of voters in general, and women specifically, as the greatest danger facing this Country. They WILL be educated… perhaps as they starve, or take their last breath after being shot by a statist enforcer. Might be nice if it didn't take that long - but the majority of people are so stupid as to be little more than apes that wear clothes.

          On the Pussification of western males - I've written on that subject before. Someone once commented that if women liked sex upside-down, men would learn to walk on their hands. A book I've cited to ("Men on Strike"), goes further, making the point that our society has so devalued men that they decline to fill the traditional roles. Instead of being the hardworking breadwinner and defender of the home, many men today are simply opting out. A man requires far less maintenance than a woman. He can be happy living in a shack with little in the way of property. The author makes the point that men are retreating from universities, taking low-wage jobs and replacing women with video games and pornography. This has the unhappy (for women) side-effect of drastically reducing the number of "eligible" males (those with a higher social status) and greatly reducing the number of men who are willing to commit to marriage and children (the latter being primarily a female desire.) As has often been said, "Why should a man marry? Why not just find someone he hates and give them half his stuff?" Today's laws are decidedly anti-male. It's a holdover from an era when advantages in legal results were accorded to women because of their lack of legal standing. Today women want to have the cake and eat it too. But what they're finding is that men won't play that game.

          So, the independent women have won. They now not only can run the house (alone), raise the kids (alone), earn the income to pay for these things (alone) and defend the home (alone), they don't have to even put up with those smelly old nasty men. Once they have their sperm sample anyway.

          The pussification of men is a direct result of their not seeing any reason to be brave, or assertive or courageous or decisive. Women are in the drivers seat. Men are just along for the ride. I think it will be a spectacular crash. What do you think?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by LetsShrug 5 years, 10 months ago
            Aawe you almost made me blush just now. Bambib asked me, a female!, What I "think". It's like a Christmas miracle, I hear bells and angels, and maybe some Perry como in the background.

            What I think is this. Who's the guiltiest man in the room for the current state of men and women in this country? Who started all the welfare programs?Was it women? These started before females were even allowed in politics. So me thinks men started walking on their hands right about that time and made a mess of things. The notion that the gov will take care of women and replace men was started by, ... well, men. The earliest of the pussified men. So I guess to sum it up. The chicken came before the egg.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by 5 years, 10 months ago
              Actually, no. Government didn't begin to really explode (and deficits begin to rise) until women got the vote. John Lott has a pretty good research piece on that showing that in every state and at the federal level, deficits exploded after women got the vote and ONLY after women got the vote. The research is interesting because it seems to eliminate any other cause for the expansion of government. Women got the vote over a period of about 50 years, beginning in Wyoming and ending with the 19th Amendment. In every case, as women got the vote, the states where they voted began to run deficits. Two adjacent states? Women get the vote? Deficits. Women don't vote? No deficits.

              One idea that seemed to have some merit was that a state that was ready to let women vote might have a generally overall different political attitude - one more conducive to running deficits, the idea being that it was something in the political air, that led to deficits and women getting the vote. Unfortunately, that hypothesis got shot all to hell when the remained of states - including those opposed to women voting - were forced by the 19th Amendment to allow them to vote. Whatever hypothetical "Kool-Aid" the other states were drinking surely was not present in those states - and yet, upon women getting the vote, deficits erupted.

              I do agree that pussified men probably are ultimately to blame. Had they been sensible and refused to allow women to vote, most of the major political and economic problems we currently face would not exist That makes Woodrow Wilson "the guiltiest man in the room". He presided over the passage of the 19th Amendment. (He's also the bastard who enslaved us to the Federal Reserve.)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by LetsShrug 5 years, 10 months ago
                I think there's another factor. Most women didn't understand money and budgets. And why was that? Cuz the men held the purse strings and didn't discuss such manly things with their wives. If you don't earn and don't know what a budget is then thrift and sound financial decision making can't be expected. Men are so darned silly sometimes.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 5 years, 10 months ago
        Get them married and pregnant. Funny how married mothers seem to have a different viewpoint than unmarried women, and radically different from unmarried mothers. The unmarried women don't see any problem with gov't being their protector, and unmarried mothers seem to view gov't as their surrogate partner.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 5 years, 10 months ago
          The women aren't going to want to hear this, but statistically, you are directly on target. (Happily) married women tend not to be trouble-makers… at least not the political sort, and not to the degree of their "I am woman, hear me roar" counterparts.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by LetsShrug 5 years, 10 months ago
            Ah that explains it. I'm happily married. WHAT?? Okay, Your stats are probably right, HOWEVER, I was born this way. And my mom was the family budgeter so I was taught thrift well. Ugh, women. What are we going to do with them?!! P.s. I am woman. Did you not hear me roaring before?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 5 years, 10 months ago
    Ya know, Bambi, I thought that was a brilliant post, well said, well stated...

    Until I got to the bottom, where you wrote...

