Republicans: Is It Time to Stage a Violent Coup Yet?

Why do repugnicans still bother to pretend that they want to live in a democracy? Why not just violently overthrow the government and make Jesus the king? At least it would be less hypocritical. Of course, Jesus who said “love thy neighbor” and gave health care to the sick without checking for either citizenship or insurance would never have wanted such a thing. And, of course, there would have to be some raving lunatic at the helm claiming to be receiving Jesus’ instructions directly. (Didn’t we have that already for eight years?) But, let’s not quibble about how badly the extremist rethugnicans misinterpret the Bible that they believe to be infallible but have never read.

Let’s just look at the way the party gets whatever they want whether they are in power or not and how they get into power at all.

First take a look at this unconscionable and despicable strategy to take the 2012 presidential election by redistricting a key state. Shockingly, this is actually perfectly legal and constitutional.

The GOP’s Genius Plan to Beat Obama in 2012

When will we get rid of the electoral college?

Then, if that isn’t enough to convince you, take a look at how people elected to office to serve the people deliberately do the worst possible job in order to make people hate government so that they can then claim government is the problem. Of course it is.

The Republicans deliberately made it so!

Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult

Why is anyone still voting for this party? Especially, why is anyone who isn’t a multi-billionaire raping and destroying the planet for their own short-term gain voting Republican? Is it because Jesus loves nukes? I doubt it. So, why?

‘Jesus loves nukes’: US Air Force taught the Christian Just War Theory

Note that at least one top Air Force official reacted appropriately to learning about the ‘Jesus loves nukes’ training. But, even so, don’t miss that at least one repugnican senator seems upset that we are no longer teaching that Jesus loves nukes.

Top Air Force Official Issues Religious Neutrality Policy in Wake of Truthout’s “Jesus Loves Nukes” Exposé

The decison angered Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) who fired off an angry letter to Secretary of the Air Force Michael B. Donley criticizing the move and demanding Donley provide him with a report detailing “actions taken” by the Air Force that led to the suspension of the ethics training.

Really Senator Cornyn? Are you fucking kidding me? You really believe that Jesus loves nukes and want this view taught as part of a military education?

Who would Jesus nuke?

I really would like to know. If you plan to vote republican in 2012, why? Do you still believe that the unbridled capitalism that led to the collapse of the global economy is a good idea? Do you still believe in trickle down voodoo reaganomics? Do you just hate everyone who isn’t Christian? Do you think that regardless of which Christian sect gets into power, you’ll be better off? Do you not realize that there are differences in the Christian sects, some who engage in cannibalism (Jesus said “eat me”, or some such) and some who do not, some who engage in idol worship and some who do not, some who accept homosexual marriage and some who do not, some who accept birth control and abortion and some who do not, some who allow women to be priests or ministers and some who do not, some who use the cross as their symbol and some who see it as the murder weapon of Christ and will not use it?

Regardless of which of these beliefs you hold dear, when one sect of Christianity does get into power, if it is not your own, you will be forced to change your beliefs or die as surely as I will.

Will you not vote instead for compassion and freedom?

I know the democraps have their problems too. Certainly they have been ignoring their constituency of late. But, at least they are not the well-organized thugs taking over the government by deception, trickery, subversion, and bullying.

12 Responses to Republicans: Is It Time to Stage a Violent Coup Yet?

  1. Ron says:

    Came to read about BG sensor issues, ended here; well written good job.

  2. Time to start a new political party called We the People is long overdue IMNSHO!

  3. Scotty,
    What you have so carefully outlined are “Errors in Thinking” which 2 PhD Psychiatrists [Yochelson & Bernstein] have thoroughly outlined in their tome: The Criminal Personality. This took them over a decade to interview and document through interviews with many convicted, often repeat offenders in an effort to find a way to cure the criminally insane. It is no stretch to extrapolate these into non criminal errors in thinking in everyday life. This post graduate reference material is likely restricted to your library’s reference section and to remain en situ, but it is very well worth the time and trouble to skim/peruse for an insight into how they arrived at their bottom line conclusion: Criminals make either a concsious or subconscious decision to break the rules to get ahead faster and easier.
    I will point to one glaring statement by one of America’s well reknown pastors that perfectly highlights a criminal error in thinking when he was quoted in the media recommending that America should send an assassin to off Iran’s leading Iatollah!
    If you list these 56 odd errors, they are far more specific than the Ten Commandments. Be forewarned that this exercise will need some serious time alotted if you do plan to read any of this major work. But expect to be rewarded with a greater insight into what ails our free world today!

