REVOLUTION? Or do you just want to feel safe?

NBC cancelled Revolution.

NBC cancelled Revolution. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

I just cancelled NBC (Comcast)... very empowering.

Our Nation was founded on the concept of "we the people".

It can also be destroyed by that exact same concept.

In a Republic, it is not the unqualified Demagogues that brings forth a Nations downfall. It's the people who vote for them. Originally Posted by Jackie S

what the fuck does this mean Jackie?

For what it's worth: Originally Posted by Chevalier

you know that I place a great deal of value on the knowledge you seem to always have when I am in search of knowledge.

Now can you please explain where and how China, solar farms and elected officials come into play?

Word To The Wise:

You had better be careful Caitie Mae!

I suspect LexiLiar (the Patriarch of the notorious Idiot clan) is trying to lure you in to his web of deception. Originally Posted by bigtex

You don't know that LL's reaction to the thought of me sucking down a cold, rich, creamy milkshake is perfectly normal? I'm tickled that he mentioned it.

So what you are saying is you are for the constitution so long as you get your way. You are for majority rule only if the majority agree with you. If they don't then overturn by force the government the majority voted for.

That sounds kind of wrong.

If you don't like where we have gone--rule by the minority fringe--THEN GO VOTE IN PRIMARIES. GET INVOLVED IN POLITICS. GET OTHERS INVOLVED.

And vote in people who believe as you do.

If you preach armed revolt, you are a traitor. I and millions of others will resist you even if we do not like the individuals we have in power. Originally Posted by Old-T

So, what you are saying is that while somehow your spelling and grammar skills are acceptable your reading comprehension skills are lacking? Perhaps the problem is retention instead? Could be both.

If you would like to review my posts again, you will find that I have taken no side in any controversial issue affecting American citizens, nor have I spoken out against our government.

In my original post I mentioned the recent internal conflict in Ukraine and openly wondered if fat, distracted Americans would be incited to riot against the same perceived injustices or are we so drugged by big box retail, fast food and mind-numbing TV that we won't notice what is going on around us.

In my second post I simply asked if the events in Nevada might be the beginning of a revolution of which I would do well to be aware.

I do appreciate that you have been thoughtful enough to put something in my mouth, but words are not the usual first choice. Ask LL, he may explain the milkshake.

So, what you are saying is that while somehow your spelling and grammar skills are acceptable your reading comprehension skills are lacking? Perhaps the problem is retention instead? Could be both.

It is always possible--I do tend to read these threads with one eye while multitasking....

If you would like to review my posts again, you will find that I have taken no side in any controversial issue affecting American citizens, nor have I spoken out against our government.

....so I did go back and reread your posts. The conclusions I come to upon a second reading is, no, I did not misconstrue your posts. Part of that might be due to the medium of the board--it does not generally encourage precise, carefully worded essays. Generally posts are at least equal part subjective as objective.

But more than the medium is what you say. Look at a number of your pieces:

"wondered if fat, distracted Americans would be incited to riot against the same perceived injustices or are we so drugged by big box retail, fast food and mind-numbing TV that we won't notice what is going on around us." Originally Posted by Caitie Mae

and

I watch footage of conflict and political unrest during which citizens take a stand against governments that don't act as representatives of the people who elect them.....As I watch I wonder: would Americans do that? What would it take to make us hurl rocks at cops for the sake of change? Why don't we have piles of stones at our feet right now?

I'm as guilty as anyone else of taking it on the chin with a shrug while the people to whom "we the people" give authority drive the value of our dollar into the dirt, unconstitutionally tax our labor and spend unfathomable amounts of money to conduct a failed war on drugs that Americans don't want. Originally Posted by Caitie Mae

and

But maybe there are Americans with the wherewithal to stand up to injustices carried out against our fellow citizens–against *us*–by those to whom we give authority to protect us from injustice. Maybe the revolution is starting. "Can you see how this can easily be read as "the revolution is inevitable--is it starting now?"

