Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/19/2006 10:52:36 AM EDT
Ready for a second revolution

-The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. -Thomas Jefferson
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 11:00:29 AM EDT
I would have to renounce my NRA membership first since membership requires you do not advocate the overthrow of the U.S. Government.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 11:05:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/19/2006 11:08:23 AM EDT by blue_bomber]
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the NRA and I appreciate what they do, however if this govenment had not been so destroyed by filthy politicians (and citizens), there really would be no need for a NRA.

I think that may be partially due to the fact that the NRA does not want to be responsible for such actions.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 11:31:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By blue_bomber:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. -Thomas Jefferson



Although I can not advocate the overthrow of our government, I must say that Jefferson's statement has merit.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 6:55:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/28/2006 4:39:59 AM EDT by gsu2720]
I don't have any qualms about being involved in a second revolution. The intent would not necessarily be to overthrow the government, but to impose radical reform that would get the country back on track. Remember, the Declaration of Independence, although not a legal document, says nothing of allegiance to any one government, but every public official and member of the military swears an oath to defend the CONSTITUTION.

Governments change and evolve all over the world. Politicians adapt in order to remain in office. They have gotten to the point were they don't care what is constitutional, all they want to do is stay in power.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 5:55:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gsu2720:
I don't have any qualms about being involved in a second revolution. The intent would not necessarily be to overthrow the government, but to impose radical reform that would get the country back on track. Remember, the Declaration of Independence, although not a legal document, says nothing of allegiance to any one government, but every public official and member of the military swears an oath to defend the CONSTITUTION.

Governments change and evolve all over the world. Politicians adapt in order to remain in office. They have gotten to the point were they don't care what is constitutional, all they want to do is stay in power.



+1
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 8:38:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sum-rifle:
I would have to renounce my NRA membership first since membership requires you do not advocate the overthrow of the U.S. Government.



I will rationalise you out of that. That membership requeirment not to overthrow the government must be viewed in the timeframe of the government that existsed at the time the requeirment was made.

So if the NRA made up that "don't overthrow the gov" stipulation in ... say 1920, then your requiered to not over throw a US government that acts like it is 1920.

Now the gov of today is not the gov of 1920, so your not overthrowing the gov as the NRA says not to.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 4:59:41 PM EDT
My answer to this type of theme must be in the archives somewhere.

In a nutshell....revolutions by definition must be political and widespread otherwise they are merely "insurrections" or "rebelions" both of which will be crushed by civil law enforcement and soldiers carrying out their oaths.

Therefore the only legitimate way to carry out a revolution is to have some political goal in mind, an alternative to the status quo which is politically possible; i.e. something attainable peacefully, and thus is worth fighting for but only if these legitimate goals were stymied illegally and immorally by the government.

Unfortunate for would be revolutionaries, the current Governmental system is still functioning and still open to political solutions.

You might say "yeah but it's nearly impossible" or "but it'll take years and involve alot of hard work"...

My answer to this is "you think a bloody revolutionary overthrow of the current government -local, state and federal WOULDN'T BE VASTLY MORE DIFFICULT, BLOODY, COSTLY, AND VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE?

I swear - most would-be revolutionaries have next to no idea how successful revolutions actually get underway. By the time people start shooting ALOT of preliminaries have to occur. And we are by no means anywhere close to that state of affairs, thank God as revolutions are nasty, unpredictable and tragic all around.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 7:09:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/21/2006 7:11:45 PM EDT by blue_bomber]
The only political solution this government is open for are one's that benifet the politician. Men and woment in Washington today put their own carreers ahead of national interest. Unlike the founders who risked everything - their lives, their fortunes, and their honor for freedom and independence. Politics don't work anymore. Their simply to affraid of being criticized. They all want to be loved and accepted, and they wouldn't dare to be intolerant.

But lets just say theres some political solutions. It will only last for so long. Thats not a solution, thats just pro-longing the inevitable.

I mean we see this everyday in Washington. Take for example the Assault Weapon Ban. We recently had one of our rights given back ,but will soon be taken away. Correct me if I am wrong, but this country was founded by our fathers with the idea the people should always have the power to overthrow their government if it were needed.

I could go on and on with BS like this. Just like the government has a law to take everything you own anytime they want. What is that all about?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing our country just our government. If they would just live by the constitution like they were supposed to, then there wouuld be no problems.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 3:20:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JusAdBellum:
My answer to this type of theme must be in the archives somewhere.

In a nutshell....revolutions by definition must be political and widespread otherwise they are merely "insurrections" or "rebelions" both of which will be crushed by civil law enforcement and soldiers carrying out their oaths.

Therefore the only legitimate way to carry out a revolution is to have some political goal in mind, an alternative to the status quo which is politically possible; i.e. something attainable peacefully, and thus is worth fighting for but only if these legitimate goals were stymied illegally and immorally by the government.

Unfortunate for would be revolutionaries, the current Governmental system is still functioning and still open to political solutions.

You might say "yeah but it's nearly impossible" or "but it'll take years and involve alot of hard work"...

My answer to this is "you think a bloody revolutionary overthrow of the current government -local, state and federal WOULDN'T BE VASTLY MORE DIFFICULT, BLOODY, COSTLY, AND VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE?

I swear - most would-be revolutionaries have next to no idea how successful revolutions actually get underway. By the time people start shooting ALOT of preliminaries have to occur. And we are by no means anywhere close to that state of affairs, thank God as revolutions are nasty, unpredictable and tragic all around.



+1, it's not like you can just wake up one morning, say to yourself "hey, I think i'm gonna revolt today", and then have a new working gov't in place by bedtime. I have long pondered the same questions that blue poses, but we have to make sure to maintain perspective on what is and isn't realistically achievable. And in todays America, armed revolt is NOT realistically achievable.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 3:30:32 PM EDT
I vote to restore our country to the one based upon the Constitution as it was written.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 3:46:16 PM EDT

Isn't there, somewhere, in the Constitution that specifically allows this very type of thing?
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 6:29:26 PM EDT
Good question.

Class, [putting on glasses] For your homework, Google and read the US Constitution and amendments. Be prepared for the discussion and a quiz tomorrow.



I don't think you'll find the line "And should any individual or group not affiliated with a political party nor respresenting a majority of the people as proven by repeated election victories, decide to revolt, they shall show up, property equipted to the town green where manly feats of arm wrestling, beer drinking and target shooting at paper targets placed no closer than 100 paces, shall determine the legitimacy of their cause and the government, federal, state and local shall immediately disband till such time as this individual, group or otherwise not politically active group shall agree to reconstitute government".

I'm pretty sure there's not even an amendment to the Constitution stating that states can decide to just revolt and go off on their own... something tells me they tried, and failed and were branded "rebels" not "revolutionaries".

Link Posted: 1/22/2006 6:30:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By danpass:
Isn't there, somewhere, in the Constitution that specifically allows this very type of thing?



It is in "The Declaration of Indepndance"

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. -- The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free system of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislature, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

John Hancock

Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
Geo. Walton

Wm. Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
Edward Rutledge
Thos. Heyward, Junr.
Thomas Lynch, Junr.
Arthur Middleton

Samuel Chase
Wm. Paca
Thos. Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Th. Jefferson
Benja. Harrison
Thos. Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Robt. Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benja. Franklin
John Morton
Geo. Clymer
Jas. Smith
Geo. Taylor
James Wilson
Geo. Ross
Caesar Rodney
Geo. Read
Tho. Mckean

Wm. Floyd
Phil. Livingston
Frans. Lewis
Lewis Morris
Richd. Stockton
Jno. Witherspoon
Fras. Hopkinson
John Hart
Abra. Clark

Josiah Bartlett
Wm. Whipple
Saml. Adams
John Adams
Robt. Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Step. Hopkins
William Ellery
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
Wm. Williams
Oliver Wolcott
Matthew Thornton
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 9:49:56 AM EDT
The Declaration of Independence worked for a colony breaking away from the mother land, so it's a philosophical thesis positing the moral legitimacy of Revolution, NOT the succession of a State, from within the Union.