    • Must I read the tome to get the sequitur? I think I’m missing the connection. Is it your claim that the repugnicans are criminals? I called them thugs. But, if they’re writing the rules to allow their actions, are they truly criminal? I think I’m missing your point a bit here.

  4. It is no stretch to extrapolate these into non criminal errors in thinking in everyday life.
    That is my condensation of the answer Yochelson gave to former CBC AS It Happens radio cohost Barabara Fromme to her question, “Are there not non pathological everyday errors in thinking in our everyday life?” And Yochelson paused before replying, “I had not thought about that before, but I think you are right [correct may have been his word]“. This radio broadcast was aired in the 1970′s before she moved to TV, and I was driving back across Northern Ontario from vacation in Alberta to be at work in the steel mill 2 days later!
    did you know that the reason that you get away with the error in thinking when you mistakenly drive through an intersection against a Red light 97% of the time that intersection is unoccupied [except for rush hour!].
    You must clearly distinguish between criminal and non criminal decisions.
    If someone steals an item and uses the excuse that it is covered by insurance, so what is the big deal…..that is a pathological criminal error in thinking, or
    If a person kills another person and says it was OK since that person deserved to die, that too is a pathological error in thinking.

    That sadi, I strongly recommend that you and anyone else who cares about these matters, do go and review or borrow it if you can like I was able to back then. It is a very comprehensive work on the subject. It changed my thinking and view of the World and those around me!

    • Sounds like an interesting read. So, why are these errors not merely failures in critical or veridical thinking? And, how is it that failures of veridical and critical thinking are non-pathalogical? Do they not indicate a pathology of their own, even if not severe enough to warrant a medical diagnosis?

      • The simple anser is it violates THE CRIMINAL CODE! But I also think that not all pathological thinking violates the Criminal Code, even though all criminal acts are as a result of Pathological thoughts. So now I have to think about this for a bit!
        If you run a Red light with premeditation and kill someone, but it was not intentional to have an accident, it is still pathological thinking since you thought that you could get away without having an accident, plus driving while intoxicated is the result of a pathological idea that it is your right to drive regardless of your state of motor functionability! It may not kill someone, but it highly increases the odds that you will!
        I like what the NTSB is now promoting: all texting, cell phoning, and electronic distractions ought to be banned while driving of any and all motorvehilces/boats/trains. The one exception is airplanes for the reason that air traffic controls are by VHF Radio, but all of the other communications devices should be banned from the cockpit or at least for use by the pilot at the controls. I know of many truckers who have fouled up using a CB radio or a Qualicomm keyboard. I was guilty of using them while driving, but always interrupted the use to address the driving before I got anywhere near the rubarb! I know first hand that multi-tasking is for executives behind a desk where they do less damage!

      • Not all actions that violate the criminal code are pathological. I’ll take the challenge on this one.

        Not long ago in this country, the following were illegal at least in some states. Some still are.

        * Intermarriage between blacks and whites.
        * Sodomy, still illegal in some places, I think.
        * Marijuana use is still illegal, even for medical purposes, in most of this country, despite the fact that alcohol is by far the more dangerous and harmful and addictive drug.
        * Prostitution.
        * Same sex marriage.

        Go ahead. Argue why any of the above should ever have been illegal or why it still should. And this, without even considering laws of foreign non-democratic countries, some of which could certainly be broken by someone without any brain pathology.

        Then, when you’re done rationalizing an irrational belief, should you accept the challenge, tell me whether you really believe acts of civil disobedience are always pathological.

