..more than sand in the box? 3 Revolutions

Well now we can really play...started this on ASPD political in main and Houston....
3 Revolutions – just an old man’s opinions and thoughts….

1. Taxation without “Representation” – the Revolutionary War – 1776
2. End of “Slavery” The “Civil” War – 1861
3. Slavery to Taxation? – 20??

The majority of Americans are taxes at an outrageous rate. The middle class is carrying an unfair burden with out representation for the “elected” officials who have been bought and paid for big business and the criminal element of this land. The “poor” are living off “welfare” funds robbed from those who have paid into social security and unemployment insurance who will either die before every receiving funds or simple get cents on the dollars paid in…..is there any chance of reform? With out a 3rd revolution? Will that 3rd be a peaceful or violent change? What change couple a peaceful revolution take? What could cause the revolution?

All good questions?

In May 2, 2008 I wrote this fairy tale. It was during the primaries. I did a poll with the questions listed below and got some interesting results.
============
May 2, 2008

A modern fairy tale of two citizens.
In the far away land of Rumeria, there were two people. Hubery and Bana were running for selection as mayor of Rumeria. The Rumerians were very wise people. They have been allowing the weaker sex, namely men to vote for a long time. And men are now allow to run for pubic, oohs, that should be public office? Oh what fairy tales we weave sometimes. Any way, a few have even been elected, dog catcher and
such you understand? So now, Bana is running for mayor against Hubery. Well Hubery, being a woman should have a distinct advantage. Infact, Hubery is a member of the Kakle tribe where as Bana is a member of the Berry tribe, who came to Rumeria as prisoners but were later allowed to work their way to freedom. However, there is a Rumor in Rumeria that Bana may have been a member of Modern cult of Berryland. Even though he says he never was. There is another rumor that the Moderns may assassinate Bana if elected to cause mayhem in Rumerica and take over the country in the confusion. Another rumor says that disgruntled Kakles ("this country was made for us Kakles not those low class Moderns") might "pull the trigger" if Bana is elected. There is another possibility. Bana will get elected and pull the two disparent groups together because his father was a Berry but his mom was a Kakle. So here is the question. Who would you vote for and why?

1. Bana to make changes in the country, even if it costs his life.
2. Bana because he shows real chances for change and no one would dare kill him.
3. Bana because he is the best candidate.
4. Hubery, because a Kakle should be president, not a Berry.
5. Hubery because she is the best candidate.
6. None of the above, I will explain if I wish to later.



So how could there a peaceful revolution? If a 3rd party could come from the roots of the Libertarian Party and some how be successful, after a generation or two when all the “politicians” have been phased out and we have citizen representatives it could happen. Or one of the options in the fairy tale could take place…

Are you referring to Founder and President of the Tea Party Dale Robertson from TeaParty.org when you speak of "a 3rd party could come from the roots of the Libertarian Party"? If so, no thanks.

No telling where it would come from or if it will come, and it will probably only be a "party" if it is a power transfer not a true revolution which requires the red stuff...

Funny pic, there are always a few crack pots in any group. However, I am not sure its a fair representation of the majority of Tea Party members.

The Declaration of Independence states: "That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to Institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Take that for what you will, but it seems to me that the current state of affairs is exactly what the framers are talking about here. When our representatives do not listen to the people and begin enacting laws for their own benefit or to be contrary to the wishes of their constituants, it's time for a revolution - peaceful or otherwise.

+1 fritz3552

Very similar to the responses when it was posted in the ASPD poli section...

No - the silent majority is too lazy 5 45.45%
Yes - but it will be peaceful - yes we can.... 1 9.09%
Yes - but it will not be peaceful 3 27.27%
No - we don't need it, things are not that bad 2 18.18%

Fritz well said but will never happen to many people are to busy watching American Idol and not paying attention. Not that there is anything wrong with American Idol, but I hope you get the point.

Fritz well said but will never happen to many people are to busy watching American Idol and not paying attention. Not that there is anything wrong with American Idol, but I hope you get the point. Originally Posted by howudoin

I do get the point, but unless someone heralds the issue, no one will give a rats ass about it. Enough people are getting the message to cause ripples to begin washing ashore on the steps of the government. The big test will be on Jan. 19th - when the special election is held to replace the Swimmer. There is enough apathy on the part of the ruling party where the 60 vote majority will be reduced to 59 (we hope).

I live out in the country and I can tell ya that a lot of these folks are pretty upset and going to extremes in some areas to prepare for, in my opinion, an inevitable uprising. Off subject a little bit, Almost all of the wars ever started were based on economics. I have been hearing a lot of talk about global economic meltdown later this year. If that happens there will be a war.

ss - Re-read your thesis and your conclusion. IMHO, a 3rd party would never work in our current system. As it is not a parliamentary system, where multiple parties can elect their representatives and form coalitions, 3rd parties have historically been unsuccessful in making inroads within our representative republic because of the relationship between the executive and legislative branches and the difference between the head of state and head of government in each type of system. In a parliamentary system, the head of government is vested in a prime minister (who is the leader of the majority party or of the coalition and is an elected member of the parliament) and the head of state is vested in an elected president or appointed king or queen, but has no real ruling power. In our system, the head of state and head of government is in an elected president who has real ruling power and is a member of one of the two parties. Until such time as a 3rd party can gain enough power to affect the balance of power within the Congress, it will simply be a annoyance in the halls of power. Even in the current Congress, those representatives who have been elected as "Independent" were simply members of one of the two parties that decided it improve their electability to run as "independents" but still hold the ideals of their original party to caucus with their original party within the government.

My political history is a bit sketchy, but didn't the last semi-effective political revolution come out of Minnesota in the 1890s? Could it happen again? Doubtful. Here's my theory: The economics of the agrarian states are such that without a major central metropolis, the free-thinkers are shunned by the less enlightened in rural communities and migrate to population centers where they and others of intellect find a haven to grow. Once there, the dedication to politics lapses as other interests take hold.

I've known a half-dozen exceptionally bright and talented men and women who worked on campaigns for people running for state and federal offices. Once they discovered how dirty politics are, even on the most fundamental local level, they moved on to more lucrative endeavors.

Right or wrong, good or bad, whether you supported him or not, Obama had the chance. The door was wide open for him, he had the public support. Once elected, the advisors took over and changed his 'change'.

I do believe there are still some very bright people in the 'third parties', but two problems exist for any of them to bring revolution:

1. Very few people in politics do not have their own personal agenda. Everyone wants something. Usually financial reward.

2. Decision by committee. These ultimately lead to passive, bland choices. Those capable of making strong, good, decisions run businesses. Politicians are underpayed by comparison and open oneself to heavy personal scrutinization.

It's sad, but we live in a country "For business, by business". The solution? De-personalize corporations and criminalize political lobbying. Force our representatives to spend time with their constituents, not in D.C. with the lobbyists. This would move us closer back to "For the people, by the people." Practical? No. Just ideas to think about.

Diver

Well stated, divertimento. "Follow the money" is the best way to find out why politicans do anything. I've always wondered why someone would spend $2 million for a job that pays $170,000 annually unless they were getting something additional. The real reason the terms of the House and Senate were set up as 2 and 6 years, respectively, was to have a rotating Representative pool reflecting the feelings of the electorate, while Senators were to have been selected by state legislatures to reflect a more deliberatve posture on laws. Now, both have been turned into cesspools of corruption on both sides of the aisle.

Here's my theory: The economics of the agrarian states are such that without a major central metropolis, the free-thinkers are shunned by the less enlightened in rural communities and migrate to population centers where they and others of intellect find a haven to grow. Once there, the dedication to politics lapses as other interests take hold.
1. Very few people in politics do not have their own personal agenda. Everyone wants something. Usually financial reward.

2. Decision by committee.
It's sad, but we live in a country "For business, by business". The solution? De-personalize corporations and criminalize political lobbying. Force our representatives to spend time with their constituents, not in D.C. with the lobbyists. This would move us closer back to "For the people, by the people." Practical? No. Just ideas to think about.

Diver Originally Posted by divertimento

And Fritz, only once, Wigs are gone.....Diver made similar points....Libertarians say limit to a couple of terms to keep the special interests at bay....and I agree it is a bad situation either way....so is that a peaceful solution? Is there only an end to the greatness of this country in the future? Like the grand "British Empire", and all the great nations of the past?

And now for some comedy...

Attachment 811