The reason Our Founding Fathers went from a political solution to a military one was simple: if it was merely a question of voting, they won that. The majority of Colonists agreed with them (else how would they have won elections?) But when it became apparent that the majority's opinion didn't matter, that the State (England) could void any election, law or proposal at whim and just appoint officials and laws and then enforce them with outside troops anyway.... there was no 'interior to the system' recourse of action. They either had to FOREVER submit, or revolt.

But they had already won the philosophical argument among the majority that their political proposals were RIGHT and would better provide them ALL with security and economic advantages.

They weren't declaring war on England just to stir things up a bit, get some excitement, play soldier for a day and take pot shots at marching RedCoats.

Their actions were not "a civil war" either; because the majority as represented in all the 13 colonies' government bodies agreed with the DOI; the essential fight wasn't then between the Whigs and the Tories WITHIN the colonies. It wasn't a case of the loser fighting a domestic insurgency against the political winners of last year's elections rather than just wait and try to win next year.

If the Democrats rebel in 2007 after a crushing loss this November it won't be "revolution" because one presumes they still believe in a "Federated Constitutional Republic with Democratic traditions"; if they believed in and fought to establish Monarchy (King Bill Clinton I) or a Communist dictatorship, then I'll grant them the title 'revolutionaries'....

But according to our system and ANY philosophy of ethics, their actions would be "rebellion" classified as a Constitutional crime. It's a crime to break away passively or aggressively because the system of government allows for redress of wrongs in a peaceful, orderly way. So long as the system keeps its side of the bargain, it's illegitimate for citizens to unilaterally drop their side.

It would only be a legitimate cause if, say some political faction arbitrarily decided to NOT have elections in 2006 or 2008 and said essentially that they'd enforce this arbitrary rule by force.

Because Our system does allow for elections to have real effects on "the system", a groups' attempt to overthrow it at the federal level is highly unlikely for a thousand reasons and all of them run through two basic concepts: the disparity of guns and butter.

Like it or not, politics ultimately comes down to power and power is the function of guns and butter; as both relate to a human being's desires and hopes.

The USSR had lots of guns, but little butter, so it was doomed as its people yearned for butter more than they yearned for more guns. Marxism after all was an economic theory that purported to pave the way towards a materialist paradise wherein "we the people" could create the conditions that would make the land flow with "milk and honey". Guns and the whole state apparatus were sold to the people as unfortunate and temporary, not the goal and end purpose of the whole movement.

Once most Russians realized that they'd been sold a lie, the state -armed to the teeth with guns but unable to supply butter - fell apart. People's political allegiance was based on a promise. Once the USSR and Commie party admited it couldn't provide its part of the bargain, 'all bets were off' and the walls 'came a tumblin down'.

The POLITICAL revolution happened largely without bloodshed. The guys with the guns just laid them down and went elsewhere to find 'butter'/meaning/purpose in life.

Our current fight with Islamofascism has similar issues; as a religion, Islam has a pragmatic side to it; it posits that political/religious allegiance brings definate 'economic' and pleasurable benefits; that allegiance (submission) to Allah will bring wealth/pleasure here and now (*in the form of harem's, keeping the womenz down) and 72 babes in the life to come.

Some dead-enders who think 72 babes are better than the 3-4 he's putting up with now will go for the suicide gig. Others, the ones cashing in on this politically think they have to do SOMETHING with all these young military aged men milling about with no jobs (butter) available and they have to give purpose and meaning to the whole ideology which has to deal with the cognitive dissonance of being submissive to Allah but yet isn't enjoying power or butter, at least not equally distributed.

It's not supposed to work this way; Muslims are submissive to Allah, and Allah makes sure they kick butt, rule over an empire filled with the world's wealth paid for on the backs of slaves/Dhimmis. And it sure looked good from 636 to 1918... So either they're not submissive ENOUGH (enter the Taliban and Osama's Wahabi sect) or Allah's not very good at keeping up HIS side of the bargain (which is madness of course...).

Ergo, unlike the Marxists who had to admit they gave their theory a good try but it's just plain wrong and doesn't work - so they had to look elsewhere for butter, the Islamofascists still think if they go the 'gun' route for a while they'll get the butter eventually (either here or hereafter).

Now maybe you think the GOP is stupid and imperiling various lifestyle habits or even legitimate concerns of privacy etc. you might come up with a political theory that promises people all the butter in the world (as in economic wealth) but without a) proof that this theory actually works in the local scene and b) guns in the hands of an awfully lot of highly motivated and trained men such a theory while nice is just a theory.

The Democratic party does promise that their policies create butter....but all the evidence of their control locally, state-wide and nationally in the last 50 years proves that they really only know how to re-distribute butter, NOT create it.

Which is why they lose elections that are contested, and hence need to go to the courts to advance their 'progressive' ideas. Now that we're on the verge of taking even the courts away from them, they might feel like the only option they have to win their political butter is resort to guns. But if their policies fail even when they're in charge of the system (Racism, crime, education, the environment...none of these issues were getting 'better' in the 1990s) what point is there for them thinking a bloody overthrow of the Federal government and replacement with something else will make it all better?

Right now in the USA we have both an unparalleled military and an unparalleled economic boom. Yeah things could get better "security wise" and economically.... but there isn't any "constitutional" or intrinsic block to individuals or counties or states getting more secure as in suffering less crime, etc.or from becoming more wealthy even with taxes.... that is, there's no whimsical King above us slapping us down from even trying to better our lot in life.

If you are an individual and want more personal security, you have a whole continent to FREELY MOVE ABOUT IN, and land is there for the purchase.... You can form your own subdivision or town with minimal outside intrusion.... You can live like the Amish, and the Government isn't going to come in demanding your children be sent off to socialist re-education camps or your sons drafted into the Imperial army.

If you want more economic security in this country, the sky is the limit - No Government bureaucrat determined that a guy named Bill Gates would become the richest man in the world. Bill determined that on his own. He wasn't appointed or given the gig by some back room bureaucratic deal. He created a product that everyone wanted, and viola, he's worth $60b.

If you're a woman and want an abortion - no one is stopping you at the boarder. No one forces you to get pregnant in the first place. I'll admit that if I had MY way, your choice in the matter would be restricted especially when it comes to stupid convenience (as in; "the freedom to be stupid, repeatedly but not pay ANY consequences" - a "right" no one ELSE has for ANYTHING ELSE.

Gun owners don't have the right to be irresponsible with guns and get away with it. Car/Home/business owners don't have the RIGHT to be irresponsible with their property to the point of harming another person and get off scot free.

But I digress.... the point being though, if you can convince a majority of fellow citizens to grant you the right to an abortion (or to re-define the word 'marriage' or anything) then WITHIN our system, you could 'get' that right.

So what I'm saying is....the conditions (economic and political) underwhich a revolution could JUSTLY be waged doesn't exist in the USA as there are still options - albeit difficult perhaps depending on your desires - still open.

And that doesn't even begin to go into the logistical hurdles a political group would face that wanted to overthrow the Federal government if things should change for the worst.

It would almost necessarily require foreign powers to interviene on the behalf of the revolutionaries, just as our FF needed the financial and military support of Catholic France and Catholic Spain to hold off and then finish off Protestant England.

Trouble is....there IS no nation on earth capable of projecting power to the degree needed to pin down US forces abroad or at home that also shares the ideals and values needed to allow would-be domestic revolutionaries to overthrow the US government and establish a free society in its place.... what you have are China and Russia and possibly EU (all of whom are communist/socialist regimes that would more likely be allies to a Socialist-repressive US government, not enemies of it). I can imagine a coalition of nations fighting the US while some political group stages an insurgency....but the form of government they'd put in place would be THEIR form of government, NOT whatever pipe dream the insurgents want to errect. The days of Spain and France kicking out the British from their colonies and then standing back are over.

So.... conclusion; Given the current political system and military/economic situation, would-be revolutionaries are screwed. There is no foreign power that will save you, and there is no chance apart from political channels, of 'overthrowing' our current form of government.

It's far, far easier to get a constitutional amendment passed, and get presidents elected than it is to get enough people, guns and butter lined up to overthrow the SYSTEM.

Link Posted: 1/25/2006 11:12:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2006 11:16:15 AM EDT by PanzerMK7]
I agree with pretty much everything in your post, except your constant allusions to the "liberal revolutionaries", if you look back at the previous post's in this thread, I think it's clear that most of the pro-revolutionaries are displeased with the failings of our supposedly "socialist/progressive" gov't. I'd say, at least here, that it is the conservative revolutionaries who initiated this debate.

Just trying to keep everything in perspective, as I subscribe to neithers political doctrine.
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 10:42:24 AM EDT
My only allusion to liberals being potential revolutionaries is based on the assessment that they're the ones currently talking about civil war, armed uprising, violent reactions, 'final solutions' to 'enemies' which they view with greater alarm that our REAL enemies, the islamofascist terrorists.

In their world view then, the Crescent is a lesser threat (if at all) than the cross. It wouldn't take much of a genius to imagine that some of their more far out nut cases might actually welcome an Islamic terror cell in so as to give a black eye to their perceived 'real enemy" GWB.

Besides, "rightwingers" currently control the government; only patience and vigilance are needed to bring the ship of state around to a more conservative tact, not a mutiny.
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 11:56:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2006 12:04:19 PM EDT by PanzerMK7]
I just think that the left is being unjustly villainized by some on the right, again, I feel that I am more conservative than liberal, but I still try to recognize the difference between facts and sweeping generalizations. I don't think that most of the so called "liberals" (quoted because it's a relative term in many regards) want to see harm come to America or it's soldiers. There may be a very few radical minded individuals who would go that far, but just as with the conservatives, these people make up only a tiny fraction of the left. I don't think that we are in any danger of seeing a popular uprising from the left in the forseeable future.

But what is possible, even likely, is a shift back towards the left in the next several years. Swing voters displeased with the Iraq war, and the corruption scandals rocking the GOP, will likely shift back to the democrats in the next few elections (assuming the Dem's can field a viable candidate)
As soon as this rolls around, we will once again have people here on ARFCOM proposing grand plans for revolution. And this whole debate will begin again, with us level headed people trying to convince them that it is totally unrealistic.

ETA: One of the greatest problems plagueing both Democrats and Republicans right now is the near absolute partisan divisions. Both parties need to step away from their talking points and compromise on some of their ridiculous shit.
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 5:35:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2006 5:36:04 PM EDT by blue_bomber]
How can you justify the left?

I wouldn't know where to begin my argument here.

Hmm...for example; more power the federal government has over its citizens the better off we will be. Let me rephrase this. The more laws government have on its people (other words less rights), better off society is. This crap blows my mind away.

This is just one of their many unconstitutional theories.
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 11:33:08 AM EDT
No, no, no, I meant that not everyone who votes democrat is a crazy commie/hippy antigun lunatic, we need to break down the ridiculous divisions between the left and right and reach a concensus on some of this stuff, most people are not that far apart on these issues. It's only the extremes of the parties that are perpetuating these stereotypes and keeping us so bitterly opposed. I think you'd find, that if you sat down with MOST (not all) people who voted democrat, and calmly explained the reasons that you own guns, that they would be willing to compromise.

People have been so thoroughly indoctrinated by both sides that they view the oppositon as completely unreasonable maniacs. Then they reference very limited examples of the extremists doing this or that, and everyone else just sort of sits back and wonders how the hell it came to this (well, at least I do)
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 2:04:42 PM EDT
Well, maybe you can help inform us... what exactly does the Democratic party stand FOR these days?

Gore kept saying "education, healthcare and the environment" as though the GOP is AGAINST "education, healthcare and the environment".

When I check out the DNC website I read things framed in such a way that you'd never guess that this party ran things for 40 years or if you did, you'd never suspect that the economy they ran nearly tanked in the late 1970's.

They claim credit for economic booms their policies didn't have anything to do with such as the late 90's boom that curiously took place after the 1994 GOP ride into power and balanced budgets, NAFTA, welfare reform, and Clinton's 'triangulation'.

But check out every last STATE or city government that the dems control and thus run the roost in...and what do you see if not vast waste, corruption, rising ghettos, racial tensions, crime, unemployment or a host of other problems... all under their watch.

Not saying the GOP is lily white pure and wonderful. But I at least know they're FOR a strong economy (that raises all boats) a strong defense (which is a good offense) strong families and the rule of law (which means Judges don't legislate from the bench).

Conservative think liberals are nuts because they act and say things that are well... nuts. They in turn accuse us of the worst crimes against humanity just because. No evidence provided.

So fire away, let's hear some things the Dems are for that a reasonable person can agree with.

They claim they're for education....but only by wanting to spend more money, not reforming the teachers or allowing for competition via vouchers (somehow the GI bill wasn't unconstitutional but highschool or grade school GI type bills are? And the judicial principle squaring that circle is???)

They claim they're for the environment.... yet their regulations kill the goose that makes the golden egg needed to pay for clean up and technological improvements that increasingly point to clearer everything.

They claim they're for health care...but this seems to be just abortion and "family planning" which in reality ISN'T about families but about singles using condoms or contraceptives. You of course know that they help slip in $500 million to the budget annually to PAY FOR Contraception and give all this cash to the same folk who then lobby for abortion.... meanwhile the Prolifers who run 3000 shelters for unwed moms get zero dollars .

I could go on.

Link Posted: 1/29/2006 2:44:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 2:48:15 PM EDT by PanzerMK7]
I'm not referring to the actual dem's who are in positions of influence, i'm referring to the people who vote them there. I think that the majority of the electorate that consistently votes democrat would be best described as well intentioned but poorly informed. The only point that i'm trying to make is that we (the voters) are not as diametrically opposed as the politicians and pundits would have you believe.

If you honestly believe that every person who votes democrat is actively conspiring against us, then I guess I have little hope of persuading you to believe otherwise.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 4:10:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 4:13:21 PM EDT by mort]

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:
I'm not referring to the actual dem's who are in positions of influence, i'm referring to the people who vote them there. I think that the majority of the electorate that consistently votes democrat would be best described as well intentioned but poorly informed. The only point that i'm trying to make is that we (the voters) are not as diametrically opposed as the politicians and pundits would have you believe.

If you honestly believe that every person who votes democrat is actively conspiring against us, then I guess I have little hope of persuading you to believe otherwise.




Interesting that.
If the voters are not so "diametrically opposed" why do the people/ideas they vote for apear to be so opposed?

Do you think it has something to do with the lack of graduated options in federal elections?
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 12:24:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:
I think that the majority of the electorate that consistently votes democrat would be best described as well intentioned but poorly informed. The only point that i'm trying to make is that we (the voters) are not as diametrically opposed as the politicians and pundits would have you believe. If you honestly believe that every person who votes democrat is actively conspiring against us, then I guess I have little hope of persuading you to believe otherwise.



You speak of diametric opposition; however I see this as the only way we can have a balance… one party constantly keeping the other in check. Look at what the dems have dug up on Bush, the horrible civil liberties he has violated, the un-just war in Iraq, the lies etc. It’s the same necessary evil, such as Star served during the Lewinski scandal.

Today’s modern democrat is now more of a communist. Your parties entire philosophy is cooky… tax the rich, redistribute the wealth, nonsense really.
Having said thus, the modern republican; a bit fascist… is also bad news for our liberties.

You men speak of revolution, but what is your answer… go shoot democrats? I would rather fight the nefarious cabal of fat cats and career politicians that our parents handed the republic over to WITH the democrats.

You GOP practitioners want to protect the US/Mexico borders??? Try legalizing drugs and watch the profits dwindle away from the smugglers. Watch the number of meth labs logarithmically decrease as these kids in rural areas can now grow pot as a safer alternative. Put some of the money that we spend on fighting drugs back into our pre-tax pockets.

What we need is a 3rd party, such as the libertarian party, to ensure that adherence to the constitution is foremost with common sense used in adherence of trade, and social economics. I think certain priorities are to be the legalization of drugs, and getting our boys out of the Middle East, once we have properly trained Iraqi security forces as to forestall a Bathist massacre if we pulled out too soon.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 7:15:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/30/2006 7:16:50 AM EDT by gsu2720]

What we need is a 3rd party, such as the libertarian party, to ensure that adherence to the constitution is foremost with common sense used in adherence of trade, and social economics. I think certain priorities are to be the legalization of drugs, and getting our boys out of the Middle East, once we have properly trained Iraqi security forces as to forestall a Bathist massacre if we pulled out too soon.



+1000

The problems with both parties today are that the democrats "feel" too much. They cannot defend their views with any type of logic or reason. They want to steal from the rich at gunpoint, and give the money to the "poor" to buy more votes. The republicans spend entirely too much money. I have not seen any of the "entitlement" programs disappear. I have only seen spending increase at an alarming rate. The republicans, in general, would also love to see a theocracy of sorts in this country.

Don't get me wrong, I am as religious as the next person, and I also voted republican. But, I believe that people have the right to do anything they want, as long as it does not infringe, in any way, on my right to life, liberty, or property. If you want to smoke pot, go ahead. If you want to get knocked up and have an abortion, go ahead. I don't agree with abortion as a means of contraception, but there are plenty of cases were it is ok.

There is no place in our economy for welfare and entitlement programs. They are a drain on the economy. Which party is going to stop stealing our money and redistributing it to that mom of six that, instead of getting a job to support her kids, spreads her legs for every man that comes along.

We are far too dependent on the government. So much so, that it is becoming dangerous. Our Republic is starting to look more and more like a democracy. Alexander Tyler recognized the danger of democracy over 200 years ago.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury. . ."



The following is from a libertarian talk show host in the Atlanta area named Neal Boortz:


For starters ... here is what President Bush will not say.... though he should:

"My fellow Americans. For decades presidents have used this occasion to tell you that the state of the union is strong. Perhaps it's time to be a little more honest. The truth is that the state of the union, the state of this republic, is weak, and growing weaker with each passing year.

We are evolving from a nation of self-reliant individuals who once worked within a system of personal freedom and economic liberty, to a nation of whining malcontents; an ever-growing herd of reliant sheep making our daily pilgrimage to the trough of government to be fed. Things that our grandparents would have considered to be issues of personal responsibility are now generally looked upon as the responsibility of government. Freedom has taken a back seat to security, self-reliance a back seat to government dependency."

Nope. That most certainly will not be Bush's opening tomorrow night. Instead, he'll be promoting government as the cure to all that ails us. I understand the president is going to be talking about health care. What do you think the chances are that Bush will include this line?

"Somehow a majority of Americans, perhaps most Americans, have formed the opinion that health care is not their responsibility. How did this happen? How did Americans come to believe that their personal health care is somehow the responsibility of their employer or their government? Is this what freedom is all about? Is this how we exercise the responsibility for our own lives?"

You're right. No chance at all. Tomorrow night George Bush will lay more of the foundation for a chaotic system of socialized medicine in America. Oh, to be sure, we won't call it socialized medicine. We'll come up with some fancy name to hide the socialist reality, but socialized medicine it will be, and Americans will join their Canadian neighbors waiting months for a simple arthroscopic knee surgery.




Neal Boortz
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 7:22:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/30/2006 7:23:13 AM EDT by 2FALable]
The following is a 1st Amendment protected opinion article protected by the US Constitution.

--------------

I don't believe I've read anything here where anyone is actually suggesting overthrowing the US Government.

The US Government is defined based on the powers granted it in the Constitution. Any power not granted the Federal Government resides with the states.

In addition the Constituion outlines constraints on behavior as it relates to the right of all men. Not rights granted by but rather articulated by the Constitution.

In other words the Constitution does not bestow upon you any particular right. Whatever rights you have you have by default. Wheter you volunteer to be a citizen or not. Those rights just exist.

So given that the behavior and construct of the Government otherwise called the US Government is outlined and defined by the Constitution and given that the current Government calling itself the US Government does not resemble that structure, nor does it respect the Constitution based on its behavior... it could be said that any such uprsining was in SUPPORT of the US Government as you as a citizen must strife to defend at all costs the Constitution of the United States.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 7:25:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sum-rifle:
I would have to renounce my NRA membership first since membership requires you do not advocate the overthrow of the U.S. Government.



That's just something their lawyers threw in to avoid being labled as a extremist group...

At first I used to think a revolution was possible... I'm starting to rethink that because the population density of the country is so far beyond what it was during the "first" revolution. Things in our society are so much different now it would probably relatively easy to contain one.

But, what do I know...
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 9:01:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/30/2006 9:05:59 AM EDT by Jorge-Arbusto]
We are told what to think by the media, and the only groups more gullible than the Bush apologists that watch Fox news are the stupid liberals, and their Marxist redistribution of wealth brain disorder.

Thanks for the +1000 vote, that's a first for me.


Oh, and check this out...
www.2kgames.com/shatteredunion/home.php
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 12:08:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/30/2006 12:18:08 PM EDT by PanzerMK7]

Originally Posted By Jorge-Arbusto:

You speak of diametric opposition; however I see this as the only way we can have a balance… one party constantly keeping the other in check. Look at what the dems have dug up on Bush, the horrible civil liberties he has violated, the un-just war in Iraq, the lies etc. It’s the same necessary evil, such as Star served during the Lewinski scandal.

Today’s modern democrat is now more of a communist. Your parties entire philosophy is cooky… tax the rich, redistribute the wealth, nonsense really.
Having said thus, the modern republican; a bit fascist… is also bad news for our liberties.

You men speak of revolution, but what is your answer… go shoot democrats? I would rather fight the nefarious cabal of fat cats and career politicians that our parents handed the republic over to WITH the democrats.

You GOP practitioners want to protect the US/Mexico borders??? Try legalizing drugs and watch the profits dwindle away from the smugglers. Watch the number of meth labs logarithmically decrease as these kids in rural areas can now grow pot as a safer alternative. Put some of the money that we spend on fighting drugs back into our pre-tax pockets.

What we need is a 3rd party, such as the libertarian party, to ensure that adherence to the constitution is foremost with common sense used in adherence of trade, and social economics. I think certain priorities are to be the legalization of drugs, and getting our boys out of the Middle East, once we have properly trained Iraqi security forces as to forestall a Bathist massacre if we pulled out too soon.



I see your point about opposition "balancing the scales" so to speak, but what I was really trying to get at (rather clumsily, I guess) is exactly what you said in your post, that we in the lower classes should not be fighting each other, that both parties have drifted immensely from the path we originally started on all those years ago. I could not agree more that the Libertarians are the right party to have in power, now all we have to do is figure out how to wake up the rest of the population and get them there. I'm open to any ideas on that one though.

ETA: Wow, the political threads have exploded in the last few days, I'm having a hard time keeping up with everything. Let me just say that from what i've read so far, I could not agree more with 2FALable & Jorge-Arbutso. Good post's all around.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 1:02:05 PM EDT
If we are to take the first revolution as our guide on how these kinds of things work, we ought to first realize that a) there's not a widespread, bi-partisan movement afoot to justify overthrowing the current bloated bureaucatic juggernaut called 'the federal government'. Most sides will say they'd like to limit government spending or "the era of big government is over....now let's have 100,00 new cops!"...but it's all lip service because all those new federal employees are also well paid voters with perks to protect.

Even veterans want to keep their piece of the pie... you even talk of reducing health benefits or redirecting funds and watch out. Everyone's salary or perk, every independent company's government contract or service agreement.... all militates TOWARDS an ever expanding Federal, State, and Local government until eventually we as a people will cease to have much wholly independent organs or companies left - like socialist societies.

There IS no immediate political or economic solution. I suppose the SCOTUS could overturn 100 years of Commerce Clause interpretations and that would put a huge dent in Federal intrusion into State and local life...

Public education could be de-regulated such that LOCAL voters would have the preponderance of control in all things... if you want to teach Intelligent design, fine. The world won't end and so long as your Math is still Math, neither will "science" be affected.

But to ween people from local, State and Federal dollars would take generations. Do it violently and the only result would be so much economic upheaval that the successor regime would most likely INCREASE government spending four fold.

and b) our revolution was launched by the political and economic elite of that time, not the "middle class" farmer folk. All conspiracy buffs either are ignorant of this or ignore it. No successful revolution in history was launched from the poor classes or "middle class". They all were cooked up by and paid for by rich patrons/aristocrats/businessmen. Sure, big wars are FOUGHT by the middle classes...but few of our FF were not landed aristocrats.

In highly centralized nations where centuries of bureaucracy has made the Capital the only major city and sucked all money and troops to the core...(Paris, France; Moscow, Russia, Mexico City, Mexico....) it has LONG been possible to overthrow the regime with relatively few troops.

But in larger nations with traditions of federalism or shared power, revolutions take on the proportions of civil wars with massive casualties, unending hostilities etc and thus the absolute sine qua non of a huge population of supporters for these efforts, and solid financial backers to take the risks needed to field troops and pay for all the diplomats.

I don't believe a 3rd party would solve the core problem of an ever growing government apparatus.... it would at most provide a spoiler for one of the other main parties, allowing one party (not the 3rd) to consolidate political power for a long time.

Finally.... legalizing drugs won't make the drug lords go away. It'll just allow them to set up shop on mainstreet. Just as almost laughably easy access to porn hasn't made sex crimes frequent either (old canard for rape was men didn't have a quick way to blow off steam with porn so they raped whatever girl paid attention to them...) Legalizing abortion didn't close down the "back alley" abortionists either... it merely protected them and allowed them to legally claim that income.

Whenever an activity or drug or habit has an INTRINSIC danger to human health it ought to be made illegal...because the law's purpose is to provide for THE COMMON GOOD, and THE COMMON GOOD is NOT served when citizens are dying, or inflicting harm on their bodies, minds, will.... either to the point of becoming chronic burdens on their families, neighbors, and fellow citizens. (Ahem, GBLT and billions spent for AIDS research that, if spent on all the OTHER diseases would have eradicated them by now)

You make things illegal that you don't want people to engage in - not out of some arbitrary moral pie-in-the-sky theory, but based on hard cold facts - like the FACT that certain drugs, while having some good benefits also have some particularly nasty side effects.... or the fact that young boys exposed to porn TEND to become teens who experiment with sex at a younger age and get into practices they might never have thought up on their own (oral sex).

If your goal for law is a healthy citizenry full of people in full use of their faculty of reason, with their wills not co-opted by vices that tend to enslave and obsess the mind and will....then you pass certain bans on certain things that corrupt the mind and heart.

If your goal is for law to protect the aristocrats who would enslave the mob via a thousand and one vices, then you legalize drugs, porn, prostitutes, the whole gamut of sexual practices....you fund them via tax dollars from K-postgrad studies... you "introduce" kids to drugs (thus launching drug empires which will spend billions to perpetuate the "demand" for their supply)

And in the end you have a mob of "subjects" who are easily lead by "bread and circus" entertainments and not the types capable of easily rising up to over throw their masters.

Harking back to the whole thread about penalizing soldiers for frequenting prostitutes.... an army of men who can't control their passions vs. an army of men who CAN, all other things being equal (size, equipment, training) will almost always result in the civilized men winning the conflict.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 4:55:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JusAdBellum:
Even veterans want to keep their piece of the pie... you even talk of reducing health benefits or redirecting funds and watch out.



Good point... without the government I think there would be a collapse in a lot of areas we think would stand on their own without the .gov mucking up the works.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 9:59:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/30/2006 10:01:19 PM EDT by blue_bomber]

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:

Originally Posted By JusAdBellum:
Even veterans want to keep their piece of the pie... you even talk of reducing health benefits or redirecting funds and watch out.



Good point... without the government I think there would be a collapse in a lot of areas we think would stand on their own without the .gov mucking up the works.





Gotta love how the gov. made us all dependent on them. I suppose we don't have a choice right?
Gov. has got us under their thumb. I mean they can do anything they want with our country and its citizens and not have to worry about the penalty. They could take all our rights away and most of you guys wouldn't do a thing because it could interfer with your health insurance or your 401k or your interest rate would raise on that new loan you just took out.

Hey, I don't blame you we all got bills and families, but their has to be a solution. And its not more government.

George Washington is a veteran, what do you think he would say?
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 10:14:39 PM EDT
I think overall some people are missing the point. In the end the US economy will collapse. Perhaps you've missed the fact that the dollar is off about 45% from the Euro where as it started about equal?

The National debt is something like 8 trillion dollars now.

The Chinese and other countries are moving out of the dollar.

Iran is working on creating an oil exchange that deals in multiple currencies. Currently all oil transactions take place based on teh dollar. If Iran is succesful, which they won't be, because we will likely be bombing them into the stone age in the near future, causing serious strife with Russia and China, then oil could be traded in Euros or other currency.

But either way that is somewhat a side issue to the core message here.

That 401k won't be worth jack in the long run. Did you imagine that the sovereignty of America would be broken in the interest of a Global Government and your 401k was going to remain whole?