        I’d agree though that some pathological acts do not violate our current criminal code, especially since there are many pathological acts codified as legal precisely because wealthy pathological and anti-social induhviduals paid to have the laws written in their favor. (And, now we’ve come full circle and back on to the topic of repugnicans.)

      • Scott,
        We forgot to mention that pathological thoughts not acted upon and kept to one’s self are not criminal!
        On the subject of cannabis, it maybe less harmful depending upon the method of injestion in 75% of the population, but there are the 25% in whom it can trigger psychotic episodes and include flashbacks from that amount of the drug stored in adipose tissue and released at a later time by a sudden surge in adrenilan, etc.
        [how can I re-establish my spell check?]
        Another item on the radar in B.C. Canada is polygami, which has now been ruled by the B.C. Supreme Court to be harmful to women and children……..that may end up in the SCOC!
        Regards protest movements, it is my observation that they rarely effect changes or the desired changes. The most effective way is to join or form a political party, then sell your program for change to the voters, and if it looks like it is a reasonable approach you just may win enough consensus / power / to enact such change.
        And finally, not all criminal codes are totally legitimate. This current case of a 15 year sentence in Thailand for disparaging the monarchy is a glaring example. What is criminal in one society maybe acceptable behavior in another!

  5. Roight Monkee,

    Indented too far, so starting at a new level. Your comments are italic. My responses are not.

    We forgot to mention that pathological thoughts not acted upon and kept to one’s self are not criminal!

    Irrelevant. I was talking about criminal actions that harm no one and are therefore not pathological in my mind.

    On the subject of cannabis, it maybe less harmful depending upon the method of injestion in 75% of the population, but there are the 25% in whom it can trigger psychotic episodes and include flashbacks from that amount of the drug stored in adipose tissue and released at a later time by a sudden surge in adrenilan, etc.

    Please post a serious medical article stating this. Until then, I call bullshit based on this medical article and the popular press recap of it that may be easier to understand.

    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,,2040886,00.html

    Even so though, why should its use be illegal? Who is the victim? Harming oneself should not be a criminal act. Else, smoking should be criminal. Driving a car should be considered way too high risk to be legal, etc. Actually, driving may actually be too high risk to be legal.

    [how can I re-establish my spell check?]

    Firefox->Preferences->Advanced->General->Check my spelling as I type.

    This may be slightly different on WinDoze. I’m on a Mac.

    Another item on the radar in B.C. Canada is polygami, which has now been ruled by the B.C. Supreme Court to be harmful to women and children……..that may end up in the SCOC!

    I’m fine with polygamy (multiple spice, plural of spouse) being legal as long as both polyandry (many men one woman) and polygyny (many women one man) are equally legal. Further, I’m fine with what I guess I should call polyamory (many men and many women), where there are multiples of both sexes. Why should any of this be illegal? Who is the victim? You claim it to be harmful to women. However, I bet any study you may have read studied it in a society in which the women were pressured into the lifestyle. For those who would choose it freely, there can be no victim. See my point about hurting oneself.

    Regards protest movements, it is my observation that they rarely effect changes or the desired changes.

    Um … Ghandi? Nelson Mandela? Martin Luther King, Jr? The current LBGT movement?

    The most effective way is to join or form a political party, then sell your program for change to the voters, and if it looks like it is a reasonable approach you just may win enough consensus / power / to enact such change.

    Yeah. Sometimes. But, remember, human rights includes protection of the minority. The majority may not vote to do this. Yet, the minority still has rights.

    And finally, not all criminal codes are totally legitimate. This current case of a 15 year sentence in Thailand for disparaging the monarchy is a glaring example. What is criminal in one society maybe acceptable behavior in another!

    Exactly!! Yes. My point is that much in our own criminal code here in the U.S. and even in the far more reasonable Canada also outlaws perfectly reasonable acts creating victimless crimes that should not be crimes, such as prostitution and drug use and consensual sodomy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 60 other followers

%d bloggers like this: