# Revolution!!!



## Foxfyre (Aug 3, 2012)

REVOLUTION!!!! ​
(Disclaimer: This should not now or ever be construed that I am advocating an overthrow of our government. I would just as soon not have black helicopters hovering over the house and I don't want to wind up on the no fly list.)

But for speculation and discussion only:

From time to time in these political conversations, we have one or more members who think we are so completely screwed in this country, the only way out is to scrap the government we have, dust off the Constitution, and start over as it was in the beginning.   (Hmmm, that sounds almost Biblical doesn't it?)

Thomas Jefferson is quoted as noting the possibility that such would be necessary from time to time, and the concept is also included in the opening remarks of The Declaration of Independence.:

*"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. . . ."*​ 
What do you think. Deep down where you keep your most heartfelt convictions, fears, and longings, do you harbor such thoughts?


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 3, 2012)

The only possibly significant revolution cannot happen in the streets.

It has to happen between the ears.


----------



## Valerie (Aug 3, 2012)

No


----------



## Swagger (Aug 3, 2012)

I've always wanted to an answer to this question. Do you think a revolutionary could successfully dismiss charges of terrorism and/or murder upon referring to the clause contained in what you've quoted in a court of law?

Also, do you think that the U.S. military would sympathise, Constitutionally speaking, with revolutionaries they'd been tasked with confronting, and disobey their orders accordingly?


----------



## Swagger (Aug 3, 2012)

Coincidentally, though without wanting to distract from the OP, I've often contemplated the outcome of revolution within the EU, and the consequences/benefits of its dissolvement.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 3, 2012)

Swagger said:


> I've always wanted to an answer to this question. Do you think a revolutionary could successfully dismiss charges of terrorism and/or murder upon referring to the clause contained in what you've quoted in a court of law?
> 
> Also, do you think that the U.S. military would sympathise, Constitutionally speaking, with revolutionaries they'd been tasked with confronting, and disobey their orders accordingly?



To your first question no.  I can say it with impunity (though I would probably go on the government watch list), but should I act on it, I would be committing treason under our existing laws and subject to very severe penalities.

As to the second question, I don't know how the military would act if they were convinced an unconstitutional government was overthrown by the people--I rather think they would side with the people.  But. . . .the operative word is 'convinced' and that might be a tall order to accomplish.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 3, 2012)

Swagger said:


> I've always wanted to an answer to this question. Do you think a revolutionary could successfully dismiss charges of terrorism and/or murder upon referring to the clause contained in what you've quoted in a court of law?
> 
> Also, do you think that the U.S. military would sympathise, Constitutionally speaking, with revolutionaries they'd been tasked with confronting, and disobey their orders accordingly?



No.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 3, 2012)

Swagger said:


> Coincidentally, though without wanting to distract from the OP, I've often contemplated the outcome of revolution within the EU, and the consequences/benefits of its dissolvement.



And yes, you would be dealing with many of the same kinds of issues and consequences that we would should you attempt to remove what you believed was a corrupt and/or ineffective government.  The relationships within the E.U. would likely complicate that too.  The U.S. has no such relationship with any other country however so our would most likely be strictly a civil thing.

I'm sure it would generate a huge amount of interest from all other countries however.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 3, 2012)

Excellent OP.  

Couple of observations: revolutions can happen democratically (Nazi Germany).

Military units normally follow the officers appointed over them.  I don't think that a conspiracy within the general staff officership or among the division and corps commanders would withstand its own internal security requirements.  Somebodies would out the coup plotters far too early for them to have a chance.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 3, 2012)

I imagine one would have to ask what grounds would you be fomenting said revolution on?

Certainly not any of the trivial disagreements that partisans have been basing their political campaigns on recently...

There would have to be some pretty damn serious grounds for an actual uprising, and I can't see anything that's going on right now that would warrant it.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 3, 2012)

Vast LWC said:


> I imagine one would have to ask what grounds would you be fomenting said revolution on?
> 
> Certainly not any of the trivial disagreements that partisans have been basing their political campaigns on recently...
> 
> There would have to be some pretty damn serious grounds for an actual uprising, and I can't see anything that's going on right now that would warrant it.



I think the quoted section from the Declaration of Independence would have to be the basis.  Or a President overstepping his Constitutional authority indestructive ways and a Congress allowing him to do it.  Or a Congress passing oppressive taxes and running up the national debt into the stratosphere putting the entire nation at risk. . ..

I can see all manner of less than violent reasons to need to oust existing leaders and install new ones with a new mission.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 3, 2012)

The government is destructive because it's corrupt.  Politicians are owned by corporations and special interests.

We have let that happen.  Now we reap the consequences.  It doesn't make one iota of difference which administration is in the White House.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 3, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > I imagine one would have to ask what grounds would you be fomenting said revolution on?
> ...