The US Dollar is a fiat currency and is long passed its prime. We are ripe for an economic collapse of cosmin proportions.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 11:04:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/30/2006 11:08:06 PM EDT by Jorge-Arbusto]

Originally Posted By JusAdBellum:
If we are to take the first revolution as our guide on how these kinds of things work, we ought to first realize that a) there's not a widespread, bi-partisan movement afoot to justify overthrowing the current bloated bureaucatic juggernaut called 'the federal government'. Most sides will say they'd like to limit government spending or "the era of big government is over....now let's have 100,00 new cops!"...but it's all lip service because all those new federal employees are also well paid voters with perks to protect.

Even veterans want to keep their piece of the pie... you even talk of reducing health benefits or redirecting funds and watch out. Everyone's salary or perk, every independent company's government contract or service agreement.... all militates TOWARDS an ever expanding Federal, State, and Local government until eventually we as a people will cease to have much wholly independent organs or companies left - like socialist societies.

There IS no immediate political or economic solution. I suppose the SCOTUS could overturn 100 years of Commerce Clause interpretations and that would put a huge dent in Federal intrusion into State and local life...

Public education could be de-regulated such that LOCAL voters would have the preponderance of control in all things... if you want to teach Intelligent design, fine. The world won't end and so long as your Math is still Math, neither will "science" be affected.

But to ween people from local, State and Federal dollars would take generations. Do it violently and the only result would be so much economic upheaval that the successor regime would most likely INCREASE government spending four fold.

and b) our revolution was launched by the political and economic elite of that time, not the "middle class" farmer folk. All conspiracy buffs either are ignorant of this or ignore it. No successful revolution in history was launched from the poor classes or "middle class". They all were cooked up by and paid for by rich patrons/aristocrats/businessmen. Sure, big wars are FOUGHT by the middle classes...but few of our FF were not landed aristocrats.

In highly centralized nations where centuries of bureaucracy has made the Capital the only major city and sucked all money and troops to the core...(Paris, France; Moscow, Russia, Mexico City, Mexico....) it has LONG been possible to overthrow the regime with relatively few troops.

But in larger nations with traditions of federalism or shared power, revolutions take on the proportions of civil wars with massive casualties, unending hostilities etc and thus the absolute sine qua non of a huge population of supporters for these efforts, and solid financial backers to take the risks needed to field troops and pay for all the diplomats.

I don't believe a 3rd party would solve the core problem of an ever growing government apparatus.... it would at most provide a spoiler for one of the other main parties, allowing one party (not the 3rd) to consolidate political power for a long time.

Finally.... legalizing drugs won't make the drug lords go away. It'll just allow them to set up shop on mainstreet. Just as almost laughably easy access to porn hasn't made sex crimes frequent either (old canard for rape was men didn't have a quick way to blow off steam with porn so they raped whatever girl paid attention to them...) Legalizing abortion didn't close down the "back alley" abortionists either... it merely protected them and allowed them to legally claim that income.

Whenever an activity or drug or habit has an INTRINSIC danger to human health it ought to be made illegal...because the law's purpose is to provide for THE COMMON GOOD, and THE COMMON GOOD is NOT served when citizens are dying, or inflicting harm on their bodies, minds, will.... either to the point of becoming chronic burdens on their families, neighbors, and fellow citizens. (Ahem, GBLT and billions spent for AIDS research that, if spent on all the OTHER diseases would have eradicated them by now)

You make things illegal that you don't want people to engage in - not out of some arbitrary moral pie-in-the-sky theory, but based on hard cold facts - like the FACT that certain drugs, while having some good benefits also have some particularly nasty side effects.... or the fact that young boys exposed to porn TEND to become teens who experiment with sex at a younger age and get into practices they might never have thought up on their own (oral sex).

If your goal for law is a healthy citizenry full of people in full use of their faculty of reason, with their wills not co-opted by vices that tend to enslave and obsess the mind and will....then you pass certain bans on certain things that corrupt the mind and heart.

If your goal is for law to protect the aristocrats who would enslave the mob via a thousand and one vices, then you legalize drugs, porn, prostitutes, the whole gamut of sexual practices....you fund them via tax dollars from K-postgrad studies... you "introduce" kids to drugs (thus launching drug empires which will spend billions to perpetuate the "demand" for their supply)

And in the end you have a mob of "subjects" who are easily lead by "bread and circus" entertainments and not the types capable of easily rising up to over throw their masters.

Harking back to the whole thread about penalizing soldiers for frequenting prostitutes.... an army of men who can't control their passions vs. an army of men who CAN, all other things being equal (size, equipment, training) will almost always result in the civilized men winning the conflict.



I could not disagree more with this post, it is that of an authoritarian... one who is fine living under a boot, so long as you are strapped in it. Illegal narcotics are going to kill the republic by creating profit in it's trafficking. You do, of course, admit that prohibition created organized crime dont you?

Making heroin legal is not likely to make anyone with common sense take it; if you do, that is your choice and you are more than welcome to remove yourself from the breeding pool.

If anything, make the argument that marijuana should at least be legalized, then support your thoughts on not legalizing hard-core narcotics with documented fact. Like it or not, a LARGE portion of the money used to plan the September 11th attacks came from illegial opium trade from Afghanistan.

Your thoughts are that young men like sex MORE because of porn????
This disgusts me; it reflects nothing more than the regurgitated attitude of the religous fundamentalists in this country.

Revolution does not start at the top, whereas a career politician is afraid of unpopularity; it starts at the bottom where all hope is lost!

Your establishment brainwashing is the REAL problem with this country.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 5:33:40 AM EDT

Finally.... legalizing drugs won't make the drug lords go away. It'll just allow them to set up shop on mainstreet.


This is just flawed logic. In the 1920's, the great democracy that is the current US government experimented in prohibition. This led to a decade of organized crime, and only managed to accomplish one thing, the repeal of prohibition in 1933. It has been proven time and time again that if you make something illegal, it only creates a black market for it, thus increasing profits for those who sell or traffic it. When prohibition was repealed, the profit margin was not there and the criminals started selling drugs.


Whenever an activity or drug or habit has an INTRINSIC danger to human health it ought to be made illegal. . .You make things illegal that you don't want people to engage in - not out of some arbitrary moral pie-in-the-sky theory, but based on hard cold facts - like the FACT that certain drugs, while having some good benefits also have some particularly nasty side effects.

Okay daddy. Since you seem to know, better than I do, what I should do with my life, tell me if I should have changed my major from Engineering to Accounting. Should I have spent $800 on my first AR build? Should I not be allowed to drive a Porsche because it may cause discontent among the rest of the world that doesn't drive one?

Neither you nor the federal government has any right to make drugs illegal. The federal government only has those rights that are given to it by the CONSTITUTION. Nowhere in that legal document does it say that the federal government has the right to ban drugs. Therefore that right is, by default, given to the states.

As Jorge-Arbusto said, This is the typical attitude of a religious fundamentalist. What I do on this earth is between me God. I will answer for it when I stand before my Maker. If you don't like it, pray for me. If you think that people who use drugs are mindless zombies, than don't hire them, don't work for people who employ them, and don't associate with them.


If your goal for law is a healthy citizenry full of people in full use of their faculty of reason, with their wills not co-opted by vices that tend to enslave and obsess the mind and will....then you pass certain bans on certain things that corrupt the mind and heart.

If your goal is for law to protect the aristocrats who would enslave the mob via a thousand and one vices, then you legalize drugs, porn, prostitutes, the whole gamut of sexual practices....you fund them via tax dollars from K-postgrad studies... you "introduce" kids to drugs (thus launching drug empires which will spend billions to perpetuate the "demand" for their supply)



You and I both know that no one is going to introduce kids to drugs. We as a society don’t advocate the use of alcohol or tobacco by minors. This is just silly.

For the record, my goal for law is to first repeal the laws that have been passed illegally by the federal government. Next, I would want to see a sweeping income tax reform in the guise of The Fair Tax. I would like to see a move towards more individual responsibility. I want our Republic back. I am tired of the have-nots voting to take away what I have. I want a system of State rule as the Forefathers intended. I could go on and on.

Cato Institute Drug Reserch
The Libertarian Party
Advocates for Self-Government
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 7:05:46 AM EDT
First of all, I honestly think guys who post threads on public access sites like this arguing FOR the overthrow of our current political system are EITHER completely nuts, OR working for the ATF/FBI or some other federal agency.

So next time try to make it a little less obvious please.

Secondly, the lesson from Prohibition is... don't pass a constitutional amendment to ban things that can be outlaws via Legislation. (One could just as easily argue, post hoc ergo propter hoc, that that since the prohibition of alcohol happened after WW1 and giving women the vote, the "lesson" was: don't fight foreign wars that kill a good % of voting age men and don't give women the right to vote)

And lo and behold, since the 1930's we haven't passed Amendments that ban drugs or sex. All the prohibitions of drugs, sex, and firearms have been done via the legislature - i.e. if there are so many people in favor of legalizing them, then laws would be passed allowing them to be sold legally.... Ditto with "abortion on demand" if SO many women wanted abortions to be 'safe, legal and rare' the pro-aborts wouldn't have had to do an end run around Congress and gone through SCOTUS to get their 'rights'.

After all, if "we the people" always thought "privacy" = abortion, laws passed via legislation would never have happened.

When the Constitution is SILENT about something it doesn't mean "thou shall pass no law banning it". All it means is that prima facie, it's something CONGRESS or state legislatures can pass laws on to regulate or ban. The Constitution doesn't say anything about automobiles either, but states and Congress still pass laws regulating them and their use.

If left to the legislature the country will settle many issues over time and in a compromise fashion. Those states that are 100% for abortion, complete unfettered access to porn, drugs, alcohol, etc. will die off and be replaced by us 'fundamentalists' in a purely demographic way, as is already happening. The only way for you libertarians to "get" your vices enshrined as "rights" is to either pass positive laws to that effect, OR pass an Amendment specifically spelling out what you claim is a right.

Your argument hinges on what you THINK is the lesson from the 1920s, not on what Laws are FOR, or from the perspective of an upstanding citizen who has a family to protect. I'm a big enough guy to be disagreed with and even cussed out. But I don't think your posts above PROVE what you think they prove.

I'm willing to be proven wrong. Up to now though while you've affirmed things, it's not the same as evidence. There have long been studies showing a direct link between children being exposed to porn and a younger and more widespread experimentation in the field... garbage in, garbage out. Monkey see, monkey do. Kids imitate what they see other people doing.

This is why kids with abusive parents have a higher incidence of becoming abusive parents themselves.... we're talking bell curve here: not all kids will absolutely become duplicates of their folks, but the majority will approximate them, some will go overboard and some will be opposites (like kids who are dry because dad is a drunk).

Alcohol is far different from illegal drugs and sex in that it's not as HABIT forming and LIFE changing for kids or teens who try it ONCE. Sneaking a Miller Lite or shot of Vodka as a teen won't.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 8:03:44 AM EDT
You are missing the whole point. I take issue with the people out there who are willing to take away or deny me my freedoms because it is something they personally do not like or agree with. Or because they know what is best for me. By passing laws that outlaw (enter your vise here), you are infringing on my right to do something.

Until recently, it was illegal, in Georgia, to engage in anal sex. It was considered sodomy. Where does someone get off telling two consenting adults, whether hetero or homosexual, what they can and cannot do in the privacy of there own home.

Likewise, if I choose to take drugs, I am not hurting anyone but myself. I will admit that most drugs have serious physical and mental side effects, but the act of taking LSD, cocaine, opium, hash, etc. is not hurting anyone else.

If a woman wants to sell her body, arguably her most powerful asset, what harm is there. If you do not agree with prostitution, do not visit a brothel. Contrary to popular belief, if prostitution were legal, there would not be sex in the streets.

The point is that it is your job to take care of you, not me. It is my responsibility to take care of me, not you. I do not give a hill of beans what you do, but your rights end where mine begin.

I am of the belief that no crime has been committed until someone has been deprived of his or her rights by force or fraud. So in the above instances, no one has been injured, no one has had anything stolen, and no one has been made to do something they do not want to do.

If a person commits rape, the crime is rape. If a person steals a car, the crime is theft.
If a person gets high and robs a convenience store, the crime is theft, not taking drugs. As I said before, the act of using drugs harms no one but the user.

You cannot and should not make something illegal because it may cause a crime. No crime is committed by drinking alcohol, however if you drive under the influence, you have committed a crime. And do not say that alcohol is different. It has the ability to affect people in many different ways. Some become the happiest people you have ever met, while some become spouse-abusing asshats. To outlaw alcohol because a person may beat their spouse makes about as much sense as arresting a victim of child abuse because they may become abusive themselves.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 8:18:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JusAdBellum:
First of all, I honestly think guys who post threads on public access sites like this arguing FOR the overthrow of our current political system are EITHER completely nuts, OR working for the ATF/FBI or some other federal agency.

So next time try to make it a little less obvious please.

Secondly, the lesson from Prohibition is... don't pass a constitutional amendment to ban things that can be outlaws via Legislation. (One could just as easily argue, post hoc ergo propter hoc, that that since the prohibition of alcohol happened after WW1 and giving women the vote, the "lesson" was: don't fight foreign wars that kill a good % of voting age men and don't give women the right to vote)

And lo and behold, since the 1930's we haven't passed Amendments that ban drugs or sex. All the prohibitions of drugs, sex, and firearms have been done via the legislature - i.e. if there are so many people in favor of legalizing them, then laws would be passed allowing them to be sold legally.... Ditto with "abortion on demand" if SO many women wanted abortions to be 'safe, legal and rare' the pro-aborts wouldn't have had to do an end run around Congress and gone through SCOTUS to get their 'rights'.

After all, if "we the people" always thought "privacy" = abortion, laws passed via legislation would never have happened.

When the Constitution is SILENT about something it doesn't mean "thou shall pass no law banning it". All it means is that prima facie, it's something CONGRESS or state legislatures can pass laws on to regulate or ban. The Constitution doesn't say anything about automobiles either, but states and Congress still pass laws regulating them and their use.

If left to the legislature the country will settle many issues over time and in a compromise fashion. Those states that are 100% for abortion, complete unfettered access to porn, drugs, alcohol, etc. will die off and be replaced by us 'fundamentalists' in a purely demographic way, as is already happening. The only way for you libertarians to "get" your vices enshrined as "rights" is to either pass positive laws to that effect, OR pass an Amendment specifically spelling out what you claim is a right.

Your argument hinges on what you THINK is the lesson from the 1920s, not on what Laws are FOR, or from the perspective of an upstanding citizen who has a family to protect. I'm a big enough guy to be disagreed with and even cussed out. But I don't think your posts above PROVE what you think they prove.

I'm willing to be proven wrong. Up to now though while you've affirmed things, it's not the same as evidence. There have long been studies showing a direct link between children being exposed to porn and a younger and more widespread experimentation in the field... garbage in, garbage out. Monkey see, monkey do. Kids imitate what they see other people doing.