Search Nevada Revolution 2014 and read about citizens arming themselves and taking a stand in the desert right here... In the United States. Is this where our revolution starts? Is this where our line in the sand has been drawn? Originally Posted by Caitie Mae

I hope YOU can go back, read your comments objectively, and understand why they might convey a certain feeling on the author's part. It is not a very far stretch. But even on the first read I could not conclusively tell whether you were advocating, or whether you were making a hypothetical that was more slanted in wording than you intended. As a result I was actually quite careful in my wording:

So what you are saying is....

A well accepted tool for clarifying. I stated what I THOUGHT you were saying, clearly opening the door for you to say, "No, that is not what I meant....".

If you don't like where we have gone--rule by the minority fringe--THEN GO VOTE IN PRIMARIES. GET INVOLVED IN POLITICS. GET OTHERS INVOLVED.

Hopefully you do not have issues with this part of what I posted.

If you preach armed revolt.... Originally Posted by Old-T

Once more, the "if" at the start of my comment. If you were NOT advocating armed revolt, then I was intentionally giving you a safe way out. I filled my reply with words that allowed--almost begged--you to elaborate, clarify, or point out that I had misread your intent. In this forum that can almost be construed as a sign of terminal weakness by some of the more viscous inhabitants here.

So I will ask you very simply and directly: Do you believe the injustices are so severe that a revolt is or is close to being justified? Would YOU support armed revolt against a duely elected government of either party on the basis of disagreeing with their policies? (Legally elected--not one that has suspended elections, stayed in power, etc.)

As to putting anything else in your mouth, that is probably saved for a different thread.

you know that I place a great deal of value on the knowledge you seem to always have when I am in search of knowledge. Originally Posted by Caitie Mae

Although I suspect that often you're already aware of what I dredge up.

Now can you please explain where and how China, solar farms and elected officials come into play?

No. It's true, I have a talent for pontificating at great (boring) length while giving the erroneous impression that I know WTF I'm talking about. But there are limits even to that talent.

and



and



I hope YOU can go back, read your comments objectively, and understand why they might convey a certain feeling on the author's part. It is not a very far stretch. But even on the first read I could not conclusively tell whether you were advocating, or whether you were making a hypothetical that was more slanted in wording than you intended. As a result I was actually quite careful in my wording:



Once more, the "if" at the start of my comment. If you were NOT advocating armed revolt, then I was intentionally giving you a safe way out. I filled my reply with words that allowed--almost begged--you to elaborate, clarify, or point out that I had misread your intent. In this forum that can almost be construed as a sign of terminal weakness by some of the more viscous inhabitants here.

So I will ask you very simply and directly: Do you believe the injustices are so severe that a revolt is or is close to being justified? Would YOU support armed revolt against a duely elected government of either party on the basis of disagreeing with their policies? (Legally elected--not one that has suspended elections, stayed in power, etc.)

As to putting anything else in your mouth, that is probably saved for a different thread. Originally Posted by Old-T

them dam pervert I mean PERVERT have their peeping eye up my ass in my head from

Well said! I've had the fear for awhile of a second revolutionary war in America, oddly enough I both fear it happening and in some cases hope it happens. Then again, I'm also guilty as charged when it comes to taking it on the chin with a shrug. I think the majority of American's are too lazy and too spoiled to actually see what is happening and to care about it, we're told how lucky we are to have this and that, we live in the greatest nation on earth etc etc, yet turn a blind eye to the real issues, like the patriot act, facebook cooperating with the NSA, cooperate welfare for Walmart and all the other big chains etc etc. The problem is, for the most part the people who are politically active have the wrong intentions, and the people who have the best intentions either do not get involved or try to and get no where. There is a serious, and scary, lack of interest in politics...we care too much about, as you said, the countdown to Kims wedding, give me a break

PS- I like your location, it made me giggle Originally Posted by ToriStarr

You like her location ? Made you giggle ?

Give the girl a break....maybe she prays a lot.

FUGGIN WHOOKERS!

OK darlin! You're on top of this shit. Yes you are! Please believe I think you're the most beautiful creature on God's green earth!

Here's some money.

SUCK MY DICK!

(Did I pretty much capture the moment?)

I watch footage of conflict and political unrest during which citizens take a stand against governments that don't act as representatives of the people who elect them. I mean places like Kiev, where (eventually) thousands of citizens gathered in a demonstration against their elected president.

I find myself slack-jawed in amazement watching video of the first protesters gathering together, armed with little more than stones, propelled by their actual arms as they first clash with clash with police and other government forces, possessing firearms with both rubber bullets and live ammunition.

As I watch I wonder: would Americans do that? What would it take to make us hurl rocks at cops for the sake of change? Why don't we have piles of stones at our feet right now?

How much do we accept and settle for because we have a Walmart in every town, a Starbucks on every corner, a cell phone in every hand, The Tonight Show on every TV and the countdown to Kimye's nuptials in every publication?

I'm as guilty as anyone else of taking it on the chin with a shrug while the people to whom "we the people" give authority drive the value of our dollar into the dirt, unconstitutionally tax our labor and spend unfathomable amounts of money to conduct a failed war on drugs that Americans don't want. These issues (and many others) affect me, but somehow the impact is diminished greatly when I am sucking down a chocolate shake from McDonald's. Originally Posted by Caitie Mae

Hate to rain on your parade darlin' but this is a case of been there, done that for Americans.

There was no TV at the time but the story is told in a lot of books.
Our story has all the themes needed for an interesting and fast read and even has a happy ending complete with "The End?"

Some versions of the story tell how the nay-sayers are all stuck and killed by Sarah Palin's speeding bus. Her BAC was .26 Todd was killed when his neck was broken while he was sucking Sarah's dick. To be fair and accurate, some say her BAC was .24

The people who think our world is ending are the same people who would bitch if I put my dick in their mouths with a new condom on it. Some people just have to complain.

I hope that helped.

I watch footage of conflict and political unrest during which citizens take a stand against governments that don't act as representatives of the people who elect them. I mean places like Kiev, where (eventually) thousands of citizens gathered in a demonstration against their elected president.

I find myself slack-jawed in amazement watching video of the first protesters gathering together, armed with little more than stones, propelled by their actual arms as they first clash with clash with police and other government forces, possessing firearms with both rubber bullets and live ammunition.

As I watch I wonder: would Americans do that? What would it take to make us hurl rocks at cops for the sake of change? Why don't we have piles of stones at our feet right now?

How much do we accept and settle for because we have a Walmart in every town, a Starbucks on every corner, a cell phone in every hand, The Tonight Show on every TV and the countdown to Kimye's nuptials in every publication?

I'm as guilty as anyone else of taking it on the chin with a shrug while the people to whom "we the people" give authority drive the value of our dollar into the dirt, unconstitutionally tax our labor and spend unfathomable amounts of money to conduct a failed war on drugs that Americans don't want. These issues (and many others) affect me, but somehow the impact is diminished greatly when I am sucking down a chocolate shake from McDonald's. Originally Posted by Caitie Mae

You realize that the "revolution" in Kiev against their elected pro-Russian President was allegedly orchestrated by covert American operatives and their allies? All in an effort to keep Russia down and get Ukraine into NATO....if true, we are responsible for the Crimean takeover, and the people dying in Ukraine.

and



and



I hope YOU can go back, read your comments objectively, and understand why they might convey a certain feeling on the author's part. It is not a very far stretch. But even on the first read I could not conclusively tell whether you were advocating, or whether you were making a hypothetical that was more slanted in wording than you intended. As a result I was actually quite careful in my wording:



Once more, the "if" at the start of my comment. If you were NOT advocating armed revolt, then I was intentionally giving you a safe way out. I filled my reply with words that allowed--almost begged--you to elaborate, clarify, or point out that I had misread your intent. In this forum that can almost be construed as a sign of terminal weakness by some of the more viscous inhabitants here.

So I will ask you very simply and directly: Do you believe the injustices are so severe that a revolt is or is close to being justified? Would YOU support armed revolt against a duely elected government of either party on the basis of disagreeing with their policies? (Legally elected--not one that has suspended elections, stayed in power, etc.)

As to putting anything else in your mouth, that is probably saved for a different thread. Originally Posted by Old-T

I do appreciate that you have taken me through my own comments to show me how you have come to your understanding of my intention. I also appreciate you for playing nice although I had not in my prior response. Please accept my apology.

At your suggestion, I have reconsidered my previous posts and I have to admit that I can see how the conclusion could be drawn that I advocate an armed revolt. At the limit of my objectivity, however, I disagree with your initial comment. I don't believe that either of my first posts suggest that I endorse overthrowing a government with
which the majority are in agreement. Nor do I believe my comments referred to whether or not I do or don't have my way.

I continue to agree with you that an armed revolt by a minority faction against a constitutionally sound authority would be wrong. And I agree with you about voting, involvement and influence. I support candidates and a party with which I identify and in whom I have a level of trust. I give my support not only in the voting booth, but with my pocketbook as well and am a card-carrying member of the party that most represents and defends my personal preferences regarding smaller government, a stable dollar, less invasive foreign policy, personal privacy, reduced government spending, the end of prohibition, the accountability of our elected officials and the enforcement of constitutionally sound laws.

It's become clear to me that I was not at all clear of my intention when I started this thread. I was neither advocating for or against armed revolt and I may have become sidetracked too easily. I hope that no one will mind if I attempt to clarify...

History shows us that world dominance is cyclical. No world power stays in power forever. If I may borrow from the Wikipedia summary of the United States' decline as a world power as demonstrated in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict From 1500 to 2000, by Paul Kennedy...

From the Civil War to the first half of the 20th century, the United States' economy benefited from high agricultural production, plentiful raw materials, technological advancements and financial inflows. During this time the U.S. did not have to contend with foreign dangers.[5] From 1860 to 1914, U.S. exports increase sevenfold and result in huge trading surpluses.[6] By 1945, the U.S.' economy enjoyed both high productivity and was the only major industrialized nation intact after World War II. From the 1960s onwards, the U.S. saw a relative decline in its share of world production and trade.[7] By the 1980s, the U.S. experienced declining exports of agricultural and manufacturing goods. In the space of a few years, the U.S. went from being the largest creditor to the largest debtor nation.[8] At the same time the federal debt was growing at an increasing pace.[9] This situation is typical of declining hegemons.[10]
The United States has the typical problems of a great power which include balancing guns and butter and investments for economic growth.[11] The U.S.' growing military commitment to every continent (other than the Antarctica) and the growing cost of military hardware severely limits available options.[12] The author compares the U.S.' situation to Great Britain's prior to World War I. He comments that the map of U.S. bases is similar to Great Britain's before World War I.[13]
As the military expenses grow this reduces the investments in economic growth, which eventually "leads to the downward spiral of slower growth, heavier taxes, deepening domestic splits over spending priorities, and weakening capacity to bear the burdens of defense." [14] Mr. Kennedy's advice is as follows.
The task facing American statesmen over the next decades, therefore, is to recognize that broad trends are under way, and that there is a need to "manage" affairs so that the relative erosion of the United States' position takes place slowly and smoothly, and is not accelerated by policies which bring merely short-term advantage but longer-term disadvantage.[15](sic)

I am not alone in the opinion that the American Empire's experiment in democracy (although our present form of government is actually a representative republic) will come to and end.
Because I don't know of any American who can find no fault with our government, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that an armed uprising by our fellow citizens may be involved. Regardless of the probability, it's possible that you or I may even support an armed revolt.

Regardless of the agenda of any external power, even the US, the citizens of Ukraine revolted against the actions of their government when the government ceased to represent them. The people of Ukraine, in Kiev, said "enough is enough" and they meant it.

The purpose of this thread was to open a discussion of what it will take for Americans to take such personal risks as are involved in a political revolution. When will enough be enough for us? Will we ever draw that line in the sand? Or will we continue to be disgruntled-but-unmoved as long as we have a government in place which doesn't prohibit coffee shops, cable TV or 60 options on the shampoo aisle at Wal-Mart?