Have fun storming the White House!
October 18, 2009 12:36 AM Subscribe

"Join in NOW and help Capture Obama and the renegade Cong. Defeat the Union Troops and other allies of the former President and help safeguard American Freedom. " It's the online survivalist game/wish fulfillment entitled "2011: Obama's Coup Fails" (via)

Who wouldn't want to play with event like this one:

"Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck Found Dead in Camp

March 5, 2011 – Clark County, VA – A FEMA camp was liberated today, one of two still controlled by the war criminals loyal to Obama. Rush Limbaugh was executed over a week earlier, we are told, and Glenn Beck was found in his cell and has died, incredibly of an ‘aspirin overdose’, the preferred way to send a message to the enemies of Obama."

posted by bardic (171 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite

Umm, no. Just.. no.
posted by mediocre at 12:43 AM on October 18, 2009

When asked for his opinion on this monumental power shift in favor of liberty-minded Republicans

The fiction is that the voters replaced Democrats, to the tune of 17 Senators and 178 Representatives. But with "liberty-minded Republicans"?

Totally blows the story. If they added just one, they'd be doubling the extant population.
posted by Malor at 12:46 AM on October 18, 2009 [3 favorites]

Yeah! Go America! We better stop Obama from expanding his presidential powers, destroying our system of checks and balances, removing our rights to habeas corpus, instituting a domestic spying program on innocent civilians and starting torture camps.

Wait, I feel like we've played this game before...
posted by yeloson at 12:46 AM on October 18, 2009 [44 favorites]

You know, we probably seemed just as crazy to the republicans when bush was in office. We probably seemed destructive if empowered.

But, and this is important to point out, that's because they were actually crazy then too, while we've been sane the whole time. And if fact when they were in power, they caused a ton of destruction. Things ended up worse then what most people actually anticipated. Bush lived up to our wost fears and then some.
posted by delmoi at 12:53 AM on October 18, 2009 [21 favorites]

You know, we probably seemed just as crazy to the republicans when bush was in office.

You are St. Alia of the Bunnies and I claim my five pounds.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:58 AM on October 18, 2009 [17 favorites]

This is disgusting.
posted by Damn That Television at 1:09 AM on October 18, 2009

I've been working on a post at least partly about this, so I'll just throw up my links & thoughts here. My first thought when I saw that game was how much it resembled The Turner Diaries, the infamous novel about a racial civil war in America that was an inspiration for the Oklahoma City bombing. And then I ran across this story about a plot to assassinate Obama that borrowed both from the recent unsolved murder of a census worker & the racist sign outside a KKK-member owned restaurant in Georgia. While I was contemplating the meaning of all this I found something that brought it all into focus: this report on the Republican Party & how they're living in an alternate reality consumed by conspiracy theories about Obama.

There's some very disturbing trends going on here. Something dark's building, feeding on itself. Masses of people are losing the plot of civilization, getting lost in their own fantasy storylines. If history is any guide, it's not going to end well.
posted by scalefree at 1:11 AM on October 18, 2009 [51 favorites]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this stuff. Both I guess. But I do think it's funny that they don't know what "coup" means.
posted by bardic at 1:28 AM on October 18, 2009 [3 favorites]

I really can't understand what it is about US politics that seems to make this sort of paranoia so common.

While I assume that not all Republicans believe these things they really seemed to have reached an unbelievable level of acceptance. With mainstream media personalities like Beck supporting some of these ideas.

In the political environment I live in this sort of thing is absolutely unimaginable. I'd be hard pressed to even find a few people who are so politically paranoid here. What is it about the political culture in the US that makes this possible?
posted by sycophant at 1:36 AM on October 18, 2009

IMO it's racism masquerading as "concern" for the Constitution, the very thing Republicans spent eight years shitting all over re: FISA, incarceration of American citizens without trial, torture, etc.
posted by bardic at 1:38 AM on October 18, 2009 [10 favorites]

Masses of people are losing the plot of civilization, getting lost in their own fantasy storylines.

This is true in an awful lot of disparate areas. We substitute wishful thinking for hard reality, because we're insulated from the details.

Idiocracy is coming true, in a sense; whether through genetics or simple laziness, we're no longer smart enough to maintain a civilization as large as we have. We're overrun with liars, looting the country, instead of builders, trying to improve it, and we're not bright enough to recognize the difference between the two. Hell, that crowd looks with profound distrust on some of our greatest builders, the scientists.

Lincoln said it best:

All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

And we're opting for suicide, because actually dealing with and fixing our many problems is too painful to contemplate. I can't think of the last time we actually successfully solved any large problem. Maybe removing CFCs from production -- that might qualify. But that was, what, twenty years ago?

Hell, we're so deeply into the post-competence era that we can't even handle ONE CITY drowning anymore.

It's nobody's fault but ours. We're the adults now, and we're letting this happen.
posted by Malor at 1:45 AM on October 18, 2009 [55 favorites]

Right-wingers love to fight for liberty against oppressive communistic mainstream centrism, don't they? It's not just in the USA, a lot of the right-wing propaganda in the UK is like this - take the work of low-tax propaganda outfit The Taxpayers' Alliance, or the paranoid "all foreigners are evil and hate us" thriller the Aachen Referendum by 'proper historian' Andrew Roberts.
posted by athenian at 1:47 AM on October 18, 2009

A group of Obama loyalists, mostly comprised of members of the Black Tigers and the Nation of Malsi, have a grip on 3 more counties.

Good job being subtle militia guys!
posted by afu at 1:53 AM on October 18, 2009 [7 favorites]

I do think it's funny that they don't know what "coup" means.

Just wait until you see them try to spell "rogue".
posted by rokusan at 1:56 AM on October 18, 2009 [5 favorites]

from link: President Barack Obama, President Felipe Calderon of Mexico, and Prime Minister Stephan Harper of Canada have been conducting private meetings with each other...

I knew it – Barack Obama was obvious, but that sniveling little socialist Stephan Harper! He always was a sneaking bastard, pretending to be some kind of calculatingly boring economic conservative championing free-market Reaganomics, all the while secretly hatching his plan to create a socialist nightmare! It was a stroke of creative genius to have the future Stephen Harper replace the second 'e' in his first name with an 'a', which I'm sure stands for "ANTI-AMERICAN!"
posted by koeselitz at 2:08 AM on October 18, 2009 [5 favorites]

Do they put rogue on their cochons?
posted by crataegus at 2:15 AM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

Also, here's my vote for:

FAKE. This site just screams it.
posted by koeselitz at 2:18 AM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

Location: Virginia, U.S.A.
You are a militia commander and in control of 1 county.

Mission: To defeat all enemies of the United States, both foreign and domestic. Includes:

* C.O.R.N.Y. (Congress of Rejected and Neglected Youth) Shock Troops
* Obama's police force (Ameritroops)
* The Cong (Former congressional leaders)
* Nation of Malsi (Islamic fundamentalist troops)
* Black Tigers (black nationalist troops loyal to Obama)
* NHKS (National Honor Killing Society) Yet another Islamic army
* I.S.U.E. ( International Service Union Empire) Troops
* U.N. (United Nations) Peacekeepers

Oh, that is some brilliantly veiled political commentary, right there.

So let me get this straight... the enemies in this scenario -- not the ideological enemies, but the actual people you are shooting bullets at in order to kill -- are:

* ACORN workers
* AmeriCorps volunteers
* Members of Congress
* The Nation of Islam
* Black Panthers
* Some other Muslim advocacy group
* SEIU members
* UN peacekeepers

That there is some deep-fried crazy. I understand these people fearing the Black Panthers or the Nation of Islam, but in what universe are legislators, low-wage union employees, and international peacekeepers legitimate military targets?

Also, I like how one of the primary triggers of the hypothetical revolt, a universal gun ban, has no basis in reality.
posted by Rhaomi at 2:20 AM on October 18, 2009 [13 favorites]

Although I'm probably just postponing the inevitable deflation of my respect for humanity.
posted by koeselitz at 2:26 AM on October 18, 2009

FAKE. This site just screams it.

Take a look at the site's blog. That's an awfully sustained flow of typical wingnut hysteria with no zingers thrown in to clue in the observant that it's a fake. Could anybody that's not ideologically synced keep that going? Maybe but I doubt it.
posted by scalefree at 2:44 AM on October 18, 2009

Ooh, there's lots more to see in the Breaking News section, where members can write their on fake reports from the front lines. For example:

Today Joe Wilson and Andrew Breitbart have formed a political alliance and Andrew may now also be running for the Senate. That will make a total of 6 former media people to be making either Senate or Congressional campaigns now that the Democratic Party has been outlawed for over 100 years of treason against the United States. Ann Coulter's book "Treason" has also been made required reading in all high schools and is quite telling in this respect.

* * *

The Militia not only took out the Hamas and Nation of Malsi terrorists but in a fit of rage buried dozens of the foreigners alive, bound with pig skins. According to the Muslim barbarians someone clothed in pig skin will not reach heaven. The Patriots of the Militia were more than happy to help them to meet Allah, just not the way they wanted. We are sure the ACLU will be filing charges but according to a prominent militia leader, "The ACLU is not long for this world, I promise America that. Many things happen in a revolution, and that communist organization will not have many members left breathing shortly."

* * *

Life is always more fantastic than fiction and the mostly shy Greg Gutfeld of Red Eye has been one the elite media's worst enemies. His own small unit of the new Sons of Liberty in New York is directly responsible for the arrest of the propagandists Katie Couric, Dan Rather, Ed Schultz, Rachel Madow, Brian Williams and Charles Gibson. Hilariously, before the arrest of Charles Gibson, Gibson is quoted as saying " What Revolution? I've never heard of it. We should leave such news to the cables." That quote after over 8 weeks of War in the United States against Obama. The militia shot Gibson on the spot.

* * *

In a bold stroke that many think smacks of desperation, Barack Hussein Obama, former President of the United States, has proclaimed himself the Legendary Lost Imam. Throughout the Islamic religion the notion of a lost Imam that would one day unite the Muslim world in a new Caliphate that spans the globe has filled the imagination of fundamentalists everywhere. With the Muslim world in flames after the Israeli Counter-attack that took out all of the Arab capitals as well as the Holiest city in the Muslim world, Mecca, Obama hopes to galvanize what is left of Islam in his defense.

* * *

The last remnants of the corrupt Communist-run Federal Reserve was destroyed early this morning by several hundred Militia members headed by Congressman Wilson.

* * *

The Final Arab Israeli war cost a total of 4 million Israeli casualties when Iran nuked Tel Aviv in June of 2010. 17 million Iranians also died when Israel counter-struck, destroying Iran's top 10 cities, including Tehran, Mashhad, Esfahan and Tabriz. Other targets of Israel's counterattack include Riyadh, Mecca, Cairo and Islamabad.

Christ, these people are bloodthirsty.
posted by Rhaomi at 2:47 AM on October 18, 2009 [4 favorites]

A dislike for the UN is at least consistent with the professed right-wing worldview— assume the UN will inevitably grow into a world government, and it's just a federalism/states'-rights thing writ large. "Peacekeepers" is just the liberal euphemism for "jack-booted freedom-hating thugs". They're probably all French and doing Sherman-style marches back and forth across the US.

I can't rationalize any of the other targets, though, beyond "hey we need names for some more enemies for this game".
posted by hattifattener at 2:48 AM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

Yeah, I'm seeing some Lyndon Larouche links in the "knowledge" section. Alas, my despair for humanity is complete.
posted by koeselitz at 2:48 AM on October 18, 2009 [3 favorites]

A dislike for the UN is at least consistent with the professed right-wing worldview— assume the UN will inevitably grow into a world government, and it's just a federalism/states'-rights thing writ large. "Peacekeepers" is just the liberal euphemism for "jack-booted freedom-hating thugs". They're probably all French and doing Sherman-style marches back and forth across the US.

The hilarious thing is that they think their guns will do them any good against the robot armies.
posted by delmoi at 2:58 AM on October 18, 2009 [9 favorites]

The hilarious thing is that they think their guns will do them any good against the robot armies.

You've said too much! To the death panels with you!
posted by Target Practice at 3:27 AM on October 18, 2009 [6 favorites]

"Take a look at the site's blog."

Wow, an RSS feed of different right wing wackjob blog posts! That totally proves the site is legit!

Perhaps we should ask the total of ten people in the communities forums what the deal is.

Or perhaps we should google the top players list names, and find that the only web references to many of their fairly specific handles are only to that site.
posted by ollyollyoxenfree at 3:37 AM on October 18, 2009 [2 favorites]

The hilarious thing is that they think their guns will do them any good against the robot armies.

See, that's what I don't get. The robot armies are coming and we don't have universal robot insurance. Do the crazies truly believe that the Old Glory Robot Insurance corporation is really going to cover you when you actually go to use it? No. Because if they did, they'd lose money, and OGRI isn't in the business of caring for people after robot attacks—they're in the business of profiting from not covering people who get attacked by robots.

Honestly, you'd have to be a blind fucking retard not to see this.
posted by Mikey-San at 3:44 AM on October 18, 2009 [15 favorites]

The International Service Union Empire troops! Awesome. I envision silhouettes coming forward through the smoke from a burning overturned patriotic car, the dreaded commandos of the ISUE: Ron, the window washer; Emmy, the nurse's aide; Brian, the plasterer (he'll plaster you); Alice the jewelry worker (feared in five states for her ability to facet gems); Jenna from food service, with her poly gloves and Ladle of Tyranny; and the legendary Steve the Bus Driver.

Seriously though -- I don't know where this paranoid mode comes from, but we've always had it: back through the loathsome Turner Diaries mentioned above to anti-Catholicism, anti-Masonry, and the Know Nothing Party to the unbelievable pro-Nazi tirades of radio personality Father Coughlin, spreading the Jewish banker conspiracy among an enormous listening audience, to Red panics in the 50s and on and on. I wonder why it comes so easily to us.
posted by finnb at 3:56 AM on October 18, 2009 [4 favorites]

I'm enjoying the high score tables at the bottom.

The expected: DemocraticCommieBastards, CheStaysDead, SonsOfLiberty, Drudgelover, KillAllPoliticians etc
The fringe, even for this lot: monkeybeater, AdolfHitler
The truly random: sexynewyorker11208, tastyjingles
posted by imperium at 3:57 AM on October 18, 2009 [2 favorites]

Kuro5hin's Chicken George was way better!
posted by jeffburdges at 4:12 AM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

actually, I've changed my mind. I've been googling around, and found some guy calling himself "DaMan Conners" astroturfing various right wing blogs before this site went viral, and the guy comes off as a wackjob.
posted by ollyollyoxenfree at 4:13 AM on October 18, 2009

I think the site is very early in its development cycle, just coming out of beta. That's why the userbase looks kind of screwy. Well, even screwier than you'd expect from a site like this. Which is admittedly pretty screwy.
posted by scalefree at 4:32 AM on October 18, 2009

In the political environment I live in this sort of thing is absolutely unimaginable. I'd be hard pressed to even find a few people who are so politically paranoid here. What is it about the political culture in the US that makes this possible?

Can't say as I know the answer. But it seems a large number of Usians put more effort into their religious education than their academic education. As a result we have people taking on faith the preachings of right wing rabble-rouser types. If a person is willing to take on faith sermons of someone telling him the earth is no more than five or six thousand years old, why be surprised when Rush Limbaugh convinces him he should disrupt a town hall meeting rather than engage in civil discourse.
posted by notreally at 4:38 AM on October 18, 2009 [2 favorites]

I just can't help but wonder how the National Organization of Women feels about this.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:45 AM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

Just ran my own eyes over the usernames & without even searching several jump out as right-wing bloggers: IowaHawk, AceofSpades, GatewayPundit, MichelleMalkin, Breitbart. Either somebody's doing a lot of name-stealing (which is possible, I don't think Nancy Pelosi's joined up even as a fact-finding mission) or this site's primed to gain wide acceptance within the right, hoax or not.
posted by scalefree at 4:50 AM on October 18, 2009

I'm amused about the strength of their entitlement fantasies. They think losing an election is a coup.
posted by Ironmouth at 5:00 AM on October 18, 2009 [8 favorites]

As disturbing as the content on the game site is, it's still just speech. What's got me more concerned is what the San Francisco plot says about what's going on. A criminal extremist picks up messages from not one but two other extremists and builds them into his own crime. Without any of them ever talking or knowing anything about each other, there's an undeniable causal relationship running through them; the first two inspired the third. The environment is ripe for much much more of this to happen, like wildfire running through dry grasslands. This game is just adding more fuel to the mix.
posted by scalefree at 5:28 AM on October 18, 2009

"Peacekeepers"? — I thought that was a Farscape thing...
posted by vhsiv at 5:45 AM on October 18, 2009 [3 favorites]

Anyone who hasn't read the 1964 essay "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" should do so now:

The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman—sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way. He makes crises, starts runs on banks, causes depressions, manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced. The paranoid’s interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone’s will. Very often the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing); he has a special technique for seduction (the Catholic confessional).

(Also check for Obama's Hidden Hypnosis Techniques!)
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:45 AM on October 18, 2009 [6 favorites]

See, this is why I'm convinced Democrats will never be successful in charge -- we just aren't willing to be batshit enough to compete with stuff like this.
posted by hanncoll at 5:59 AM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

I really can't understand what it is about US politics that seems to make this sort of paranoia so common.

Because they are tolerated.

If they received the open ridicule and mocking that they deserved, not just on echo chambers like MeFi, but also in the media, and instead of being presented as simple opinions, was presented the way that they should be presented—that these people represent the barbarians at the gate, that their opinions represent the basest forms of reptilianism, that they are the rot and poison that is slowly destroying civilization as we know it and we must do everything in our power to stop them—then the shame of their ignorance could be used as an object lesson to other soft-brained Americans.

These people make me wish we did have FEMA camps ready for them.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:07 AM on October 18, 2009 [19 favorites]

Maybe you're not. I'm willing to up the ante and actually go apeshit.
posted by Astro Zombie at 6:07 AM on October 18, 2009 [3 favorites]

It's a stand alone complex.

I'm obviously not a sociologist. As a lay person, I wonder what it says about us in that the best nomenclature for this type of thing comes from anime.
posted by Liver at 6:10 AM on October 18, 2009 [3 favorites]

These people make me wish we did have FEMA camps ready for them.