There's already a mechanism in place for that.  A Constitutional Convention.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 3, 2012)

I would say that both the Tea Party Movement and the Occupy Wall Street Movement are indications that voters want a revolution with the way government is run.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 3, 2012)

Vast LWC said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



My understanding of a Constitutional Convention is for the purpose of amending the Constitution.

My understanding of the Founders' rationale for the need to replace a government is because it would refuse to follow or defend the spirit and intent of the Constitution.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 3, 2012)

Water the tree, baby.

That's all I got to say about that.


----------



## Caroljo (Aug 3, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> > I've always wanted to an answer to this question. Do you think a revolutionary could successfully dismiss charges of terrorism and/or murder upon referring to the clause contained in what you've quoted in a court of law?
> ...



I'm sure the majority of our military would side with the people....there are too many of them right now that are very angry with our govt.  My son (in the Army) and i have discussed this.........


----------



## Si modo (Aug 3, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Water the tree, baby.
> 
> That's all I got to say about that.


Too much water can rot the roots.


----------



## Vidi (Aug 3, 2012)

Yes I really do, but I think its very unlikely to EVER happen.

Any movement that could lead to Revolution would need leaders. Strong charismatic vocal leaders.


The SECOND of of us rises up to the point where we become an actual threat to the status quo, suddenly theyll be kicking in the door and child porn will be found on those leaders computers...even if the government has to put it there themselves.

And with the drum beating partisans on both sides, never really questioning anything their masters tell them to believe, the movement will die.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 3, 2012)

Too many cooks are gonna spoil the stew...


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 3, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> My understanding of a Constitutional Convention is for the purpose of amending the Constitution.
> 
> My understanding of the Founders' rationale for the need to replace a government is because it would refuse to follow or defend the spirit and intent of the Constitution.



Amend the constitution to place barriers between corporate entities and politicians, and you're halfway there.

No revolution needed.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Aug 3, 2012)

We have too many "career" politicians in Congress that become political powers in their own right.  I'm all for term limits.  Two terms and you're out of there.  Why not term limits for Congress critters?  We have term limits for our President.  Also the perks Congress critters receive is way over the top.  There should be no pension for life just because you got elected to Congress.  They should be required to be included in every law that they pass for the rest of the country.  In their own right, they have made themselves the "Lord and Masters" of our country.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 3, 2012)

That's why we have elections to meet those grounds, Foxfyre.



Foxfyre said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > I imagine one would have to ask what grounds would you be fomenting said revolution on?
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 3, 2012)

The military mind abhors treason, and convincing the leadership that a coup should occur would be almost impossible.




Caroljo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Swagger said:
> ...


----------



## MikeK (Aug 3, 2012)

Swagger said:


> [...]
> 
> Also, do you think that the U.S. military would sympathise, Constitutionally speaking, with revolutionaries they'd been tasked with confronting, and disobey their orders accordingly?


That is a very important question and it refers directly to the reason why suspending the draft was a bad idea.  The simple fact is a conscripted soldier is a citizen soldier, while the volunteer soldiers we have today, much like police officers, have been _hired_ by the government.  For the vast majority of today's military personnel, their "service" is in fact a chosen occupation, not a patriotic obligation as it was when the draft was active.  

I'm not suggesting that conscripts could not be deployed against rebellious citizens.  But conscripts would be far more inclined to question the reason for such deployment than would our mercenary troopers, most of whom are more circumstantially analogous to police than conscripted soldiers are.  And without an extremely good reason it would be close to impossible to turn citizen soldiers against their fellow citizens.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 3, 2012)

MikeK said:


> That is a very important question and it refers directly to the reason why suspending the draft was a bad idea.  The simple fact is a conscripted soldier is a citizen soldier, while the volunteer soldiers we have today, much like police officers, have been _hired_ by the government.  For the vast majority of today's military personnel, their "service" is in fact a chosen occupation, not a patriotic obligation as it was when the draft was active.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that conscripts could not be deployed against rebellious citizens.  But conscripts would be far more inclined to question the reason for such deployment than would our mercenary troopers, most of whom who are more circumstantially analogous to police than conscripted soldiers are.  And without an extremely good reason it would be close to impossible to turn citizen soldiers against their fellow citizens.



I'm sorry, I know this is the clean zone, but MY GOD I find that offensive.

Are you really suggesting that the military is made up of mercenaries that have no sense of patriotism, and are only motivated to join the military for the money?

Wow.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 3, 2012)

As a citizen enlistee who transitioned through the beginning of the voluntary armed forces,  I don't think anyone is trying to be offensive.  I don't think so, at least. 

The conscript was tied to his home community, and tens of thousands of home communities were tied to the military because of the draft of millions of conscriptees.  Seventeen thousand Americans died in 1968, which along with Tet shook the core of America as the coffins came home to seventeen thousand families and thousands of communities.

The triumphs and losses of a conscript army affect the national conscience and awareness far more than a voluntary army.




Vast LWC said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > That is a very important question and it refers directly to the reason why suspending the draft was a bad idea.  The simple fact is a conscripted soldier is a citizen soldier, while the volunteer soldiers we have today, much like police officers, have been _hired_ by the government.  For the vast majority of today's military personnel, their "service" is in fact a chosen occupation, not a patriotic obligation as it was when the draft was active.
> ...


----------



## Vidi (Aug 3, 2012)

Vast LWC said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > That is a very important question and it refers directly to the reason why suspending the draft was a bad idea.  The simple fact is a conscripted soldier is a citizen soldier, while the volunteer soldiers we have today, much like police officers, have been _hired_ by the government.  For the vast majority of today's military personnel, their "service" is in fact a chosen occupation, not a patriotic obligation as it was when the draft was active.
> ...



No offense man but I think you're reading his post with your dukes up ready to fight. ( perfectly understandable as the clean zone is still new to us ) 

I didn't get the same message that you got at all.

I see his statement as one of A conscript is more likely to disobey because they didn't choose to be in the device in the first place.


----------



## hortysir (Aug 3, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsxBSXWqH4c]Revolution - The Beatles - YouTube[/ame]



> *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*




**** looking for the "Reset" button" ****


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 3, 2012)

> From time to time in these political conversations, we have one or more members who think we are so completely screwed in this country, the only way out is to scrap the government we have, dust off the Constitution, and start over as it was in the beginning.



One fails to see why, the Constitution needs no dusting off, its functioning now as it has since the beginning of the Republic, just as the Framers intended. 



> "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"


In essence this was codified by the 14th Amendment, where the Bill of Rights is applied to the states and local jurisdictions via incorporation doctrine. Because ones rights are indeed inalienable, they can be violated by no man or government, nor by the majority of the people through referenda.  

The notion of let the states decide, therefore, is clearly anathema to the principle of inalienable rights. 



> "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. . . ."



The above might be an appropriate response if one were subject to autocratic rule or to the tyranny of the majority, which may have been the case prior to the Foundation Era. 

But thats not the case today. Today the people are subject only to the rule of law, the government is limited by the Constitution and its case law, and the people have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances by filing suit in Federal court to seek remedy of government excess. 

Government cant be fixed by some grandiose top town scheme, the solution lies with the people working at the very local level.


----------



## Samson (Aug 3, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> REVOLUTION!!!! ​
> (Disclaimer: This should not now or ever be construed that I am advocating an overthrow of our government. I would just as soon not have black helicopters hovering over the house and I don't want to wind up on the no fly list.)
> 
> But for speculation and discussion only:
> ...



The right of the people to alter or abolish One Govenment, and replace it with ANOTHER government could easily be interpreted as simply voting differently: It doesn't necessarily mean revolution = tyranical blood running through the streets.

However, Jefferson was a something of a Francophile: he might have very well meant a "Reign of Terror," 1793-'94, perpetrated by the "Hope and Change" advocate of the day, Maximilien Robespierre.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 3, 2012)

Vast LWC said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > That is a very important question and it refers directly to the reason why suspending the draft was a bad idea.  The simple fact is a conscripted soldier is a citizen soldier, while the volunteer soldiers we have today, much like police officers, have been _hired_ by the government.  For the vast majority of today's military personnel, their "service" is in fact a chosen occupation, not a patriotic obligation as it was when the draft was active.
> ...



I didn't get that from his post.  However, if you were a dictator laying the foundation for a takeover of the government, and could handpick who would head the Dept of Defense, who would choose the high ranking officers who in turn could hand pick who is accepted into the Armed Forces. . . . .I'm sure you see where I am going with this.

Every would be dictator makes sure he has a majority of the military with him before he makes his move.

The only flaw in Mike's analysis is that the same would be dubious forces could also control who was drafted into the army, so I think that particular issue is not a factor.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 3, 2012)

Jefferson apparently had no problem with the governors of VA and PA mobilizing the militia in early 1801 if the Federalists and Burr continued obstructing his elevation to the presidency.  However, he also recognized the constitutional, electoral process.

Too bad that the Southern states did not, in 1860 and 1861.



Samson said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > REVOLUTION!!!! ​
> ...


----------



## IGetItAlready (Aug 3, 2012)

We're certainly doing everything possible to turn our backs on the things that have made this nation the envy of the world for over a century. That's not going to change by itself. 
If there is NOT another American revolution we will soon cease to be "America" as defined by 236 years of unparallelled history.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Aug 3, 2012)

Vast LWC said:


> I imagine one would have to ask what grounds would you be fomenting said revolution on?
> 
> Certainly not any of the trivial disagreements that partisans have been basing their political campaigns on recently...
> 
> There would have to be some pretty damn serious grounds for an actual uprising, and I can't see anything that's going on right now that would warrant it.


 You can start to look at the instances where the Bill of Rights and the Constitution have been circumvented, and first on that list would be the creation of the Fed Reserve private central banking system that has put the US people in perpetual debt that can never be repaid and is a huge reason for the global financial "crisis".

The American government has swung towards a more Fascist system in which profits are privatized, and debt is socialized.
There are many reasons for wanting to reverse the course we're on, and it's not so much
of a revolution with a complete overhaul and new government that is needed, as it is adhering to the original ideas the framers of the Constitution had in mind, and reinstalling a legitimate, honest and fair government that empowers the majority of people,and not just the elite minority, who through _our_ elected (selected) leaders are dictating and controlling our lives against our will, and to our detriment.
But it seems people of good moral standing and integrity are very rare as evidenced by all the back door shenanigans and corruption. Notice how they always manage to sneak in
those riders that end up being put in our laws, usually at the request of lobbyists that benefit campaign _donors _ It's all about money and greed payoffs.
Our money to satisfy their greed.
 Doesn't matter what side of the isle their on, that's a false paradigm, and trick used on us to keep us bickering over the small stuff. 
 Politicians have a license to steal that enriches them and their benefactors which should be obviously clear by now, doesn't include the American people.

Psychological testing of proposed leaders would be nice, as the tyrannical psychopaths hell bent on war for profit need to be removed, and the revolving door of propaganda, lies, disinformation and the money that is used to keep it oiled and spinning has to be dismantled.
Good thread by the OP, but the paranoia of being put on the no fly list or of being monitored is proof enough that this government has instilled a climate of fear and forced complacency, where it should be the other way around.
Educating ourselves and not believing every single thing that comes from their lying mouths, and repeated ad nauseum by segments of the controlled media as factual, is a good place to start. How much longer will we continue to be gullible?
Do we need a revolution? Yes a peaceful one is preferred and can be achieved, but the PTB won't let the sheep protest and crash the pen and flee the farm without a roundup under the guise of "anti-terrorism" or "national emergency", and are readying themselves for just this scenario.
United we stand, divided we all fall never had more relevance or urgency.

BTW I answered under "no, but we need a good overhaul" however this wont be allowed and thus any advancement towards any overhaul will be met with resistance, and consequently lead to a peaceful protest/ revolution and where it goes from there is dependent on how unified the people are. Why do you think they keep us arguing and divided??


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 3, 2012)

Conservatives and liberals are now so far apart that there is no point on which compromise can be reached.  The left consistently toys with their idea of the great revolution.   They believe they are in the majority and that once started, the majority will rise up and create the great utopia.    At some point they will have to move beyond the rhetoric and do something.   Otherwise they will lose all credibility.   They tried with the OWS protests, they will try again.  This is something that can't be stopped.


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 3, 2012)

Politicians don't keep us arguing and divided.  Politicians merely reflect the argument and division in the population.

If there were no politicians would the people reach consensus on redistribution of wealth, same sex marriage, gun control?   Would the business class reach agreement with the parasite class on how much the parasits would be allowed to confiscate?


----------



## dblack (Aug 3, 2012)

Vast LWC said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > My understanding of a Constitutional Convention is for the purpose of amending the Constitution.
> ...



This is along the lines of what I'd like to see. We need something like the separation of church and state keeping government and economic power from being concentrated in the same hands. But I don't see a lot of support for the concept in the general public.


----------



## dblack (Aug 3, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Politicians don't keep us arguing and divided.  Politicians merely reflect the argument and division in the population.



This is hilariously wrong. Politicians give lip-service to real ideological divides among voters, but when elected they serve the same agenda - regardless of their rhetoric or political affiliation.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 3, 2012)

dblack said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Politicians don't keep us arguing and divided.  Politicians merely reflect the argument and division in the population.
> ...



Yes and that agenda is to keep themselves in office where they focus on what increases their personal power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth.  Which ties into my companion thread:  A New Emancipation Proclamation that compliments this one.  And they have corrupted the Constitution with the idea that they can do ANYTHING if the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit it.

Only by removing our elected leaders' ability to use their office to increase their personal power, influence, prestige, and personal wealth can we hope to ever again elect public servants to high office who will revert to the intent of a government restricted to those things the Constituion explicity allows/mandates it to do.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 3, 2012)

No.  Never thought of actual revolution over the current set of circumstances.  Why?  Because we are always focused on how things are so horrible today that no other time has been so bad.  The fact is that this type of thinking is rather bunk.  I do believe that we are headed in the complete wrong direction and that many of the problems we face could, indeed bring the country down.  I dont believe that our problems are more insurmountable than the past though.  We need change and, quite frankly, change is guaranteed to happen.  The question is how much pain it is going to be to get there.  The sooner we address our loss of liberty, the simpler it will be to get on track.



Swagger said:


> I've always wanted to an answer to this question. Do you think a revolutionary could successfully dismiss charges of terrorism and/or murder upon referring to the clause contained in what you've quoted in a court of law?
> 
> Also, do you think that the U.S. military would sympathise, Constitutionally speaking, with revolutionaries they'd been tasked with confronting, and disobey their orders accordingly?


Yes, as a matter of fact I am sure of it.  As the other poster pointed out, conscripts might be even more likely but even the regular army would largely refuse to fight against their own people.  We are Americans and those would be our friends and neighbors that we would be asked to fight.  I am one of those that would simply walk away should the government ever ask me to fight the American people themselves.

See the oathkeepers a good example.  Many of their members are active military personnel.
Oath Keepers » Oath Keepers &#8211; Guardians of the Republic


----------



## MikeK (Aug 4, 2012)

FA_Q2 said:


> Yes, as a matter of fact I am sure of it.  As the other poster pointed out, conscripts might be even more likely but even the regular army would largely refuse to fight against their own people.  We are Americans and those would be our friends and neighbors that we would be asked to fight.  I am one of those that would simply walk away should the government ever ask me to fight the American people themselves.


Whenever I contemplate this issue I'm reminded of the infamous _Bonus Army_ rout which you might be aware of.  But for the benefit of those who aren't, about 20,000 veterans of WW-I who had been impoverished and made homeless by the Depression had formed a massive protest in which they marched en masse on Washington to demand that President Hoover authorize payment of all or some part of the enlistment bonus which had been promised to them and never paid.  These veterans gathered and established an encampment just outside Washington DC which came to be called "Hooverville" and consisted of many tents and fabricated shacks.

President Hoover sent police to remove that encampment.  When the vets resisted several of them were shot and killed but they refused to leave.  Hoover then ordered the Army to remove them.  

Commanding units of the U.S. Army Infantry, a Cavalry unit and some tanks, General Douglas MacArthur (the same) attacked and routed the encampment of veterans, many of whom he once commanded in battle, killing several of the veterans and wounding others, including their wives and children.  He drove the veterans away and burned their tents, shacks and meager personal belongings.  

Details of this incident are available via Google.  



> See the oathkeepers a good example.  Many of their members are active military personnel.
> Oath Keepers » Oath Keepers &#8211; Guardians of the Republic


I'd heard of _Oath Keepers_ but I knew nothing about them until I visited that website (thanks).  It seems to be an important organization.


----------



## onecut39 (Aug 4, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > I imagine one would have to ask what grounds would you be fomenting said revolution on?
> ...



Just a couple of considerations.

The Declaration is simply a political paper with no authority in law.  

The Declaration was written in 1776 and was more of a listing of the reasons for going to war rather than a statement of government.  

Our Constitution would not appear for another 11 years.  It is my opinion that the ability to "alter or abolish" government was part and parcel of the constitution in that the alteration or changes could come via the ballot box.

I don't think the constitution authorizes revolution.  

Most of those now who speak so patriotically about revolution simply dislike being outvoted.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 4, 2012)

As a government becomes more corrupt citizens feel less inclined to follow the rules and obligations.  It will simply fall under its own weight.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 4, 2012)

onecut39 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



You are correct that the Declaration carried force of law only in the sense that it was the mutual agreement by which the American colonies took up arms to wrest their independence from England.  And I'm quite sure that all those good people who conducted all the debate and conversations and speeches and correspondence during all the years that the content and character of the Constitution were hammered out each had a framed copy of the Declaration on their desk to remind them of what they intended to achieve.

But no, the Constitution does not provide for revolution.  It does provide for amendment, however, and theoretically successful amendments could abolish the Senate, the House, and the Presidency.

Under Article I, Section 5, clause 2, of the Constitution, a Member of Congress may be removed from office before the normal expiration of his or her constitutional term of office by a two thirds vote of those expelling the member.  And we in the states can also hold elections to recall those we send to Washington.   A President or Supreme Court justice can be impeached. 

All this could be a means of accomplishing a bloodless revolution and replacement of the existing one with public servants rather than career politicians.  We could complete the process with yet another amendment along the lines of the New Emancipation Proclamation--see separate thread in the CDZ--to ensure that the new government did not fall into the same self-serving destructive patterns as the old.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 4, 2012)

The government grows more corrupt if the citizenry grows more corrupt in our nation.



saveliberty said:


> As a government becomes more corrupt citizens feel less inclined to follow the rules and obligations.  It will simply fall under its own weight.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 4, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The government grows more corrupt if the citizenry grows more corrupt in our nation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That will happen when a government encourages bad behavior.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 4, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Water the tree, baby.
> 
> That's all I got to say about that.



I concur


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 4, 2012)

Citizens in our country get the government they earn and deserve.  

If citizens are civically virtuous, they will have good government.

If the government tries to be bad, civically virtuous citizens will vote it out.

But it the citizens are corrupt, the government will be corrupt.

I believe that the far left and the far right political extremes are corrupt in this nation.

Romney, hopefully, will bring power back to right of center to left of center.



saveliberty said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The government grows more corrupt if the citizenry grows more corrupt in our nation.
> ...


----------



## William Joyce (Aug 4, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> I believe that the far left and the far right political extremes are corrupt in this nation.
> 
> Romney, hopefully, will bring power back to right of center to left of center.



