Ineffective Communications

A couple of weeks ago, the Right Wing blogosphere was chuckling over this drama queen shrieking that Democracy Died because some recall election didn?t go the way he liked:

Everyone had a laugh and we were given to understand that conservatives understood that citizens of an ordered democracy take their lumps when politics don?t go their way. Now, what to my wondering eyes should appear but Patrick Archibold seriously discussing bloody armed revolution because the SCOTUS didn?t find to his liking on a law that was duly passed by proper democratic process by the Congress and the Executive:

Liberty is Done. America Is Done

With over 50% of the people on the dole and with no checks and balances left to limit the power of the government left, America as we knew it is done.

The only check on tyranny left is revolution.? That can be peaceful or not peaceful, but the government as it stands must perish.

I am now convinced more than ever this will eventually lead to secession.

I fear that liberty lost is only found again in blood-soaked places.

Some additional comment.

How long until Congress figures out that they can tax you for voting Republican or failing to vote Democrat?

It is for days like these that God invented both tar and feathers.

And a reminder, for this very reason ?A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.?

Seriously? Violent revolution? Taking up arms? Secession? Blood-soaked? Tar and feathers?

I?m sorry, but what? Talk of revolution and bloodshed can only mean, in the end, talk of individual acts of terrorism or, perhaps, of small communities becoming enclaves of violent nutjobs. It?s an invitation and a clarion call to turn the US into Beirut, Lebanon.

And over what? Over a law that was passed by constitutional democratic process by duly elected officials.

When the the Progressives lost in Wisconsin, they pouted like teenage girls and then got on with life. Any talk about secession or violent revolution is way out of line.

Update: Pat rejoins:

Are you serious? Really?

I did not advocate vigilante violence or terrorism and for you to suggest so is ridiculous.

Do I think that this type of out of control governance will eventually lead to secession. I do think so. I didn?t advocate it.

I said that I fear that liberty lost is only found again in blood-soaked places. I do fear that.

Your comments are beyond reason and robustly silly.

Most readers of English, including most of your readers, seem to be understanding you as I did. When you say, ?The ***only check on tyranny left*** is revolution. That can be peaceful or not peaceful, but the government as it stands must perish? that does sound uncommonly like you are saying the only option left is revolution?and putting violent revolution on the table for discussion. So does, ?I am now convinced more than ever this will eventually lead to secession.? Secession is not commonly a peaceful process as the Great War of Attempted Secession demonstrated. And saying this without adding, ?which would be an extremely bad idea? does, along with everything else you say here, sound rather like sympathy for secession, not fear of it.

?I fear that liberty lost is ***only**** found again in blood-soaked places? does, it is true, have the clause ?I fear? in it. But it doesn?t read like you are discouraging the thought. It reads like you are saying why you believe the thought necessary to consider as a live option, frightening as it may be.

That perception is only encouraged when you add, ?It is for days like these that God invented both tar and feathers? since that does sound uncommonly like a call for vigilante violence, as does the suggestion that this legal act by elected state representatives is somehow an occasion for quoting this: ?A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.? That does sound very much like the suggestion, not the regret, that somebody should take up arms and start shooting somebody in reaction to this ruling.

I take Pat?s word for it that he did not mean to advocate violence. As somebody who, from time to time, says things that people misunderstand and who has to then issue further comments because my words were not as precise as was necessary to eliminate all misunderstanding, I empathize with the fact that we don?t always wind up communicating exactly what we hoped to. And as somebody who has, many times, had malicious jerks deliberately work with might and main to overlook years of my writing in order to attribute to me a view which I obviously do not hold, I can certainly understand that Pat would not want to have attributed to him something he doesn?t mean to say. So I would urge Pat to either take down or modify that blog entry, because as it is currently worded it is extremely easy to misunderstand, for the reasons I give here.

PS: On the bright side, if you read the comboxes over on Pat?s blog you will see the incredible spectacle of me and Joseph D?Hippolito taking the same side in an argument.

Source: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2012/06/ineffective-communications.html

oscar noms capital gains tim thomas oral roberts les paul fred thompson fred thompson