The content is vile, filfth, and makes me physically ill, but they don't deserve to be thrown into a prison simply for saying them.
posted by Atreides at 6:27 AM on October 18, 2009 [7 favorites]

From the tone in threads like these, you'd think this country elected McCain and his idiot sidekick by large margins, having received an enormous boost from the highly popular and deeply beloved Bush/Cheney administration. But I'm a glass half-full kinda guy so feel free to ignore my limited optimism about the general sanity and intelligence of this country.

Anyways, the scenario of a right wing armed revolt is rather interesting to me. If the crazed right gets their wet-dream fantasies fulfilled and the president gets assassinated, I think they'll be terribly surprised at the reaction of the populace they "liberated." There would be Republicans swinging from street lights soon afterwards and it wouldn't be from the hands of the dreaded UN stormtroopers. Their movement would be destroyed outside of pockets in the deep south. Obama as martyr would delegitimize them more completely than Obama as president ever could.

With luck this never happens and this scenario will occur only in some turgid and badly written Turtledove alt-history novel that comes out some years after Obama leaves office in 2017.
posted by pandaharma at 6:28 AM on October 18, 2009 [7 favorites]

Fools. They're getting totally played by Hillary, who sits in her undisclosed lair and smiles at the puppet empire she put in place.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:39 AM on October 18, 2009 [4 favorites]

What a great way for the FBI to gather names of extremists.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 6:40 AM on October 18, 2009 [5 favorites]

It's the prequel game to The Handmaid's Tale.
posted by Relay at 6:52 AM on October 18, 2009 [18 favorites]

At least in the UK we know how to mock our right-wing lunatics properly and take action to ridicule them for the morons they are. Yes, the BNP may have 2 seats in Europe, but the backlash against this has been huge.

Here in the South (Texas) is where I'm worried. I had lunch with a Client on Friday who told me that he expected his health insurance premiums to go up with the forced national plan and if he had to wait one second longer for service he would go Lee Harvey Oswald. What is it about the US that means the lunatic fringe get so much credence? There's a lot to be said for European cynicism for weeding our idiots out.
posted by arcticseal at 7:06 AM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

What a great way for the FBI to gather names of extremists.

I think they might already have DemocraticCommieBastards, CheStaysDead, SonsOfLiberty, Drudgelover, and KillAllPoliticians on a list somewhere.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:08 AM on October 18, 2009 [2 favorites]

they don't deserve to be thrown into a prison simply for saying them

No, you're right. The open mockery and ridicule would be enough for me. But we're not allowed to do that. Not really. For instance, up here in Maine there's a ballot initiative to repeal the gay marriage law that was signed by our governor in May. I have been thinking about demonstrating, but the signs I see are so timid. What I want to do is stand amongst the anti-gay marriage protesters with a giant sign that says "BIGOTS." Now, how long do you realistically think I'll have before I'm physically attacked? Even though it's my right? Even though it's the truth? But no, what will happen is, the bigots around me will try and beat me up, the police will intervene (hopefully… eventually…) and I'll be removed. There go my rights.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:08 AM on October 18, 2009 [2 favorites]

Obama as martyr would delegitimize them more completely than Obama as president ever could.

This is not at all guaranteed. Let's not be joking about Obi-wan "If you strike me down I'll become more powerful than you can ever imagine" Kenobi because it just isn't so. If you look at the aftermath of other political assassinations, like Robert Kennedy or Martin Luther King, Jr. or Benazir Bhutto or Yitzhak Rabin, you'll see that it's much more likely that killing a symbolic leader can also swamp her nascent movement completely in grief and confusion.

The world is not Braveheart, and it doesn't matter if Mel Gibson/William Wallace's dying words were "Freedom!" or "Pancakes," because the last time I checked Scotland was still ruled by the Queen of England. Thinking people matter less than ideas is one of those classic non-logical fallacies that's so tempting because we forget that ideas only matter when we highly vulnerable mortals act upon them.
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:08 AM on October 18, 2009 [13 favorites]

What I want to do is stand amongst the anti-gay marriage protesters with a giant sign that says "BIGOTS.

Best Protest Sign Ever.
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:19 AM on October 18, 2009 [11 favorites]

When you hear people say "Obama is evil!" "Obama's going to destroy the constitution!" "Obama's going to throw us into camps!", there's a ready explanation.
posted by gimonca at 7:27 AM on October 18, 2009 [5 favorites]

Yeah, I'm seeing some Lyndon Larouche links in the "knowledge" section. Alas, my despair for humanity is complete.

Is it a link to the picture of Richard Grasso in a jungle with Raúl Reyes? Cuz that might be actual knowledge. Not really actionable in any way other than to post about that there is a picture and LL asks 'why?' - but still knowledge.

They think losing an election is a coup.

Did ya read some of the posts on Metafilter in the last 8 years? Such claims were made here about the last 2 election cycles. The Internet is filled with lottsa people - some are gonna have believes outside 'the norm'.

Democrats will never be successful in charge

The lesson seems to be to create either a web site about a fake game, use various open source elements to create a game, or write the whole thing from scratch about what you think is an issue someone should care about.

Bonus points if you can make it Java for cellphones that way it can be played while sipping coffee with your other liberal associates in the ivory towers.

Entertain AND educate looks to be a workable model.

It's a stand alone complex.

If the single idea is 'there is something wrong and if we just correct this one thing, the days of milk and honey will return' and the resulting search then removal of the one thing - then sure.

Just like members of 'the left' were trying to find patterns/meaning in the Bush years WRT voting machines et la, 'the right' is doing the same with the datum they find troubling. Gun Control has been talked about for years - one can find position papers, Congress-kritters talking heads during discussions about bills on the subject, actions of various local governments. (so to claim that it is not possible ignores the paper trail.) Cherry pick many datum, weave it together to form a narrative and bam! you have their evil plan. Make 'the plan' have 'one controller' and you have a rally point VS 'it seems that there are a bunch of self interested jerks in the world' and you can then pitch 'stop the controller and the problem ends'.

What a great way for the FBI to gather names of extremists.

If one feels the government is filled with competent people, perhaps they engineered it. cointelpro bay-bee! If one feels the Secret Service is overworked - this will just up the workload if the site is not a hoax. The history about this one site could be someone's pHd masterwork and land 'em work in the bowels of a think-tank.
posted by rough ashlar at 7:29 AM on October 18, 2009

you may take our lives but you'll never take

OUR PAAANCAAAAAKEEEEES!
posted by spikeleemajortomdickandharryconnickjrmints at 7:30 AM on October 18, 2009 [2 favorites]

What I want to do is stand amongst the anti-gay marriage protesters with a giant sign that says "BIGOTS." Now, how long do you realistically think I'll have before I'm physically attacked? Even though it's my right? Even though it's the truth?

If someone attacks you, they deserve to go to jail.
posted by Atreides at 7:33 AM on October 18, 2009

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
posted by Benny Andajetz at 7:59 AM on October 18, 2009 [5 favorites]

It's okay. You can have one of my pancakes.
posted by nebulawindphone at 8:03 AM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

was still ruled by the Queen of England

England and Scotland have shared a monarch since James VII (or II), who was King of Scotland before he took over the English throne.
posted by cillit bang at 8:27 AM on October 18, 2009

This is an example of the right wing extremists who are exactly the same as left wing ones.
posted by Legomancer at 8:39 AM on October 18, 2009

This actually looks like kind of a fun game. Can you play as the conspiracy? Cause I think it would be kind of fun to put down the rebellion brutally.
posted by empath at 8:45 AM on October 18, 2009 [4 favorites]

I'm leaning toward this site being a 'honeypot' to attract extremists, but who's to say this isn't only going to draw up the couch-potato extremists?

(Wait, I get dibs on that as the big pop band name...)
posted by uncorq at 8:46 AM on October 18, 2009

For the older people in this country (like my in-laws), I think race is huge. They simply cannot get their mind around a black man being president. They also believe everything they read on the Internet and get in email.

For the middle age and younger crazies, it’s about ideology. Like someone said earlier, losing an election to them is like an overthrow of government. It simply cannot be legit.

But, what is at work here is more understandable. We are in the last days, demographically, of a white majority and government. A more diverse population is steadily gaining ground. This scares the bejebus out of people. And, as we get closer to this tipping point, I expect a lot more crazy.
posted by UseyurBrain at 8:47 AM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

I think I'll hold off until the expansion pack wherein, forced to the brink by the Republican liberation army, Obama unleashes his terrible secret weapon: hundreds of millions of tiny undead warriors created from abortions stockpiled by Planned Parenthood and brought back to gruesome, Christ-killing life by stem cell research. ANGEL BABY DEATH SQUAD!
posted by adipocere at 8:48 AM on October 18, 2009 [14 favorites]

Once again I'm reminded that the main difference between the shouting fury of the left and right is that the left spent eight years furious about things that the Bush Administration actually did, like suspending habeas corpus and warrantless wiretapping and lying about the causes for a war. The right, by contrast, is furious about things that the Obama Administration has shown absolutely no intent of actually doing, like death panels, wholesale nationalization of industries, and outlawing firearms.
posted by Tomorrowful at 8:49 AM on October 18, 2009 [38 favorites]

This is an example of the right wing extremists who are exactly the same as left wing ones.