Nah.  The "far left" and the "far right" are the closest we have to anything with integrity and principle.  The rest is just part of the rotting machine.  I mean really, the "far left" and the "far right" have no POWER, so how can they be CORRUPT?  To be corrupt, you need to actually have your hands on the levers of power -- nobody greases your palms otherwise.  Romney is as much of a tool as Obama, Bush, etc.  These guys don't know what's going on.  That's why they're allowed to rise so high.

Revolution is indeed an exciting topic.  I suspect the fall of the U.S.A. will happen in my lifetime or shortly after (I'm 40).  It will probably end with more of a whimper than a bang:  sudden violent revolutions happen in places with more compactness;  we're a vast nation with tons of different places, languages, races, etc.  

Who knows what the trigger events will be.  Read "The Collapse of Complex Societies", it's got some interesting material on this topic.


----------



## Peach (Aug 4, 2012)

We are fortunate enough to live in the greatest nation earth; yet, daily, I read more and more hard core complainers. *Edited* Forget "proud to be an American", try "THANK GOD I WAS BORN IN THIS COUNTRY".


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 4, 2012)

A gentle reminder to folks just now coming into the thread that this thread is in the CDZ.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 4, 2012)

William Joyce said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that the far left and the far right political extremes are corrupt in this nation.
> ...



The United States began and has continued to be unique among nations, however, because of its exceptionalism.  We are the only people on Earth who started out with unalienable rights and devised a government to protect them.  In every other nation, the government assigns the rights the people will have.

Now admittedly we have too many people (and elected leaders) who have never been taught that concept or who are now depending on the entitlement nanny state mentality to keep it deeply buried.  For if we should have a resurgence of understanding and commitment to restoring that concept, we immediately solve most of the problems we have in this county.

And in my opinion, that would be the purpose of a revolution.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 4, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> A gentle reminder to folks just now coming into the thread that this thread is in the CDZ.



That's why I hate this board there should be some type of notice before you post.,


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 4, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > A gentle reminder to folks just now coming into the thread that this thread is in the CDZ.
> ...



Yeah, I was tripped up once too, but it taught me to check the forum before I enter a new thread.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 4, 2012)

Since the liberals in government (including the judicial branch - such as Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan) fundamentally reject the United States Constitution, I'm not sure I see a way to "fix" the problem through the proper channels. If even the judicial branch is corrupted by Communism/Marxism/Socialism, the checks and balances cease to exist (as seen by the Supreme Court upholding the glaringly unconstitutional Obamacare).

If all representatives of all branches actually upheld the Constitution they swore an oath to uphold and protect, then the cancer known as liberals/progressives wouldn't be an issue. But since they blatantly violate the law and disregard the legal document that protects us, I really don't see a way of fixing the problem short of force. If they won't adhere to the ultimate law of the land out of integrity and oath, then we pretty much have to do it by force.

As Thomas Jefferson also said, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots (conservatives) and tyrants (liberals)".

I think it's a damn shame, but I suspect it is true...


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 4, 2012)

Rottweiler said:


> Since the liberals in government (including the judicial branch - such as Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan) fundamentally reject the United States Constitution, I'm not sure I see a way to "fix" the problem through the proper channels. If even the judicial branch is corrupted by Communism/Marxism/Socialism, the checks and balances cease to exist (as seen by the Supreme Court upholding the glaringly unconstitutional Obamacare).
> 
> If all representatives of all branches actually upheld the Constitution they swore an oath to uphold and protect, then the cancer known as liberals/progressives wouldn't be an issue. But since they blatantly violate the law and disregard the legal document that protects us, I really don't see a way of fixing the problem short of force. If they won't adhere to the ultimate law of the land out of integrity and oath, then we pretty much have to do it by force.
> 
> ...



I've given my two cents in "The New Emancipation Proclamation" thread (also in the CDZ) with a resolution as the first step in restoring original intent of the Constitution. 

This would allow us to restore the government to public servants instead of career politician and bureaucrats whose No. 1 focus is on feathering their own nests.

The second thing that needs to happen is to restore the Founders intent that the President, Congress, and bureaucrats were limited to only what the Constitution specifically allows or instructs them to do.

The figures you mentioned and most of our elecgted leaders these days take the position that they can do any damn thing these please if the Constitution doesn't specifically forbid it.

That turns the normal checks and balances the Founders intended on their head.


----------



## Intense (Aug 4, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Constitutional Amendment Process is for Amending the Constitution. Constitutional Convention, everything is on the table. I don't support a Constitutional Convention. Think Mark Levin. Conservatism is built on staying with what works, Tailoring to need and circumstance, building on existing Foundation, without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Change for the sake of change is disguised Tyranny, change that better establishes and Maintains the cause of Justice, is by established purpose. Different animals.


----------



## Intense (Aug 4, 2012)

Sky Dancer said:


> The government is destructive because it's corrupt.  Politicians are owned by corporations and special interests.
> 
> We have let that happen.  Now we reap the consequences.  It doesn't make one iota of difference which administration is in the White House.



