but we dont, under TMV rules allow even tongue in cheek calls for others to be murdered and/or as you added, that you'd do it yourself. We keep the TMV rules for commenters in place, and aim the discussion to the topic of the article, that leaves broad room to discuss /debate.

Thanks.

dr.e

“I was talking about the GOVERNMENT hunting them down and killing them – not me.
(Although I'm willing).” JeffersonDavis

The militia is supposed to be made up of armed citizens, not a separate permanent Army.
The word people is in THAT context. The people are armed, and called into active service when needed.

And I will not bear arms against the United States government. It's not “honest”. The only exception, is when that government becomes a tyrrany – something you're not worried about but could happen given the right circumstances. The Constitution specifically warns of tyranny and was created to keep it from happening here.

And stop making me out to be some David Karesh-type. Of course, that's the only way liberals have to force their opinions on others – demonize and conquer.

I was talking about the GOVERNMENT hunting them down and killing them – not me.
(Although I'm willing).

dr.e

Furthermore, and as a matter of fact, Bachmann *has,* indeed, advocated violence. She urged supporters to take up arms, to be blood brothers in revolution, to say enough is enough and do something to stop the evil government people who are trying to subjugate Americans.

This is not about “disagreeing” or having the right to speak freely. This is about contributing to a very real atmosphere that is growing stronger and stronger of contempt for government, fear of government (beyond healthy skepticism), and opposition to the very concept of government.

If lawmakers like Michele Bachmann have the constitutional right to say hateful and untrue things about the government that alone can uphold that constitutional right, she (and they) also have some responsibility for the effect their words have. These are people who reach millions of Americans in a single speech. They are enormously influential. I don't see and can't fathom how you can deny that words are consequential. How would it be possible for lawmakers, major media pundits, business leaders, etc., etc., and other influential public figures to continually degrade and put down and demonize government and *not* have that affect the political and social atmosphere? Things do not happen in a vacuum.

Finally, your comparison between my post and Bachmann's remarks is specious. Aside from the silliness of comparing one post of mine to years and years of Bachmann — a leading member of Congress — saying and doing and advocating truly crazy, irresponsible things to millions of people, many of whom hang on her every word, there is no legitimate parallism between criticizing *factual* actions by public officials and making unsupported, unhinged accusations just because you have the platform to do it and you want to. Now if I were to go out and criss-cross the country and make a career out of saying publicly that Michele Bachmann is a dangerous lunatic who is out to incite violence against Democrats and who wants to burn down all the government buildings in Washington and that people should go to her house to demand answers and even take up arms against her, THEN you might have a point in equating my criticism of her to her warnings about the evil Census and how Barack Obama wants to put all of our children in reeducation labor camps.

Imagine someone reads your posts and decides to assassinate Bachmann. Do you now bear a share of responsibility? Of course not. You haven't advocated violence any more than she has. And for the record I think Bachmann is a fruitcake, but being a fruitcake doesn't make her responsible for someone else's crimes.

thanks,
dr.e

These people are psychotic, there is no further 'politics' to the question. What do we do with any other psychotic?

Actually, the GWB years were an illustration of what happens when rabidly pro-business anti-government ideologues dominate in government. Former Pres. Bush presided over the largest, most wide-ranging privatization of government ever seen in this country. Reagan did a lot in that area, too, but GWB took it to new heights.The transformation of the Department of Defense and our military into a haven for private defense contractors and subcontractors is one example. Another is the fact that almost all of GWB's high-level government appointments were people who opposed the mission of the agencies they were hired to run. Bush appointed Eric Keroack, a rabid opponent of abortion and contraception, to be in charge of family planning at the Dept. of Health and Human Services. When Keroack was forced to resign because of controversy over that, and also over licensing issues, Bush replaced him with Susan Orr, who also opposed legal abortion, who called contraception part of the “culture of death,” and who succeeded in preventing contraceptives from being covered in federal employees' insurance coverage. Bush appointed John Bolton, who *hates* the United Nations and wants to see it dismantled, to the post of U.S. ambassador to the U.N.! Going back to Reagan, James Watt, whom Reagan appointed to head the Department of the Interior — the Department of the Interior! — consistently opposed legislative measures to protect the environment, wanted to open up national parks to corporate interests, and had to resign because of corruption charges. Gale Norton, whom GWB appointed to head the same agency, resigned in disgrace after allegations of trying to sell oil shale exploration rights on public lands. She also was a strong advocate of opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

These are just a few examples of a consistent pattern in Republican administrations, most notably Reagan's and Bush 43's. And when the government is filled with anti-government types who systematically dismantle and sabotage government agencies, government programs, and government functions in favor of private business interests, that's not good government or government in the public interest. It's business government basically.

And now, people like Michele Bachmann play a cynical game of exploiting the very mistrust of government that her party encouraged by transforming government into a playground for private industry, to further encourage the public to distrust government. Meanwhile, the “government” that people are distrusting is more an appendage of the free market than the institution in society that is supposed to secure the rights of the people who elected it, who pay for it, and to whom it should be accountable.

Mr. L. That's not a nit pick. We always appreciate help in spelling et al, for often enough the elves change the keyboard letters around at night while we're sleeping (hope that made you smile).

In my case I think the elves change my fingers instead, when I first wake up it isn't only the keyboard that poses difficulty. =D