I disagree. First, at a higher level, since when did "Two wrongs make a right" become a legitimate element of political discourse? If one side does something wrong it doesn't justify another response on the other side.

The equivalency on the Left Vs. Right in regards to this is WAAAAAY off. Left wing idealogies in the US trend towards peaceful interactions whereas Right wing idealogies trend towards might makes right.

The left during the Bush era was concerned about the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, the patriot act, the embracing of big business over the needs of the people.

I believe that generally speaking, these concerns were proven justified. Some of the more fringey concerns about cancelling elections were pretty nutso, but I believe if you go back and review the political temperment at the time you'll find that it was fringe, and treated as fringe by the political mainstream.

Right now, the Right is focused on Obama being evil, the antichrist, not of this country, and is now making web games focusing on gaming a coup of the American government. They are on mainstream television comparing Obama to Hitler, shouting from the street corners that providing healthcare to americans is the equivalent of the Final Solution from the holocaust.

Not in backwater sections of the internet, not in hand xeroxed newsletters, but in our newspapers, on our news channels.

And it's the norm.

So no, there isn't an equivalency here. And even if there were, it's not acceptable on either side.

Conservative Idealogy in the US has gone off the deep end. Period. Batshit insane. We're not talking about something that can be dignified or spoken to anymore.

How does one have a political discourse between "I would like to provide healthcare to all americans" and "That healthcare plan is evil, you want to kill my grandparents and you are enacting a plan just like hitlet".

If one side truly believes that the other is a force of Evil, there is no discourse. You can't meet half-way. And that's truly fucked. I have no idea what it'll mean for the US long-term, but let's not delude ourselves to thinking this is acceptable or the norm.
posted by Lord_Pall at 8:50 AM on October 18, 2009 [28 favorites]

>: "2011: Obama's Coup Fails"

It's not much of a game if the FUCKING TITLE tells you you're going to win.
posted by dunkadunc at 8:53 AM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

Yeah, I found that out in the 16-bit days with Eternal Champions. What a piece of shit.
posted by box at 9:03 AM on October 18, 2009

70 comments in and no WOLVERINES?

You guys are slipping.
posted by Artw at 9:04 AM on October 18, 2009 [2 favorites]

Also, I think I might suddenly understand the appeal of being a griefer.
posted by box at 9:18 AM on October 18, 2009 [2 favorites]

Fair elections are coups now?

I love how even in their fantasies Limbaugh and Beck are dead.
posted by djduckie at 9:23 AM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

Anyone played the game yet? How is it? Is it worth quitting EVE Online for?
posted by infinitywaltz at 9:25 AM on October 18, 2009

I like that the game involves "Blitzkrieg attacks".
posted by Artw at 9:27 AM on October 18, 2009

I would prefer it if it involved "Blitzkrieg Bop."
posted by koeselitz at 9:35 AM on October 18, 2009

This is an example of the right wing extremists who are exactly the same as left wing ones.

No. Violence committed by American left wing extremists include destruction of property (animal research labs, Hummer dealerships, ski lifts) always with the intention to avoid killing. Stupid and misguided, yes, but not murderous. Violence committed by American right wing extremists looks more like the Oklahoma City bombing. This anti-government paranoia is the same paranoia we witnessed during the Clinton administration that led up to a Right-wing nut job like McVey to kill hundreds of people: the false belief that a centrist Democratic president is going to take away all the guns and sell the US to a one-world government. The extreme Right-wing rhetoric is potential very dangerous. Extreme Left-wing rhetoric is comparatively benign.
posted by eperker at 9:40 AM on October 18, 2009 [4 favorites]

This is an example of the right wing extremists who are exactly the same as left wing ones.

That was a post by a centrist extremist, who are almost as clueless as the right wing extremists.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:41 AM on October 18, 2009 [11 favorites]

I think I'll hold off until the expansion pack wherein, forced to the brink by the Republican liberation army, Obama unleashes his terrible secret weapon: hundreds of millions of tiny undead warriors created from abortions stockpiled by Planned Parenthood and brought back to gruesome, Christ-killing life by stem cell research. ANGEL BABY DEATH SQUAD!

Achievement Unlocked I Have Become Death Panels (30G)
posted by Mikey-San at 9:45 AM on October 18, 2009 [7 favorites]

I think Sarah Palin is supposedly a heroic freedom fighter in this game, isn't she? So it must be fantasy.

In other fantasy news, Sarah Palin's LinkedIn page is advertising her availability for "job inquiries, expertise requests, business deals, reference requests" and "getting back in touch."

Oh wait, no, that's...that's supposedly real.
posted by darkstar at 9:52 AM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

Like someone said earlier, losing an election to them is like an overthrow of government. It simply cannot be legit.

Goes for both sides of the aisle, amirite?
posted by chavenet at 9:56 AM on October 18, 2009

Violence committed by American left wing extremists include destruction of property (animal research labs, Hummer dealerships, ski lifts) always with the intention to avoid killing.

I'd be really careful with the word "always".

Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause."
- Alex Pacheco, Director, PETA

Arson is only property destruction on the surface; it carries with it a real threat of injury and death, even if unintentional. You never know who will be in a building and you cannot contain a runaway fire, which can spread to occupied structures. Arson can and does kill people. Either Alex Pacheco doesn't understand that or willfully ignores it; either way, it's a stupid thing to say and it demonstrates a lack of grasp on reality.
posted by Mikey-San at 9:57 AM on October 18, 2009 [2 favorites]

This is an example of the right wing extremists who are exactly the same as left wing ones.

That was a post by a centrist extremist, who are almost as clueless as the right wing extremists.

I'm pretty sure it was a post parodying that attitude, actually.
posted by EarBucket at 9:59 AM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

I think Sarah Palin is supposedly a heroic freedom fighter in this game, isn't she? So it must be fantasy.

Well, you need someone to fight off the giant wolves Obama has under his Muslin Mind Control Powers. It's like Princess Mononoke- remember? Those wolves were against gun ownership TOO! It all makes sense!
posted by yeloson at 10:09 AM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

Violence committed by American left wing extremists include destruction of property (animal research labs, Hummer dealerships, ski lifts) always with the intention to avoid killing. Stupid and misguided, yes, but not murderous.

No.
posted by blucevalo at 10:17 AM on October 18, 2009

anotherpanacea: Best Protest Sign Ever.

No, this is the best protest sign ever. Seriously.
posted by WCityMike at 10:30 AM on October 18, 2009 [4 favorites]

Is there one of those long German psychological words for finding a situation simultaneously hilarious and terrifying?
posted by condour75 at 10:33 AM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

This is an example of the right wing extremists who are exactly the same as left wing ones.

This is an example of an informed comment that is exactly the same as an uninformed comment.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:42 AM on October 18, 2009 [2 favorites]

Just like members of 'the left' were trying to find patterns/meaning in the Bush years WRT voting machines.

It seems that every time there's a political thread these days, there's someone saying, "This massive insane behaviour from the right is equivalent to some perfectly rational behaviour from the left."

It is an undisputed fact that many of the voting machines store the vote tallies as unencrypted text files that could be opened and changed in any spreadsheet program; that the results are kept on standard data cards that can be read on any machine; that those cards are physically protected by a simple key not much more complicated than the one on your mailbox and much less so than the one on your door; that the machine's software is a proprietary secret so there is literally no way for anyone to know what other problems, deliberate or accidental, might rest in it; that the company making many of these machines is owned by a very public Republican; and that there have been many substantiated issues, such a negative vote totals or totals greater than the entire number of voters in a district.

Whether or not the machines were actually hacked, it seems eminently rational to at least be suspicious of them and demand higher levels of security and accountability whether you are "left" or "right".

To equate this legitimate concern to the idea that the right-wing, militarist, anti-union, pro-Big Business Obama is planning a communist takeover of the United States seems barely sane.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:47 AM on October 18, 2009 [23 favorites]

JOHN HAS A LONG MUSTACHE
posted by clavdivs at 10:56 AM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

This is an example of snark that is exactly the same as undetected snark.
posted by Flunkie at 10:59 AM on October 18, 2009 [2 favorites]

blucevalo: the number of people killed by the US "radical left" in the last 50 years is...? A dozen if that? I note your article doesn't actually mention even *one* person being successfully killed...

The Oklahoma City bombing alone caused more deaths than all the US "radical leftists" in our lifetimes put together.

And the right sent four thousand Americans to die in Iraq - for nothing. The right killed two million people in Vietnam - for nothing. South and Central America, who knows how many?

This fake equivalence is a Big Lie and I cannot let it pass.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:05 AM on October 18, 2009 [8 favorites]

anotherpanacea: This is not at all guaranteed. Let's not be joking about Obi-wan "If you strike me down I'll become more powerful than you can ever imagine" Kenobi because it just isn't so.

I think you're probably right about the other stuff, but may I say that the "Obama-Wan Kenobi" meme, which has right-wing 'birthers' pasting Barack Obama's head into various scenes from the Star Wars movies, is probably my favorite alternate-universe right-wing nutjob fad?
posted by koeselitz at 11:11 AM on October 18, 2009

This is an example of an unfavorited comment that is exactly the same as a favorited comment.
posted by Mikey-San at 11:13 AM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

@anotherpanacea

Actually MLK's assassination almost proves my conjecture. The event did precipitate violence in the short term, in the form of riots and probably helped solidify his ideas on race by making him, essentially, into a saint removed from the the day-to-day concerns that usually bring down or humanize political leaders. He's basically untouchable, even by the Republicans who may privately despise him but feel forced to publicly praise him.

You can also look at the assassination of Lincoln and how it lead to both a substantially harsher Reconstruction than was initially planned and the complete political dominance of the Republican Party for a time.

The idea of Obama has always been bigger than the more prosaic reality, which is that of a pragmatic, middle-of-the-road politician with a certain amount of vision and a great talent for oratory. On top of that you have the fear and paranoia on the left which is mostly justified due to both the actions of the previous administration and the overcharged violent rhetoric of the present.

That fear and paranoia combined with the grief and anger would probably lead to violence, at least for the short term. In the longer term, there would probably be a complete rejection of the Right at the ballot box in most areas of the country. I think much of the inflammatory speech would stop, at least from the mainstream outlets, as the Right would go into emergency damage control.

I don't think my notion is particularly romantic but I think you're underestimating the power of martyrdom, especially in the current situation where it feels like the boiling point is near. One side is threatening the other with violence. The middle class and poor are facing dire economic circumstances with no clear end in sight. There's an increasing amount of rhetoric aimed at creating racial tension. For a substantial part of the country there's only one politician who offers any sort of hope. One major spark, the destruction of that hope, could easily send this whole thing up in flames.

Or maybe not. History validates both your view and mine. At any rate, I hope I'm never given the chance to be proven right or wrong on this.
posted by pandaharma at 11:27 AM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

I don't understand why people equate PETA with the "left" so readily.
posted by cj_ at 11:29 AM on October 18, 2009 [2 favorites]

HAHAHA I signed up and started posted a definition of anarchism all over their forums. That should be good and confusing the sheeple who waste their time on this.
posted by cbecker333 at 11:33 AM on October 18, 2009

To equate this legitimate concern to the idea that the right-wing, militarist, anti-union, pro-Big Business Obama is planning a communist takeover of the United States seems barely sane.

Well, something is barely sane in that sentence.
posted by empath at 11:36 AM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

I don't want to minimize this, but I will throw out the old observation that any jackass on the internet can make himself and his buddies look like a movement.
posted by edgeways at 11:37 AM on October 18, 2009

The right killed two million people in Vietnam - for nothing.

By 'right', you mean LBJ? He of the Great Society and the Civil Rights Act?
posted by empath at 11:37 AM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

If this stuff really surprises you, you're unaware that the books from the "Left Behind" series sold 65 million copies. Let me repeat: 65,000,000
And they're every bit as insane and bloodthirsty as this game. There's a huge market for extreme right wing paranoia in the US; the "Left Behind" books give you the Jesus flavor, this game gives you the militia flavor.
posted by matteo at 11:41 AM on October 18, 2009

The Militia not only took out the Hamas and Nation of Malsi terrorists but in a fit of rage buried dozens of the foreigners alive, bound with pig skins. According to the Muslim barbarians someone clothed in pig skin will not reach heaven.

These people seem to think that the Middle Ages were the high point of civilisation.
posted by acb at 7:49 AM on October 18 [1 favorite +] [!]

Why does everyone pick on the middle ages (c500-1500)? There were way religious-hatred motivated massacres in early modern Europe (c1500-1800). Sure, the medievals slaughtered a few heretics, but the early moderns had 30 years of warfare between the protestants and the catholics that resulted in the death of 1/3 of everyone in Germany (that's direct and indirect mortality).
posted by jb at 11:41 AM on October 18, 2009 [4 favorites]

empath: "To equate this legitimate concern to the idea that the right-wing, militarist, anti-union, pro-Big Business Obama is planning a communist takeover of the United States seems barely sane."

Well, something is barely sane in that sentence.

I'm sorry if that sentence was too complicated - let me break it down.

To doubt the voting machines is sane. To believe Obama is a communist who will overthrow the United States government is insane. Therefore, to equate these two beliefs is barely sane.

Feel free to refute.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:55 AM on October 18, 2009

WRT voting machines.

No, no, that's crazy talk.

It would require incredible, super-genius computer skills to break into a voting machine. You'd need to have some amazingly expensive tools that are impossible for the layman to understand.

Or maybe the problem is that these things are just too hard for Republicans to understand? Is that the problem? You guys don't know how to use a screwdriver? Were you guys trying to insert the USB jumpdrive in your ass? Copying files too much to wrap your tiny little pea brains around?

You have to be a complete fucking idiot to think they're immune from attack. To even casually infer that there's no risk of fraud from these machines is to expose yourself as a complete and utter computer cretin who has no idea of how the machines work.

It's about as stupid as going to a MADD meeting and laughing at all the "morans" because these days, cars are 100% safe. That's what you look like. A rube.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:05 PM on October 18, 2009 [5 favorites]

The world is not Braveheart, and it doesn't matter if Mel Gibson/William Wallace's dying words were "Freedom!" or "Pancakes," because the last time I checked Scotland was still ruled by the Queen of England. Thinking people matter less than ideas is one of those classic non-logical fallacies that's so tempting because we forget that ideas only matter when we highly vulnerable mortals act upon them.
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:08 AM on October 18 [5 favorites +] [!]

You have your history incorrect. England is ruled by the Queen of Scotland. The current Queen is descended not from Henry VIII, but from his sister Margaret who went on to marry the King of Scotland. Her great-grandson, James VI of Scotland, inherited the crown of England from his childless cousin Elizabeth and became James I of England as well as King of Scotland. All future monarchs of England have ruled in their right as descendants of James though, of course, England ceased to exist as a kingdom in 1707 (when Scotland and England were formally united as one kingdom called Great Britain under Queen Anne Stuart).

Now, we could argue about whether the Hanoverians had a legitimate claim to the throne of Great Britain over the son of James II, who was excluded from the throne on claims that a) his father abdicated in favour of his sister and her husband (who had an army), b) he was not really the son of James II, but was smuggled into pretend that James had a male heir, and c) he was Catholic (the Act of Settlement of 1701 banned all Catholics from the throne - I did say that the early modern was very religiously intolerant).

Only the last of these is uncontrovertably true (James II did not abdicate, but ran away from William's army, the whole baby-smuggling thing is a paranoid story), but it was actually a decision made by the elites of both England and Scotland to go with the Hanoverian line (the union was about making sure that the crown of Scotland would not go to the Catholic Stuarts but to the Protestant Hanoverians), and what right George I, then the Elector of Hanover, had to the throne of either England or Scotland was based on his descendance from Elizabeth of Bohemia, the daughter of James VI of Scotland.

So really, you could just say that the later rebellions pitted some Protestant Germano-Scots against some Catholic Italo-Scots (Charles the Young Pretender grew up in Italy, his father also?) to rule Great Britain, with a primarily Scottish army fighting a mixed English-Scottish army to do so (the Campbells, notably, sided with the Hanoverians in the '45).

But you certainly can't claim that the current Queen is any more English than she is Scottish, especially as since Victoria, the German-Scottish Hanoverians have basically made their private home in Scotland. Yes, her accent sounds "English" - funny enough, it's evolved from the Scottish accent of James VI/I.

As for the William Wallace thing - Edward I of England did totally try to take over Scotland, and was beaten back by Robert the Bruce in the Scottish Wars of Independence. There were also a bunch of other guys - mostly Scots - who fought Bruce for the throne, which had been left vacant by the death of a little Norwegian girl. The Bruce won, became King Robert I of Scotland, was succeeded by his five-year-old son David -- who had been married to the granddaughter of Edward I at age 4 (she was 7), and who continued to be threatened by rebellions from the Balliols who were backed by his wife's brother, Edward III, though later he thought about offering his throne to Edward III or his heirs on his death because he couldn't pay back a ransom, but this pissed off his nobles -- and in the end he died without heirs, leaving the throne to his nephew Robert Stewart aka Stuart. (The name was francified by Mary I when she lived in France).

Dynastic history does not fit well into a modern, nationalist idea of states.
posted by jb at 12:19 PM on October 18, 2009 [15 favorites]

By 'right', you mean LBJ? He of the Great Society and the Civil Rights Act?

The right stampeded the nation into that intervention, yes. Only (?) leftists like Chomsky were opposed to the killing there but it was fear of "Losing Indochina" like the Democrats "lost China" that moved the 1960s Liberal Establishment and LBJ to attempt direct armed intervention to save the faltering Saigon regime.

The right, as embodied by Reagan and LeMay, wanted Vietnam flattened, sterilized, and parking strips painted. That the liberals didn't let the warfighters win by all means necessary is presently part of the conservative canon.
posted by mokuba at 12:21 PM on October 18, 2009

It is an undisputed fact that many of the voting machines store the vote tallies as unencrypted text files that could be opened and changed in any spreadsheet program

Thus a datum. You have others seperated by semicolons.

it seems eminently rational to at least be suspicious of them

And thus you've taken valid observations and weaved a narrative.

Just like the "game" makers did. If you think that it's unfair to call President Obama out on topic X when the last guy did (almost) the same thing - President Obama does have the option of picking a different path. And has he picked a radically different path?

To equate this legitimate concern to the idea that the right-wing, militarist, anti-union, pro-Big Business Obama is planning a communist takeover of the United States seems barely sane.

And what is the mental state of someone who makes up what they want the argument to be? Do show how I created the equality you claim is there.

I'll also look at some of your words too.

right-wing Obama

Compare Obama not to 'the opposition' in his nation - compare to the "left-wing" in other nations.

(but slapping a direction as shorthand for some kind of political believe is not going to add clarity)

militarist Obama

Winning a peace prize doesn't disqualify that one when one is the head of the largest military on the planet.

anti-union Obama

Like the right wing - compare Obama not to 'the opposition' in his nation - compare to the pro-union in other nations.

pro-Big Business Obama

Does anyone REALLY want to argue that he's not 'pro-big business'? Health Care arguments about how insurance companies need to be included and yet no insurance firm I know of actually "heals" anyone - so do explain why they are needed if the goal is actual health as an example that he is not 'pro-big business'.

Obama is planning a communist takeover of the United States

Lets look at the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto:

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

Abolish is a rather absolute position - so most of those clauses on the face won't be met. But many of the items are already done, and done YEARS before now. Some done before Obama was born. Many of the items have been partially done not because of some kind of desire to 'be communist' - but because they were a good idea. And who's really in support of child factory labor in America?

Communism is 150+ years old and was a reaction to the unfettered 'robber baron' days. And the US of A is far closer to Marx's vision that it was when Marx was alive.

Does anyone want to argue that there will not be more Government Regulation on the lawbooks after he leaves office then when he came in? Because the amount of laws on the books will be a data point used to weave the story that 'he increased government control in private life - just like in Communist countries'.
posted by rough ashlar at 12:27 PM on October 18, 2009

Aside from the obvious, some of the biggest holes in this N.W.O. crap lie north and south of the U.S. boarder. Specifically, being a parlaimentary democracy, Canada's Governer General would fire Harper immediately for his actions.
posted by Pseudology at 12:34 PM on October 18, 2009

it was fear of "Losing Indochina" like the Democrats "lost China" that moved the 1960s Liberal Establishment

Depending on what data points one picks a different story can be woven.

1st you have to wear the glasses of oil depletion - Peak oil. Then you have to accept that OSS supported Mao as being a fact.

Thus:

Mao was supported by the OSS (Office of Strategic Services) because he was not going to convert the population into oil users which would compete with the US of A.

Imagine your life today in America if China had not had Mao and instead became a consumer like the US of A? From your American perspective - was the outcome of Mao a "loss" if oil is a constrained resource?
posted by rough ashlar at 12:39 PM on October 18, 2009

that's because they were actually crazy then too, while we've been sane the whole time

oh hi, i see you're new to metafilter
posted by jock@law at 12:47 PM on October 18, 2009

rough ashlar: And thus you've taken valid observations and weaved a narrative.

What sort of meaningless refutation is that, that you could use on any argument whatsoever that took data and came to a conclusion??

I pointed out huge quantities of data that would make any rational person suspicious of voting machines. Refute or accept my claims, but don't simply deny the validity of all logical arguments.

And, do you really believe that the second half of your argument proves Obama is a communist who will overthrow the US government?! Pointing out that a lot of the planks of the Communist Manifesto are simply considered common sense today helps your argument... how?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:49 PM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

To believe Obama is a communist who will overthrow the United States government is insane.

Why would one want to overthrow the US Government and then become responsible for all that debt they've run up? Better to leave it to the next person.

Oh and you went from 'communist takeover' to it being just Obama. Slightly different position.
posted by rough ashlar at 12:54 PM on October 18, 2009

Oh and you went from 'communist takeover' to it being just Obama. Slightly different position.

NO. I am not changing my position in the slightest. I am pointing to the subject of this post and saying that it's describing batshitinsane behaviour - and then getting angry at the attempt to equate this madness with skepticism about voting machines, a skepticism that's shared by every security professional I've ever met.

Got it now?

Questioning tiny word choices or even punctuation; casting doubt on all arguments in general; quoting dictionary definitions at great length - these are not reputable techniques in rational, respectful discourse. The point of discussion is to enlighten, not to obscure.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 1:11 PM on October 18, 2009

THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
posted by anvilcity at 1:41 PM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

What sort of meaningless refutation is that,

It was not ment to be a refutation of a made up position.

As I've stated the end point of this 'game' is the result of various datum that gets weaved into the narrative that the 'game' is.

For 8 years various data points (like the voting machines) were chosen and used to show Bush The Second was illegally put in office. If one looks over, say freerepublic, you'd see that there were denials of the data (voting machines) and denials of the conclusion (illegally in office).

The narrative in the 'game' is not created in a void - there are individual actions and statements taken over the years that they are using. When those actions were done under George W Bush there was plenty of bytes on the blue expressing concern. Many of those positions are still being acted upon - and should still be a concern, yet the narrative is now 'they are crazy'. Humans rarely willingly surrender power - if the accumulated power of The Office of the President of the United States was a concern oh say over 2002-2008, it should still be a concern VS pointing and slapping a label of 'they are crazy'.

So far a whole lotta 'they are crazy' not alot of 'errr, perhaps they have a point, and as I don't like their conclusion maybe changing the data points would be a better plan'.

But saying 'crazy' is simpler than trying to figure out if addressing the power of the POTUS is too much and then how to reduce that power if reduction is needed.

And, do you really believe that the second half of your argument proves Obama is a communist who will overthrow the US government?! Pointing out that a lot of the planks of the Communist Manifesto are simply considered common sense today helps your argument... how?

1) The word 'communist' is being used and no one is defining what that means.
2) If one uses original source documents one will notice that the US of A is already following much of what was suggested by Marx in his Manifesto.

The original statement was "Obama is planning a communist takeover" - sure seems like what Marx suggested was already done - what's left for a community point of view to 'take over' (ignoring the absolute abolish language)? And you and many others support communism as expressed by Marx - "common sense today" I believe is your quote.

If you move the goal posts that is your problem and I won't make it mine.
posted by rough ashlar at 1:43 PM on October 18, 2009

and then getting angry at the attempt to equate this madness with skepticism about voting machines

Do go through my posting history on voting machines and show how your position is supported.

You have come to the discussion with an end narrative in mind and are picking a word salad to then support that end narrative.
posted by rough ashlar at 1:47 PM on October 18, 2009

community point of view -> communist point of view (Wish there was editing or that I caught that one before posting. )
posted by rough ashlar at 1:48 PM on October 18, 2009

Does anyone want to argue that there will not be more Government Regulation on the lawbooks after he leaves office then when he came in? Because the amount of laws on the books will be a data point used to weave the story that 'he increased government control in private life - just like in Communist countries'.
posted by rough ashlar

Forgive me if I seem a bit naive, but I just don't know what you mean by this. Are you saying that if it is true that more regulations are in place in four or eight years, then "Obama is planning a communist takeover of the United States"? Or are you saying that the people who claim this are telling an untruth by weaving a story around a data point that has nothing to do with the idea that Obama is planning a communist takeover?

No snark--I just really don't understand your point.
posted by leftcoastbob at 2:39 PM on October 18, 2009

Why do you think liberals are constantly posting about how Obama hasn
t done enough to take over and install a communist goverment? He's clearly biding his time and doing it very sneakily!
posted by Artw at 2:45 PM on October 18, 2009

You have your history incorrect.

Oh bugger. I figured somebody would call me on the Queen business since the Prime Minister is a Scot, but this is really just embarrassing. I will be eating humble pie for leftovers all week, though in my defense it was mostly a joke and the underlying point is just that silly ideas like self-determination don't get up and fight wars on their own. "They can never take our PANCAKES!"

Actually MLK's assassination almost proves my conjecture. The event did precipitate violence in the short term, in the form of riots and probably helped solidify his ideas on race by making him, essentially, into a saint removed from the the day-to-day concerns that usually bring down or humanize political leaders. He's basically untouchable, even by the Republicans who may privately despise him but feel forced to publicly praise him.

MLK came out of the assassination fine, I suppose, but the civil rights movement and its goals went off the tracks about then. Just when it needed a leader on prisons, class, and inner cities, it was basically dissolved. It took four decades to elect a black president, and that's largely because of the impact of his death. Just think: when Jesse Jackson runs for President, he's the spoiler; the same would not have been true of MLK.

You can also look at the assassination of Lincoln and how it lead to both a substantially harsher Reconstruction than was initially planned and the complete political dominance of the Republican Party for a time.

Again, assassination may not have hurt Lincoln's image much, but it sure didn't help the country heal or African-Americans get out from under the thumb of white Southerners. Reconstruction ended quickly and then we got eighty years of Jim Crow. That said, I don't think that Lincoln could have held the South forever, so I'm not sure what could have prevented the South from effectively re-enslaving African-Americans. The situation there is more analogous to Iraq and the Kurds... another decade or so of Reconstruction and maybe the African-Americans would have been strong enough to oppose the KKK once the North withdrew.
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:50 PM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

70 comments in and no WOLVERINES?

You joke, but if -- like me -- you had the sequel to Red Dawn being filmed down the street from your house, you'd be leery of easy comparisons too.

Which is just to say I woke up to tanks and explosions on Woodward Avenue last week and was convinced the nascent rebellion discussed in this game had begun. On the bright side, WOLVERINES!!!!
posted by joe lisboa at 2:53 PM on October 18, 2009

As for the William Wallace thing - Edward I of England did totally try to take over Scotland, and was beaten back by Robert the Bruce in the Scottish Wars of Independence. There were also a bunch of other guys - mostly Scots - who fought Bruce for the throne, which had been left vacant by the death of a little Norwegian girl. The Bruce won, became King Robert I of Scotland

As a descendant of Robert the Bruce (not direct but still), thanks for your little lesson & setting the record straight.
posted by scalefree at 2:54 PM on October 18, 2009

Observations:

1. I love the title of this post.
2. If you have to explain to folks how to read your website with helpful hints like "continue above right" "continue below left," you may want to rethink your layout.
3. This whole thing brings me back to something that's been bugging me a lot lately: So, you've got this paranoid wackjobs with violent fantasies about defending themselves from Obama's communist takeover or whatever. And then a couple of them actually start taking action of the killing-census-workers variety. So I start to think, should I be worrying about Obama's safety? What about my boss and little Hill-rat me? And then I kind of hate myself, because I feel like I'm turning into the same kind of self-importantly paranoid freak that these right-wingers are. I'm not entirely sure what my point is - I guess that distrust and fear on one side breeds distrust and fear on the other side too, whether it's rational or not? I feel like an ass being even remotely, very-back-of-my-brain-level scared of these people while laughing at them for being scared. Then again, they've given us bomb scares and building evacuations, and we've given them...um...a stimulus package?
posted by naoko at 3:19 PM on October 18, 2009

^ one man's hope is another man's fear
posted by mokuba at 3:34 PM on October 18, 2009

I'm still surprised how Communism has seen such resurgence as a boogeyman in the past year.
posted by dunkadunc at 3:36 PM on October 18, 2009

Christ almighty.
posted by turgid dahlia at 3:48 PM on October 18, 2009

Again, assassination may not have hurt Lincoln's image much, but it sure didn't help the country heal or African-Americans get out from under the thumb of white Southerners.

Lincoln would have to have been some kind of magical man to have had years of "these are property" and "these people are below your class in society" reversed in the short time he would have had in the big chair in Washington.

If the rich didn't have the poor pick on other poor because of an external marker VS the poor figuring out they are poor and working together - they would not remain rich. There might even be some kind of government forced wealth redistribution if such was to happen.
posted by rough ashlar at 3:49 PM on October 18, 2009

MLK came out of the assassination fine, I suppose, but the civil rights movement and its goals went off the tracks about then.
posted by anotherpanacea

Silly me--I thought that MLK came out of the assassination dead, not fine.
posted by leftcoastbob at 3:51 PM on October 18, 2009 [2 favorites]

I'm still surprised how Communism has seen such resurgence as a boogeyman in the past year.

it pushes all the right buttons: socialist (anti-capitalist), athiestic (anti-Christian), totalitarian (anti-individualist), internationalist (anti-American). Plus it's supposed to be conspiratorail movement, with hidden cells of active and sleeper agents all laboring to undermine the national interest in service of their foreign masters. What's not to like?

I was listening to Lenny Bruce's stand-up in LA in the mid-60s (one of the last good ones he did), and I was pleased he briefly touched on the Christianist angle to our involvement in Vietnam (Ho's party bosses were replacing the Catholic bishops in positions of power and we couldn't have that).
posted by mokuba at 3:52 PM on October 18, 2009

Does anyone want to argue that there will not be more Government Regulation on the lawbooks after he leaves office then when he came in? Because the amount of laws on the books will be a data point used to weave the story that 'he increased government control in private life - just like in Communist countries'.

Does anyone want to argue that this is an idiotic question? If there is "GOVERNMENT REGULATION" put BACK into the the books (see The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, for example), does that automatically qualify as impending fascism, or could it indicate a return to sensibility?

A kneejerk "Gubmint=Bad" attitude is childish, at best.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 4:33 PM on October 18, 2009 [5 favorites]

How long till I start getting "Join My Militia" requests on Facebook?
posted by MikeMc at 5:38 PM on October 18, 2009

As a descendant of Robert the Bruce (not direct but still)

Sorry for the derail of the derail (of the derail?), but I always wonder this whenever I hear people use the phrase "direct descendant": What do you mean by that, exactly?

In what way can one be "indirectly" descended from someone?

What do you mean in particular, when you say that you are descended from Robert the Bruce, but not directly?

Thank you.
posted by Flunkie at 6:19 PM on October 18, 2009

READY TO REVOLT: Oath Keepers pledges to prevent dictatorship in United States. Group asks police and military to lay down arms in response to orders deemed unlawful.

Throw another log on the fire.
posted by scalefree at 6:27 PM on October 18, 2009

In what way can one be "indirectly" descended from someone?

Direct patrilineal descent would mean I have a claim on the title of Bruce. My grandmother was heavily into genealogy & traced us back to Robert, but through an indirect line. My line runs through Clan Graham of Menteith.
posted by scalefree at 6:46 PM on October 18, 2009

For a more specific explanation:

Clan Graham of Menteith
William de Graham witnessed the charter of the Abbey of Holyrood in 1128, and was presented the lands of Dalkeith by King David I. Towards the end of the twelfth century his descendant acquired the lands of Dundaff. Towards the end of the fourteenth century Sir Patrick Graham of Dundaff, second son of a chief of the Grahams, married Euphemia, heiress of Prince David, Earl of Stratherne, son of King Robert II. Their son, Malise Graham, had the earldom of Stratherne removed from him by King James I and given to his uncle, Robert Graham, on the grounds that his mother should not have inherited a title whose descent was strictly through the male line, but received the earldom of Menteith instead.

posted by scalefree at 6:50 PM on October 18, 2009

In other words, direct descent is male sons of males in the family. Women don't really count, as they "dilute" the bloodline when they take on men from the outside as mates.
posted by hippybear at 7:12 PM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

I didn't make the rules. Hey, look over there! Scary people! *slips away*
posted by scalefree at 7:25 PM on October 18, 2009 [2 favorites]

If you move the goalposts [...]

I've been completely consistent since the very beginning. I claim that doubting voting machines is perfectly sane while believing in the Communist takeover scenarios depicted in the above article is not sane and there is a world of difference between them.

You have come to the discussion with an end narrative in mind and are picking a word salad to then support that end narrative.

What sort of argument is this?! It's again completely generic. Again, you might as well say, "nya, nya, you're wrong".

Refute my claim or shut up. All your blather is irrelevant.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 7:26 PM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

rough ashlar, you've accused others of making word salad when you yourself are leaping all over the place.

Do you, you personally, not a nebulous "left," think that the voting machine issue is a valid one that has serious implications for our ability to function as a democracy, implications that are not conjecture but based on the premise that tampered voting is incompatible with the exercise of citizen sufferage? Is this whole idea controversial to you?

Because if it is, then just say so, don't hide behind circular statements over data points.

Likewise, do you think that the fears of Republicans that Obama will evoke gun ownership are a) based on any actual facts and b) just as big a threat as tampered voting to our democracy?

If so, again; say so.
posted by emjaybee at 7:56 PM on October 18, 2009

I don't even see how you're arguing with rough ashlar, because his posts look like babel to me. I'm just impressed you teased out a point to argue about.
posted by empath at 8:00 PM on October 18, 2009 [6 favorites]

I don't even see how you're arguing with rough ashlar, because his posts look like babel to me.

So it's not just me then. Well I'm relieved.
posted by scalefree at 8:14 PM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

think that the voting machine issue is a valid one

Voting machines are always an issue in a system where counting votes is supposed to matter.

The various bits of data surrounding the machines in 2004 have been woven into a narrative conclusion that Bush stole the election.

The conclusion being right or wrong does not change the data used to create the narrative.

the fears of Republicans that Obama will evoke gun ownership

The fears of an ability to own/use guns are always an issue with a certain set of people. You've wanted to apply the label "Republicans" - yet the self-identified group of "Republicans" seemed to have ordered Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service for 2 years to come up with the conclusion not to sell used brass. (I say seem because, well, its not like they've shown their orders/work in the matter - just the result) This decision is then announced under Obama. President Obama then gets to take it in shorts over the issue and after the narrative became 'guns aren't useful without ammo' and 'see, we told you they aren't going to take your guns but can instead take the ammo' the decision is reversed.
And it seems President Obama at one time wanted to ban the sale/transfer of "all forms of semi-automatic weapons" per 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998. (I have no idea if that was the actual position - I've not cared to look at the matter till today) Semi auto are the popular Remington 7400 series - the kind of gun many deer hunters own.

One takes the data then comes up with the narrative. In this particular case the narrative uses emotionally charged words like 'communist'.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:42 PM on October 18, 2009

Metafilter: deeply into the post-competence era
posted by nightchrome at 8:59 PM on October 18, 2009

WRT the original post, let me posit that there exists, in the back of the minds of a lot, I say a lot, of American gun owners, a more vaguely defined version of this scenario - they would never consider using a gun on another American, EXCEPT they are forced to by some incredible, ultra-violent series of acts by an illegitimate federal usurper, which forces them to take up arms in the name of preserving liberty. It's secretly their wish that some set of circumstances renders it imperative that they blast away with their semi-auto rifle with night vision scope with basement-modified hollowpoint or phosphorus shells, along with their paintball-team buddies.

Having said that, let me also say that this entire second-amendment wet-dream is entirely divorced from reality. If the US military were to any degree turned on the body of organized militias etc in America, it would not be much of a contest. [Insert Afghanistan joke here.]
posted by newdaddy at 9:08 PM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

believing in the Communist takeover scenarios depicted in the above article is not sane

So now you've limited it to the web site in question.

You have now moved the goalpost a 3rd time and want 'proof' over an emotionally charged word like 'communist' that you have not even defined? Toss in the "yes the meeting on date X or statement Y shows there is something we'll call a NWO" "No the date X meeting is just nation states agreeing for good global leadership." to back up a claim that leadership has closed door meetings where the leaders discuss how a global leadership effort could actually work VS that 'league of nations' effort - to somehow prove to *YOU* something?

But again:

What exactly is there for the "communist" point of view to "overtake"? Much of what Marx listed has already been done.

Refute my claim or shut up.

This is just text on a screen, but it seems that you are getting hostile.

I keep seeing the word 'communist' tossed about and so far the only person who has posted about the word being a 'button push' issue beyond me was this:
it pushes all the right buttons: socialist (anti-capitalist), athiestic (anti-Christian), totalitarian (anti-individualist), internationalist (anti-American).
And they tossed in additional emotionally loaded words to try to describe communist. How exactly is using 4 words with emotional baggage to describe another word with such emotional power that the US of A created what is the worlds largest military to "fight" what the 'word means' going to end up being a good descriptor?

The web site has 2 actual data points and whatever emotional baggage/preceptive filters you bring to the table. A Lou Dobbs video and the 'New world order' statement. The word 'many' is used to describe the number of people who 'talked' of a NWO and the location is 'behind closed doors'. And somehow you want the jello of the NWO claim nailed down? Technocracy and its proponents can fit 'many' and 'talking about a new orderly way of doing things'. But the Techocracy movement is hardly in charge of anything. Then the playing on emotion - Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh found dead.
posted by rough ashlar at 9:50 PM on October 18, 2009

If the US military were to any degree turned on the body of organized militias etc in America, it would not be much of a contest.

*clap* *clap*

While a deer hunting grade .308 will put a hole through 3/8 inch plate steel (aka what non military most likely has) the military has *FAR* bigger boom-sticks. Grenades, .50 cals, UAVs, missles that go BOOM, even heat detection scopes - said tools would make short work of any 'organized militia'. More ability to to 'reach out and touch someone' and when the touch is delivered, more newtons behind the touch.
posted by rough ashlar at 10:00 PM on October 18, 2009

Secret Service Strained as Leaders Face More Threats -- "The unprecedented number of death threats against President Obama, a rise in racist hate groups, and new antigovernment fervor threaten to overwhelm the Secret Service, officials said."
posted by ericb at 10:17 PM on October 18, 2009

I'm still surprised how Communism has seen such resurgence as a boogeyman in the past year.

Where did you spend the 90's?
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:22 PM on October 18, 2009

More ability to to 'reach out and touch someone' and when the touch is delivered, more newtons behind the touch.

Problem being that one cannot keep this technology within the military, plus the risk of elements of the military itself defecting (cf.1861).

A 21st century no-holds barred civil war would be a quite terrifying ordeal. cf. Iraq for a preview. I don't think the wingnuts have the bodies but at the risk of echoing Malor the asymmetry of tearing down a civilization vs. defending it is challenging to say the least.

I doubt the return of the 39.6% top marginal rate will touch off the insurrection, but with these nutjobs, it's tough to know.
posted by mokuba at 10:23 PM on October 18, 2009

Seriously, why are people arguing with rough ashlar? No sense of his posting history?
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:23 PM on October 18, 2009

The number one discussion topic on the new GOP.com forums: succeeding from the union.
posted by EarBucket at 11:30 PM on October 18, 2009

The number one discussion topic on the new GOP.com forums: succeeding from the union.

Please tell me that "succeeding" is the [sic] from the GOP website. Because there is huge difference between success and secession.
posted by hippybear at 11:35 PM on October 18, 2009

Yes, that's the actual name of the discussion topic. It's followed by a fairly fascinating argument; the same people who insisted a year ago that not wearing a flag pin meant you hated America are now insisting that states have every right to "succeed" from the US and start their own country.
posted by EarBucket at 11:38 PM on October 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

(And by "fascinating," I mean "totally depressing.")
posted by EarBucket at 11:39 PM on October 18, 2009

I'm going to miss the Grand Canyon, Moab, and the Snake River, but overall I say let 'em go.
As the old guy on Sunday night TV in Japan said, "sayonara, sayonara, sayonara!".
posted by mokuba at 12:07 AM on October 19, 2009

Cillit Bang - am I being dense, or do you mean James I and VI? James II and VII was the one deposed in the Glorious Revolution.

On topic: gosh. Is there any way to ennumerate how many people, roughly, have reached this level of wingnuttery? I know that estimates of the number of people who attended the September 12 protests vary wildly depending on whether or not you are Glenn Beck...
posted by DNye at 1:28 AM on October 19, 2009

When I was an undergraduate, I had a very strange AI lecturer who worked on ELIZA-style chatbots and filled his personal website with paranoid right wing rants. A fiver says "rough ashlar" is his latest research project.
posted by kersplunk at 3:00 AM on October 19, 2009

Where did you spend the 90's?

In America, likely? The bogeyman of the 90's was not Communism, but the fear of the New World Order, the UN, etc. The reason this happen was because all the far right crazies who had been so amped up on the possible Communist invasion (silently and non-silent), suddenly found themselves without Communism (we won!!!11) as an enemy.

So yes, the rise of Communism as the bad guy is an interesting twist, naturally built off of the claims of Socialism.

Now if I misinterpreted your comment, my apologies.
posted by Atreides at 5:55 AM on October 19, 2009

No, Atreides, I think you read me rightly, I think we just disagree as to the nature of the 90's paranoia. That the UN is a Communist entity and that the NWO was fundamentally Communist was something I always thought was part of the 90's right-wing milieu.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:52 AM on October 19, 2009

DNye - I'm sure it was just a typo. All those Jameses and Charleses and Georges get confusing. Personally, I like to think of them as the Eruidite but Arrogant one (J1/VI), the Stuffy I can do it All by Myself one (C1), interrupted by Holier than Thou (Cromwell), then the Fun one (C2), and the Devout but Clueless one (J2). Then you have Mrs I'm married to a guy with an army and her husband who had an army (W&M), and then the Sad one (Anne), and then the I don't speak English one (G1).
posted by jb at 7:38 AM on October 19, 2009 [1 favorite]

I thought the NWO was aliens and the Illuminati?
posted by Artw at 9:16 AM on October 19, 2009

I gotcha. It's been a long while since I read up on the right wing extremist movements of the 90's, but if I have time later, I'll look for supporting or refuting evidence of my position. At worse, we're probably looking at the same coin from different sides.
posted by Atreides at 9:27 AM on October 19, 2009

With mainstream media personalities like Beck supporting some of these ideas.

Really? Mainstream media figure? All is lost, I suppose.
posted by Mental Wimp at 3:24 PM on October 19, 2009

So, at this point we might want to ask the question - can Republicans even try and say nice things about someone without saying something totally weird and racist? Because it looks like the answer is no.
posted by Artw at 3:28 PM on October 19, 2009 [1 favorite]

LOL GOP ARG
posted by battleshipkropotkin at 12:09 PM on October 20, 2009

Please tell me that "succeeding" is the [sic] from the GOP website. Because there is huge difference between success and secession.

It's even better than that. It talks about "succeding" from the union and asks how a state can succeed.
posted by Mental Wimp at 1:32 PM on October 20, 2009

Surely, we morans must work harder to succeed from the union.
posted by darkstar at 1:35 PM on October 20, 2009 [1 favorite]

I wonder how they pronounce coup?
posted by Artw at 1:36 PM on October 20, 2009 [1 favorite]

At some point the question has to be raised, at what point does protected free expression become unprotected & prosecutable incitement? We can see people being inspired by others to commit crimes with matching details. We've seen people do it in the past, with disastrous results. If left unchecked there's little doubt it'll happen again, is there? At what point along that process should law enforcement step in?
posted by scalefree at 12:06 AM on October 21, 2009

"Glenn Beck was found in his cell and has died, incredibly of an ‘aspirin overdose’, the preferred way to send a message to the enemies of Obama."

Oh god, and they want to give us ALL healthcare? With unlimited Aspirin, we'll all be dead!
posted by Eideteker at 6:11 AM on October 21, 2009

« Older Geert Wilders... | In April, 1999, The Cluetrain ... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

Have fun storming the White House! October 18, 2009 12:36 AM Subscribe

Have fun storming the White House!
October 18, 2009 12:36 AM Subscribe