You might be overlooking who owns or controls the Corporations.


----------



## Intense (Aug 4, 2012)

Vast LWC said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > My understanding of a Constitutional Convention is for the purpose of amending the Constitution.
> ...



Squash the Power to Monopolize and open up competition.


----------



## Intense (Aug 4, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The military mind abhors treason, and convincing the leadership that a coup should occur would be almost impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'd agree. A well disciplined Military will generally follow orders, add the chaos factor and by time things get sorted out, it's already over.


----------



## Intense (Aug 4, 2012)

Rottweiler said:


> Since the liberals in government (including the judicial branch - such as Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan) fundamentally reject the United States Constitution, I'm not sure I see a way to "fix" the problem through the proper channels. If even the judicial branch is corrupted by Communism/Marxism/Socialism, the checks and balances cease to exist (as seen by the Supreme Court upholding the glaringly unconstitutional Obamacare).
> 
> If all representatives of all branches actually upheld the Constitution they swore an oath to uphold and protect, then the cancer known as liberals/progressives wouldn't be an issue. But since they blatantly violate the law and disregard the legal document that protects us, I really don't see a way of fixing the problem short of force. If they won't adhere to the ultimate law of the land out of integrity and oath, then we pretty much have to do it by force.
> 
> ...



Numbers, not Force. Focused Numbers.


----------



## American Horse (Aug 4, 2012)

I would like to see a constitutional convention, or at least a very serious threat of one.  I fear that when one gets close, the pols will try to ignore it, and it will have to wend it's way through the courts to come to fruition.


----------



## American Horse (Aug 4, 2012)

Intense said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The military mind abhors treason, and convincing the leadership that a coup should occur would be almost impossible.
> ...



There were instances in revolutionary Germany (1918-19) when revolutionaries were armed, and battle hardened German troops straight from the battlefield refused to fire on them or take their arms. They mutinied. It didn't happen until irregulars, the Friecorps were organized from estranged remnants of the army. These were not regular military, they were rogues who had military training or had seen action, and were very low quality compared to the former defeated army.


----------



## Intense (Aug 4, 2012)

American Horse said:


> I would like to see a constitutional convention, or at least a very serious threat of one.  I fear that when one gets close, the pols will try to ignore it, and it will have to wend it's way through the courts to come to fruition.



My concern with a Constitutional Convention is I envision the final result over 500,000 Pages long, filled with the writings of Lobbyists, manipulated by big money, be it private, business, union, each fighting over the pie, with little or no concern for principle or ideal. Entitlement mentality is something we just cannot overcome, where we are now. One step at a time. As a Functioning Government and Society, we are a fail, right now. There is no trust, nor should there be. We trash this Constitution, as it stands, and we will move through Chaos to Hard Tyranny, where only Privilege can buy comfort from the storm.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 5, 2012)

Intense said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to see a constitutional convention, or at least a very serious threat of one.  I fear that when one gets close, the pols will try to ignore it, and it will have to wend it's way through the courts to come to fruition.
> ...



Which there is the problem. The government will continue doing as it does, 
OR
We bring it down by force.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 5, 2012)

The German society in 1918 to 1921 was in great turmoil.  No such condition exists today or will exist in the near future.



American Horse said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


----------



## American Horse (Aug 5, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The German society in 1918 to 1921 was in great turmoil.  No such condition exists today or will exist in the near future.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lest you failed to note; my comment was intended to give a prime example of the calm hand of military in revolutionary conditions.  They stood aside.

That was Germany, a society with a classical-rational descendancy.  The French might have been different with a romantic-emotional descendancy. I point that out because America's founders were classical philosophical descendants.


----------



## SayMyName (Aug 5, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> REVOLUTION!!!! ​
> (Disclaimer: This should not now or ever be construed that I am advocating an overthrow of our government. I would just as soon not have black helicopters hovering over the house and I don't want to wind up on the no fly list.)
> 
> But for speculation and discussion only:
> ...



No. We don't need a revolution. There is no taxation without representation as in the days of our founding fathers. Slavery is not an issue either, nor an issue as similar. Only in the minds of those that somehow believe that they are not getting their just due, or some similar ideology, exists the feeling that we should go to arms or march against the government in revolt.

If our right to vote was taken away, we might come close. But issues such as gay marriage, abortion, Federal spending, and many more, are not topics to take to arms for if one has their senses intact. Our democratic process is taking care of those issues just fine on the floors of our government.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 5, 2012)

SayMyName said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > REVOLUTION!!!! ​
> ...



Was the American people represented when obamatax became law?
Rights you did not mention that has been taken away 
due process
giving the military the authority to detain American citizens without cause.
Right to privacy 

There are three reasons the founders declared their independence from England.