    "I know many here are "anti-violence". They don't have a problem with the government repeatedly raping them. And women especially seem to be willing to give up freedom for the illusion of safety."

    I am going to call a big stinking truckload of steamy BS on that crap. Obviously, you don't know women, you have NO idea what or how women think, process information, or just how dangerous (literally, not figuratively) we get when someone f**ks with us.

    I don't know where you got your flawed and faulty information, or what sheeple urban legend you choose to take as gospel, but I can guarantee you that out of all the women I know and acquaint myself with (and that's a god awful lot nationwide) not a single one - correct, not one - fit your hokey stereotype.

    It's too bad you have to end what would be an amazing and insightful post with bovine excrement... it's like a defendant at trial who tells the perfect story, perfect alibi - then tells such a blatant lie at the end you throw the whole thing out and convict him.

    My granddaddy (Rest his soul) used to use this about people who write propagandistic blather like liberals, politicians, attorneys (and apparently BambiB) in general - This guy talks so much out the side of his neck that he'll never see the forest from the trees.

    Bottom line - as you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about when it comes to women, why not sit back and pour yourself a nice, hot cup of STFU.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -3
      Posted by 5 years, 10 months ago
      Sorry, Suzanne, but you are simply and conclusively wrong.

      Women voted for Obama by a 20% gender gap over men. Do you not recognize that as INSANE?

      Women also have long been the champions of the illusion of security over freedom. Women ARE the Demoncrap party. (The Republicans are nothing to cheer about these days - except for the Constitution wing - but they're nowhere near as bad as the party of women.)

      Now you can huff and puff and swear and scream and rip your hair out and even wear pants and pretend you're as capable as some low-level man - but the bottom line is, you're just another woman, and apparently part of the problem because you don't have your eyes open.

      So go ahead and sit on it. And spin.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LetsShrug 5 years, 10 months ago
        Hey.. you don't know if she's like any other woman. She's here. That counts...a lot!! Don't be an angry asshole to the wrong people. Stand on your hands and spin!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ winterwind 5 years, 10 months ago
          sit on a stake and spin?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by LetsShrug 5 years, 10 months ago
            No...I want him to stand on his hands and spin. It's kind of a low level man maneuver, so he should be able to handle it no problem.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ Susanne 5 years, 10 months ago
              Ya know... he reminds me of one of those leftist anarchist people. Silent for a long time, and then gets up, starts a rational argument to get your intrest and then says something so blatantly inflammmatory one has to respond.

              Seriously - it's a tactic used by "A" anarchists, communist rabble rousers, and politicians with nothing to lose.

              Know what makes me laugh? Atlas was written by a woman. Pretty darned brilliant one. And here's this guy on a site dedicated to Ayn, her book, and the movie - and he slams wonmen as being sub-human sheep.

              Rational? Not even. Objectivist? Give me a break. His position is so illogical it goes beyond insane - it's Anti-sane.

              And I don't know why I keep getting sucked up oint his psychosis...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by LetsShrug 5 years, 10 months ago
                Yes, but.... let's face it, he has a point in there somewhere. Of all the women I know, and I worked with about a hundred of them for the last 10 years, barely a hand full could carry on a conversation (no, not even that many), about world events, philosophy, poitics....and most of them voted for bo. I know this is just my own personal experience, but it does seem like men are more engaged in paying attention to these things than woman are. I, of course, am not yelling about how women shouldn't be able to vote, but I don't think anybody who's uninformed should be voting. We are the exception.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment deleted.
        • Posted by khalling 5 years, 10 months ago
          what's a TOS violation? why am I even on this post?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Susanne 5 years, 10 months ago
            It's like watching a pre-teenager lash out at some stranger for being right. See this same behavior in Convicts as well - the immature ones at least. Can't be a man about stuff, has to try to shock and offend for attention.

            And I have no idea why you're even on this post!!! ;-)

            Well, he did get a rise with his little comment. The post has been flagged. (and not for misspelling my name, either...)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ straightlinelogic 5 years, 10 months ago
    I don't think much happens until there is a complete economic and financial collapse, which is the way we are headed, followed by social and political chaos. Then I think it will possible for freedom lovers of all persuasions and genders to, if not take control of the country, at least carve out a significant area and establish a nation dedicated to liberty, limited government, and individual rights.. They will, however, have to be willing to defend their nation with their guns and lives from the savages, looters, and parasites on the outside, and offer nothing at all to any on the inside, which is what freedom lovers have always had to do. At the present time I think there is little that can be done to violently challenge the statist trend, the freedom lovers would be outmanned (and outwomanned) and outgunned, but it is vitally important to establish the intellectual framework for our cherished values for after the crash.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 5 years, 10 months ago
      You may be right. OTOH, I've thought that if as few as 200 Americans with the appropriate skills were to set out to eliminate the traitors in government using tactics akin to the the beltway snipers', it would cause a massive collective contraction of the political sphincter.

      What would follow?

      It could be that by wiping out the traitors, the rest can actually function as they should - might even take note and clean up their acts - or resign from politics.

      Conversely, they might try to crack down - confiscate firearms, further ignore the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. At that point, it seems to me that people would either comply - or rebel. If the latter, it could rapidly become 4,000 or even 40,000 people taking out the trash.

      There's the question of whether it would even be publicized. Would the elites actually advertise the success of such a campaign?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ straightlinelogic 5 years, 10 months ago
        The politicians have their emergency bunkers and they'd hide in them, and call out massive firepower and repression, if they thought there was a serious threat to their safety. They would say the threat was a threat to America itself, and I believe most citizens would be as docile as the citizens in Boston who didn't peep a word of objection when the storm troopers invaded their houses after the Boston Marathon bombing.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 5 years, 10 months ago
          So you think "massive firepower" would solve their problem? Would it have stopped the Beltway snipers?

          The idea of politicians hiding in bunkers sort of appeals to me. ;-)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ straightlinelogic 5 years, 10 months ago
            It won't necessarily stop snipers, but they won't necessarily stop at snipers. If they thought they were threatened, they'd take out after anybody who they regarded as a threat. Remember, these guys and gals are complete cowards. I like them hiding in bunkers, too, but that won't prevent them from massive overreaction.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by 5 years, 10 months ago
              Okay, I'm with you.

              So they overreact. Massively.

              Do you think that would help them hold on to power? Or cause their enforcers to have second thoughts?

              For example, imagine a pilot tasked with bombing "insurgents", who gets word that another unit has just wiped out his home town. When he takes off with his load of 500 pound bombs, will he:
              A) Drop them on targets as ordered, or,
              B) Drop them on the aircraft on the flight line, or,
              C) Drop them on the bunkers of the "overlords"?

              Generally speaking, I think the only hope of the dictator-wannabees is to deal with the patriots while their numbers are small without allowing the conflict to expand.

              Picture Afghanistan - but with the indigenous people being much more educated and generally better armed. Now imagine the US military having substantial sympathy (and relatives) among the "enemy".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ straightlinelogic 5 years, 10 months ago
                I don't think such a response will work, for the reasons you cite. We have a well armed population that would resist, and many government people inside and outside the military would not fire on US citizens. But to return to your original supposition, I don't a team of snipers could bring down the govt.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 10 months ago
        The political elites would wipe us out if we started taking them out on a sniper basis. Their ability to track us with GPS devices makes evading the "authorities" so difficult that we would lose that war. The way to win a war against a superior enemy was best defined by Sun Tzu. George Washington did quite well at it as well. However, in today's age, the best recent example would be the strategy employed by the Viet Cong. While they lost many battles, they won the war in the media via Walter Cronkite. Famously, at the end of the Vietnam war, General Weyand (US) said, "'You know, you never beat us on the battlefield". His Vietnamese counterpart replied, "That may be so, but it is also irrelevant."

        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 5 years, 10 months ago
          How would they track you with GPS (assuming you didn't take a GPS device with you)?

          The North Vietnamese lost as many as 3.3 million people (civilians and military on both sides). If the government killed that many people, would it be enough for the military to turn on its masters? For the average gun owner to enter the fray? For the people preparing meals for the politicians in the bunkers to poison their meals?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 10 months ago
            We would have to take my car. My wife's car has GPS built in. However, there are plenty of red light cameras. Going computer-less would be tough for me. I know that prying my daughter away from her cell phone would be impossible.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 10 months ago
    I don't think gender has anything to do with the problem. Education means everything. In the study you cited, did it ever factor in the relative education of the two genders? I'm seriously asking to see if there was a high correlation, because while I totally agree that the liberal vote exploded after women were given the power to vote, I also look back at the Founding of our nation when everyone who could took part in political discussion!

    Another reason I say this is because what is the one area of society liberals have focused on so hard over the past 50-60 years: education. They woke up during the great rebellion of the 60's and realized (beginning with the liberal college campuses) that if they could get people to focus on the short-term (instant gratification via sex, drugs, and music), they could get them moving down a path where they would be easily manipulated through either misinformation or sheer ignorance. And they have been perpetuating those tactics ever since.

    Do I believe that an armed rebellion is going to solve the problem? Nope. I think it is going to take an economic collapse worse than the Great Depression - something that forces people to completely re-evaluate not only their lives, but their principles. And something that will be disastrous enough that it forces wholesale political change. The sad thing is that liberal policies are their own worst enemy. The liberal state is based on self-destructive principles that leave them grasping for the next silver bullet, when the reality is that the best thing they could have done was to drop the gun in the first place.

    I like this quote from "Star Wars": "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." -- Princess Leia
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by 5 years, 10 months ago
    Didn't mean to leave out the obvious - non-compliance. Ayn Rand's idea of a "gulch" does not seem tenable. There remains no safe place.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo