http://www.newsmax.com/john_perry/obama_military_coup/2009/09/29/266012.html
QuoteThere is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.
America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:
# Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."
# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.
# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.
# They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.
# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.
# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America's troop strength is allowed to sag.
# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.
# They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.
So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?
Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan's arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?
Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?
What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, "I'm not interested in victory") that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?
Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?
Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America's military leadership is lost in a fool's fog.
Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a "family intervention," with some form of limited, shared responsibility?
Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.
Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.
Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don't shrug and say, "We can always worry about that later."
In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.
And just in case that link goes down the Memory Hole: http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909290042
There is no way in hell a "civilized" military coup would happen. I know bloodless coups have supposedly happened before but there is no way in hell that the right wingers wouldn't come out shooting. They've stocked up way too ammo to let it go to waste.
Haha. Good. I predict the Liberal media outlets will fan the flames of this until Republicans are forced to denounce it unequivocally. It should be entertaining, at least, and it might even mean a chance for less unchecked idiocy for a little while.
Or, they have no choice but to go through with the "plan", whether they originally intended to or not.
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 30, 2009, 05:31:47 AM
Haha. Good. I predict the Liberal media outlets will fan the flames of this until Republicans are forced to denounce it unequivocally. It should be entertaining, at least, and it might even mean a chance for less unchecked idiocy for a little while.
At the very least I am impressed by your optimism. :lulz: The right wingers already have some plausible deniablity since he said that a coup is "possible" not that he would like to see one happen. He wasn't advocating the overthrow of the government, he was just saying that military
might, at some point in the future, want to step in and depose a man who won 53% of the popular vote. He doesn't want to see war in the streets, he's just preparing for the likelihood.
I'm cheerfully optimistic for the future in many ways.
Though the Republicans are now starting to close the gap, they really missed the boat with regards the ways in which internet technology (youtube, social networking, blogs) started to affect the landscape in just the last four years as evidenced by the last election. It's unlikely we'll see such a gap again. But I think the relevance of this is that you can't get away with as much blatant stupidity any more - since so much analysis is crowd-sourced, documented and preserved all over the internet. Even with this public archive as young as it is, the grey areas of plausible deniability are shrinking.
For example - what would happen if Limbaugh runs with and defends this tomorrow? Would Republicans still be afraid to break from him or would they play by the old rules and dig the hole deeper by equivocating?
:lulz:
No way there would be a coup unless they were ordered to shoot American citizens who were unarmed. Wouldn't happen, I know too many military folks and grew up around them to think that such a thing would happen. I mean the kind of things that would be required for such a situation to occur are nigh unto impossible to come together.
On the other hand, if it could happen then we already have a potential map of how things could be. Just read Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein.
What the hell does Robert Heinlein, or John Perry, know about military coups?
Oh, thats right, nothing.
Just another wingnut fantasy wank, with all the lack of knowledge and research than entails. Nothing to see here. If the military weren't prepared to off The Warlord after his extreme incompetence at every level, the Boy Prince, who has actually shown some ability to think and plan beyond that of a brain-dead prop for Christian "right to life" values sure as hell isn't going to be.
The cause of this tantrum is pretty obvious. The Boy Prince isn't sufficiently committed to death and destruction in Afghanistan. He's thinking, instead of blindly sending in tens of thousands of extra troops, most of whom have no experience in population centric counterinsurgency and would likely just do what the other 50%+ of troops in Afghanistan are doing - which is fuck all.
That wasn't really my point Cain. Just because I use the idea doesn't mean that I am saying that Heinlein is some sort of social scientist. But if that helped you get it off your chest man then it's all cool.
Where did I claim Heinlein was a social scientist? Nowhere. Stop making shit up just because I know your favourite author knows fuck all about the topic in question and has no place in a discussion about it.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on September 30, 2009, 05:41:50 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 30, 2009, 05:31:47 AM
Haha. Good. I predict the Liberal media outlets will fan the flames of this until Republicans are forced to denounce it unequivocally. It should be entertaining, at least, and it might even mean a chance for less unchecked idiocy for a little while.
At the very least I am impressed by your optimism. :lulz: The right wingers already have some plausible deniablity since he said that a coup is "possible" not that he would like to see one happen. He wasn't advocating the overthrow of the government, he was just saying that military might, at some point in the future, want to step in and depose a man who won 53% of the popular vote. He doesn't want to see war in the streets, he's just preparing for the likelihood.
Yeah, the guy probably has this wet dream every night and it culminates with him in a threesome with McVeigh and Rudolph over the corpses of liberals.
Interesting how he decided "Commander In Chief" is now merely a figurehead title.
And poof, it is gone.
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/newsmax-columnist-military-coup-may-be-needed-to-resolve-the-obama-problem.php
QuoteLate update: A spokeswoman for Newsmax sent a statement to TPM admitting that the magazine removed the column after several reader complaints. She also identified Perry as an "unpaid blogger."
