According to the Leftoids, when 53% of the public elect a Democrat president, it's a
mandate for HopeChange™ and a full-scale Socialist remodelling of our governing principles. However, when
53% (or more) oppose their universal health care scheme... well, they're just ignorant, dupes and/or un-American, Nazi-like tools of the insurance companies. When Leftoids use their resources to muster their drones and bus them cross-country to demonstrate one imagined greivance after another, it's praised as "
community organizing;" when their political opponents do the same thing, it's derided as "
astroturfing."
This is rich. The Leftoids -- who for 8 long years reminded us that dissent is patriotic while shouting their bumper-sticker platitudes about "Blood For Oil" and burning Bush in effigy with impunity while decrying the non-existent chilling effect of the Bushitler Junta on their First Amendment rights -- these same Leftoids now think that the angry so-called "mobs" showing up at town hall meetings to give their elected representatives what-for should be silent, because to protest our government is "un-American" and tantamount to Nazism. Americans are encouraged to
report fellow citizens to the White House... yet
we're the ones who are called Nazis?!?!? It's just fucking Orwellian, isn't it?
And then there's the Gutless Old Party: the RINOs think we should be quiet and civil and engage in reasoned debate with an opposition party that will merely take such as yet another sign of weakness before steamrolling over anyone who stands in their way. Through our distinguished representatives in the House and Senate we had plenty of "civil debate"; we've had it over the TARP bailouts, over the so-called "stimulus" pork slush fund, over the takeovers of the banking and automotive industries. "Civil debate" is working out pretty piss poorly, I'd say.
There may very well be a time and place for civil debate. But not now. As far as I'm concerned, calm, reasoned, civil debate is fine when it's over a fundamental role or function of government -- how best to appropriate defense funds, for example, or regulate interstate commerce. These are specific, enumerated duties that the government is charged with under the Constitution. People can have differing opinions on the ways and means, but these actual roles themselves are not in question; we know this because it's right there in the Constitution, in black and white. But having a civil debate with politicians over how best to implement a government health care takeover is like having a civil debate with a carjacker about how to best maintain your car after he steals it.
Let us be clear:
Providing health care to citizens is not a legitimate function of the government -- at least not this government, not under this Constitution. So when half or more of the citizens are in effect told by the ruling class to shut the fuck up,
get out of the way and accept yet another encroachment on their liberties by an omnipotent Socialist juggernaut, then shouting is the
bare minimum of what must be done, and the shouting mustn't be limited merely to the Democrats, either -- both parties need to be scared of the citizens they (ostensibly) represent. That's the way the system was designed, not the other way around. If they're not scared for their lives, they should at least be scared for their cushy Ivory Tower lifestyle in DC.