This is why kids with abusive parents have a higher incidence of becoming abusive parents themselves.... we're talking bell curve here: not all kids will absolutely become duplicates of their folks, but the majority will approximate them, some will go overboard and some will be opposites (like kids who are dry because dad is a drunk).

Alcohol is far different from illegal drugs and sex in that it's not as HABIT forming and LIFE changing for kids or teens who try it ONCE. Sneaking a Miller Lite or shot of Vodka as a teen won't.



It's good to know that I like sex, just becuase of some porn I saw when I was a teen. And the illogicall references to substance abuse, and abortion, when talking about civil liberties.

Authoritarians.... I understand how you guys get that way, it's becuase you need to be told what to do becuase you can't think.


Link Posted: 1/31/2006 8:38:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By blue_bomber:
George Washington is a veteran, what do you think he would say?



Washington was part of the economic and cultural elite of the slave-owning planters of Virginia. By 1774, Washington had become one of the colonies' wealthiest men. In that year, he was chosen as a delegate from Virginia to the First Continental Congress.

He'd probably say "sucks to be you!" then whip a couple of his slaves for the heck of it.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 8:44:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2006 8:46:35 AM EDT by gsu2720]

Originally Posted By Jorge-Arbusto:
It's good to know that I like sex, just becuase of some porn I saw when I was a teen. And the illogicall references to substance abuse, and abortion, when talking about civil liberties.

Authoritarians.... I understand how you guys get that way, it's becuase you need to be told what to do becuase you can't think.


Authoritarians are not alone, sheeple fit that bill also. I feel that about 50% of the people in this country are not even smart enough to live in a free society. I blame government schools fo this. When you have a whole generation of people who have no concept of economic or individual freedom, and who think the government is responsible for them, something is wrong. It reminds me of Karl Marx, "Free education for all children in public schools." -- Communist Manifesto
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 8:58:17 AM EDT
Ok... since you seem to think it would be possible and the results would be a better, less govrnment controlled country, let's hear the grand plan. Surely you have this all mapped out in your head, hypothetically (and therefore CoC-safe) of course.

How would you begin "recruitment"? Hopefully you wouldn't rely on the internet alone to execute some national movement for "the people" to reclaim to country from the tyrannical government.

Once control of the government was gained who would take charge to get the wheels turning again before a total collapse occured and the country couldn't recover.

How would you avoid coming up on the same intelligence radar as terrorists do before action could be taken?

I haven't seen enough movies for me to come up with a feasible plan but surely you have. One that involves not only taking control of the country but avoided a large scale invasion during of another country in the process....
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 9:13:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By blue_bomber:
The only political solution this government is open for are one's that benifet the politician. Men and woment in Washington today put their own carreers ahead of national interest. Unlike the founders who risked everything - their lives, their fortunes, and their honor for freedom and independence. Politics don't work anymore. Their simply to affraid of being criticized. They all want to be loved and accepted, and they wouldn't dare to be intolerant.




And while that is true, let's not forget that the leaders of the new government were all upper class, fairly wealthy, land-owning people. The vast majority of them were lawyers. While I have great respect for the founding fathers, let's not forget that none of the early politicians we had were poor, or even middle -class.

Politics do work. As a country we have always gone through periods of political turmoil and triumphs. Not everyone was happy with the way the early founding fathers goverened (look up the Whiskey Rebellion) and clearly the Civil War showed that not all was well within the Republic.

What do we argue about now? Abortion, a war in the Middle East that doesn't even occupy the majority of our army, same sex marriage? Compared to gaining independence, the slavery issue, manifest destiny, the issues we concern ourselves with today is nothing. Also remember, we only study and learn about the major issues that affected them, the minor issues like what we face today won't make it through the seas of time.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 9:18:13 AM EDT
So do you guys believe in self government?
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 9:21:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2006 9:50:42 AM EDT by gsu2720]
Pathfinder,

If you read my original post, you will not see a call to arms, or any advocacy of violence. I merely stated that I would have no problems with such action, if it ever came to that. As JusAdBellum stated on the first page, there are still options open. I am more than willing to exhaust every option available.

To be honest, I have not even pondered how a revolution would pan out. And I have no plans to find out, unless it should come to that.

Do not confuse my differing political views as my justification for revolution.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 9:25:06 AM EDT
Blue,

I am afraid that far too many people do not. They are far too comfortable, and not willing to sacrifice security for freedom. Granted, no one wants to live in fear, but I would be willing to give up security if it meant that I could live truly free.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 9:43:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By guardian855:
And while that is true, let's not forget that the leaders of the new government were all upper class, fairly wealthy, land-owning people. The vast majority of them were lawyers. While I have great respect for the founding fathers, let's not forget that none of the early politicians we had were poor, or even middle -class.



Well, I guess that poses the question... what is a more desirable attribute in a politician... greed or envy.

Our current politicians haven't much to envy... the majority of them are born into money of some sort or another.

Or would it be better to have a person in control who envies the people better off than him? Granted, given power over the country would quench their envy and their envy would more than likely be replaced with greed...

So either way you lose... Absolute power corrupts... wel you know the rest.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 9:54:01 AM EDT
Ha. Creo que tengo mas experiencia y educacion que Ud. Jorge.

Post grad. degree.

As for being illogical in my arguments....well if so, quote me and show using syllogisms where I went off the tracks. If you can, you win a convert. If you can't then once again you've asserted something without evidence or even an attempt to reason your way to your conclusion.

But first explain to me how kids don't learn by imitation and that what they see adults doing (and having fun doing) is somehow NOT going to make them want to follow suit. Go ahead Jorge. This oughta be good.



Link Posted: 1/31/2006 10:03:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By blue_bomber:
Gotta love how the gov. made us all dependent on them.



Well, they control the thing that the rest of the world fears. Out military. Take out the government you pretty well take out the military. Troops don't get paid and the shit hits the fan. Mess with the government, they bring in either the military or one of the several other body guard agencies they have created to protect themselves.

Yes, maybe it's better to just realize we are here for the government... not the government for us.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 10:08:06 AM EDT
check out the sig line for your answer
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 10:15:06 AM EDT
From this perspective.... I think the "end game" that is obviously where alot of us are looking toward is an increasingly informed, educated, and independent American citizenry who are less and less dependent on .gov agencies for jobs, education, security, food....

I've posted this before on survival forum.

Most of us are getting our stuff in order survival wise: able to assure ourselves of food, water, medicine, security, transport, etc. for up to a couple months without ANY local, state or federal handouts.

None of this requires us to be hostile to or disobedient of 'government'. Far from it, many of us are retired or active military, LEO, gov workers or workers who make up the whole governmental-industrial complex.

But the less we need, say, Social Security for our financial survival, the better.

And imagine if 10% of Americans became arfcommers. 30 million adults who had the education, training, and gear to guarantee as much as possible their safety and health without government aid.
That alone would have a profound political impact as the perceived need for so much pork would drop off and the incentive for pols to not pander would increase.

Hard? yes. But a hell of a lot easier to pull off than a revolution! And no one has to die in the process.

Independence is a way of life, not something bestowed by politicians anyway. If we all woke up tomorrow and the federal government (except DOD) was magically gone, there's be so much upheaval that we'd have to invent something almost identical to replace it. It will take time to ween people off the dependency (laziness) of government largess.

But again, it's far better to work within the still free and open system than to engage in pure fantasy about civil disobedience/revolution.


Top Top