QuoteNewsmax strongly believes in the principles of Constitutional government and would never advocate or insinuate any suggestion of an activity that would undermine our democracy or democratic institutions.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on September 30, 2009, 05:59:11 PM
And poof, it is gone.
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/newsmax-columnist-military-coup-may-be-needed-to-resolve-the-obama-problem.php
QuoteLate update: A spokeswoman for Newsmax sent a statement to TPM admitting that the magazine removed the column after several reader complaints. She also identified Perry as an "unpaid blogger."
QuoteNewsmax strongly believes in the principles of Constitutional government and would never advocate or insinuate any suggestion of an activity that would undermine our democracy or democratic institutions.
This must mean that they're now conspiring
in secret :tinfoilhat: Or that the left-wing media is forcing a stifling of "healthy debate". Or.. or..
Oh I wish I'd cultivated my political site alts.
Not sure whether to be disappointed that the right-wing lunacy knows some bounds after all, or glad.
The sedition wankery in that TPM thread is actually kinda sickening, I find.
Absolutely - but isn't like everything else - without the cheerleaders making noise then no-one else spends much time talking about the story?
Incidentally, do you know of any political sites where the comment sections aren't just a partisan battleground? I gave up looking last year and now I just ignore the comments almost entirely.
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 30, 2009, 08:19:13 PM
Incidentally, do you know of any political sites where the comment sections aren't just a partisan battleground? I gave up looking last year and now I just ignore the comments almost entirely.
I've always like http://www.fark.com/politics/ The headlines are incindary but the comment section is good. They lean a little left of center and have their share of trolls but mostly it is pretty intelligent stuff. There's an odd amount of lawyers on there for some reason.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on September 30, 2009, 10:17:13 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 30, 2009, 08:19:13 PM
Incidentally, do you know of any political sites where the comment sections aren't just a partisan battleground? I gave up looking last year and now I just ignore the comments almost entirely.
I've always like http://www.fark.com/politics/ The headlines are incindary but the comment section is good. They lean a little left of center and have their share of trolls but mostly it is pretty intelligent stuff. There's an odd amount of lawyers on there for some reason.
Good call - I actually made it half way through their comments on this story - seeing a poster call themselves Diogenes was a bit rich ;-) But I'll definitely be back, thanks for the link.
Incidentally, this is Olbermanns #2 story tonight.. should be entertaining at least.
Oh wait, oops - for some reason I got Diogenes totally confused with Demosthenes:
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/locke_and_demosthenes.png) (http://xkcd.com/635/)
Quote from: Cain on September 30, 2009, 10:46:36 AM
Where did I claim Heinlein was a social scientist? Nowhere. Stop making shit up just because I know your favourite author knows fuck all about the topic in question and has no place in a discussion about it.
I would make a more in depth reply, but I think you were reading someone elses reply or something. Never said he was a fave author. but hey man, rant on, no worries here. :D
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 01, 2009, 03:23:55 AM
Quote from: Cain on September 30, 2009, 10:46:36 AM
Where did I claim Heinlein was a social scientist? Nowhere. Stop making shit up just because I know your favourite author knows fuck all about the topic in question and has no place in a discussion about it.
I would make a more in depth reply, but I think you were reading someone elses reply or something. Never said he was a fave author. but hey man, rant on, no worries here. :D
OH HAI DARUKO.
Jesus Christ! This shit is ridiculous, if anyone attempts any sort of military coup/assassination horseshit I'm going after them myself. This administration is very far from perfect but it's doing a lot of stuff Obama promised they'd do and I'll be damned if I let some radical shitheads fuck it up. Not even joking, I will literally take up arms to defend Washington (and I don't even like Washington).
StD,
Give me liberty or I'll blow your fucking brains out.
Not if he takes your right to bear arms away from you. Of course if he was no longer in power I guess that wouldn't matter.
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on September 30, 2009, 07:47:04 AM
On the other hand, if it could happen then we already have a potential map of how things could be. Just read Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein.
(http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/4046/gkphoto25.jpg)
(http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/1774/top11epicbattlesstarshi.jpg)
(http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/4594/starshiptroopers.jpg)
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on September 30, 2009, 07:47:04 AM
On the other hand, if it could happen then we already have a potential map of how things could be. Just read Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein.
I have, several times, there was no goddamned military coup in that. There was a world war three and a new government built from scratch.
Its obvoius what we need to do. We must nuke our own military.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on October 26, 2009, 02:38:12 AM
Its obvoius what we need to do. We must nuke our own military.
And give it to the Jews.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 25, 2009, 08:19:50 PM
I have, several times, there was no goddamned military coup in that. There was a world war three and a new government built from scratch.
I always felt that it was implied that the veterans from the war took over the government because of how everything was mismanaged. But you are correct, it never specifically mentioned a coup.
Thing is I started feeling like the government had read it and gotten the message that veterans would overthrow them when the Dept. of Homeland security issued that memo of theirs. I still do not see that our military would launch a coup, though I could see them refuse orders to shoot civilians. The Vets that I work with all seem to think that our guys and gals would refuse such an order.
They've never refused to shoot civilians before. We probably shouldn't have told the military about the Milligram experiments, gave em too many ideas.
Sik bump, I somehow completely missed this story the first time through.
The irony is staggering. The argument is that Obama is a socialist/fascist/tyrant/foreigner take your pick who is destroying the constitution. So the best way to restore the constitution is to override the popularly elected gov't with a military coup? The only way that freedom can be protected and fascism averted is for the generals to rule? :?
:memnoch:
Anyhoo I think we can take them.
Some guy in my area just got jailed for his yahoo chat comments on killing Obama back in October of last year. *goes to find the story* He got time served and the halfway house/probation.
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/No-Prison-for-Man-Who-Threatened-Obama-66014067.html
Apparently, he was drunk at the time, but fr rls...maybe the harsh way guys like him were treated might deter some of the Fux News gang from inciting this kind of shit?
No, I doubt it, too, but still.
I dunno Jenne... That rubs me the wrong way, just on principle.
While resorting to thuggery to combat stupidity can be fun for individuals, when the government does it, I get creeped out.
Quote from: Jenne on October 27, 2009, 01:54:28 PMmaybe the harsh way guys like him were treated might deter some of the Fux News gang from inciting this kind of shit?
:lulz:
I can't see it doing anything but egging them on. To them, it would be proof that liberals are hypocrites because they only care about free speech for people who aren't dropping the N-bomb while making credible threats to assassinate the president.
I have mixed feelings about it. Goes against freedom of speech, but by the same token, the way Fux News gets away with stirring the shit and then there's Mann Coulter saying all Presidential assassins were Liberals...:lulz: It's lailworthy, really.
I think we should encourage assassination of all politicans, on general principle. We can arrange timeshares between taking out elected representatives and bankers. You know, sorting out who gets what lamp post, and so on.
I'd agree, but then I'd have NSA on my ass. I'll stick to the much weaker and more legal CHARACTER ASSASSINATION, shall I? Easy, since they do that for themselves.
I guess when I heard that news bit on NPR yesterday, it made me think of this thread and of the militia men that Cain brought up in the other thread. How Fox News has been stirring this anger-ball into motion, but denies culpability the whole way through--from the Birther movement, the Tea-Baggers and so-on.
Quote from: RawCredente on October 27, 2009, 12:23:06 PM
Sik bump, I somehow completely missed this story the first time through.
The irony is staggering. The argument is that Obama is a socialist/fascist/tyrant/foreigner take your pick who is destroying the constitution. So the best way to restore the constitution is to override the popularly elected gov't with a military coup? The only way that freedom can be protected and fascism averted is for the generals to rule? :?
:memnoch:
Anyhoo I think we can take them.
I think the idea is that the Constitution has failed its preamble, and that the whole text might be stripped away, with reference/guidance coming from the Declaration of Independence.
I think the guy that got popped for the drunken threat got seriously screwed over. But someone shoulda took his keyboard away from him or something.
I have pretty much decided that someone will get a plan together to take a shot, but personally i am feeling like there are precious few who could...
A. Have the Cajones
B. Have sufficient mental capacity to pull it off
C. Be willing to trade thier life for their target (This perhaps goes with cajones)
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 28, 2009, 05:24:20 AM
I think the guy that got popped for the drunken threat got seriously screwed over. But someone shoulda took his keyboard away from him or something.
I have pretty much decided that someone will get a plan together to take a shot, but personally i am feeling like there are precious few who could...
A. Have the Cajones
B. Have sufficient mental capacity to pull it off
C. Be willing to trade thier life for their target (This perhaps goes with cajones)
Who cares? If it happens it'll only be because millions of people started talking about it like it was a plausible reality. And then kept talking about it.
Quote from: fictionpuss on October 01, 2009, 01:13:38 AM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on September 30, 2009, 10:17:13 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 30, 2009, 08:19:13 PM
Incidentally, do you know of any political sites where the comment sections aren't just a partisan battleground? I gave up looking last year and now I just ignore the comments almost entirely.
I've always like http://www.fark.com/politics/ The headlines are incindary but the comment section is good. They lean a little left of center and have their share of trolls but mostly it is pretty intelligent stuff. There's an odd amount of lawyers on there for some reason.
Good call - I actually made it half way through their comments on this story - seeing a poster call themselves Diogenes was a bit rich ;-) But I'll definitely be back, thanks for the link.
Incidentally, this is Olbermanns #2 story tonight.. should be entertaining at least.
Diogenes, a cynic, He was known for living under bridges and biting those he disagreed with. I find that pretty humorous.