----------



## SayMyName (Aug 5, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> SayMyName said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Unfortunately, "ObamaCare" was duly voted for on the floors of our government and signed into law. The system showed how it is supposed to work. I am not for it, but I rest assured that our democratic process spoke.

Due process in time could be an issue. At this time, the vast majority of criminal cases are justly handled and reflect well those working within the judicial and law enforcement arenas of our country. In cases of terrorism, you might be right, but, precedent has been set countless times in the past for reasons of national security. We can not protest them now under a new president, when we excepted them under another.

Right to privacy? Again, I don't see how most people are going to take up arms against the government at this time and on this issue, not when most believe that they don't have 
anything to worry about, since they aren't doing anything wrong. Regardless whether that thought process is true or not.

Again, our nation is changing. It is changing in ways in which we may not like. To call for revolution at this time because of the current changes may be somewhat premature.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 5, 2012)

"The German society in 1918 to 1921 was in great turmoil. No such condition exists today or will exist in the near future."

Perhaps we hope it will not become that bad, but there is every possibility that it will be worse, especially with the apparent lack of intelligence and humanity we see on the world stage.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 5, 2012)

SayMyName said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > SayMyName said:
> ...





> Unfortunately, "ObamaCare" was duly voted for on the floors of our government and signed into law. The system showed how it is supposed to work. I am not for it, but I rest assured that our democratic process spoke.



obamatax was voted on but was not supported by the majority of Americans therefore their was no representation.




> Due process in time could be an issue. At this time, the vast majority of criminal cases are justly handled and reflect well those working within the judicial and law enforcement arenas of our country. In cases of terrorism, you might be right, but, precedent has been set countless times in the past for reasons of national security. We can not protest them now under a new president, when we excepted them under another.



In time it maybe an issue? If it's not an issue by now it will never be an issue to you until your due process is attacked and by that time it's to late to cry about it. Due process clause was lost under the current president so why can't we protest it now?




> Again, our nation is changing. It is changing in ways in which we may not like. To call for revolution at this time because of the current changes may be somewhat premature.


The change you speak of is not good and is carrying us back to the exact thing the founders revolted from.


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 5, 2012)

We've had several revolutions in America starting with the nation's founding.  Consider the Civil war or even its aftermath which seems sometimes to continue.  State rights versus federal rights. Small revolutions in thinking occur often too. The Great Depression, due to both its scale and widespread impact, created a sense of unity that has since dissipated. Corporate reaction to the New Deal lead to another revolution that made markets a sort of gawd in the minds of many. That continues. Civil rights from Truman, Eisenhower, and LBJ was a revolution in thought and social interaction. Race riots were a revolution of sorts. Consider the women's movement and its backlash along with economic and medical changes that changed the marital relationship. Consider now the gay revolution for equal rights, and even look back at the various immigrant changes in the nature of the country. Consider the many laws and supreme court rulings that have altered the social landscape. A more drastic revolution will only come to America if we grew too close to third world status, and some figure or figures of great rhetorical skills beats a drum for change. My somewhat cynical comment on revolution is in thread below. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/181170-revolutions-and-the-people.html

And for those interested in ideas check out Peter Watson's 'The Modern Mind' or his other books.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 5, 2012)

To say nothing of technological revolutions that had massive social and political consequences.


----------



## The Gadfly (Aug 5, 2012)

SayMyName said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > SayMyName said:
> ...


True, and in the absence of some drastic change/actions we cannot anticipate,armed revolt is an unlikely possibility. 

What may be a far more realistic worry, is that increasing social,political, ethnic, economic and even regional divides in America could rupture entirely, possibly leading to civil disorder and even armed conflict. The trigger for such a thing could be something like a major national calamity the the federal government could not adequately respond to ( disease pandemic, collapse of the power grid, etc.) or a major economic dislocation (the present one, while bad enough, is not of sufficient severity-think something where the real unemployment rate is 25-30% or more, or complete collapse of the banking/credit system). Something like that could loosen government control enough for the nation to split, along lines we cannot precisely predict, and the military, depending on the nature of the triggering event, might not be able to immediately respond effectively, or in some areas able to respond at all. Fighting would likely begin with food riots and starvation in major cities, which would soon become uninhabitable. What might happen beyond that, and in what form the nation would survive, is anyone's guess, but the casualties would be enormous, and the survivors might find themselves in a subsistence situation for quite some time. It seems likely that the major urban centers and their immediate surroundings would be the greatest losers in such an event (with all that implies politically), if that ends up mattering in the end. In all, not a pleasant scenario to contemplate, but one which could become more likely given a society that is far less resilient and more divided today than it was during the Great Depression.


----------



## Intense (Aug 5, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > American Horse said:
> ...



Or Force of Argument.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 5, 2012)

There will only be repetition of past errors until the revolution happens in the mind of each person.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Aug 5, 2012)

Si modo said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Water the tree, baby.
> ...



The roots are already rotten.  It's time to uproot the rotten stump and plant anew.


----------



## Intense (Aug 5, 2012)

gallantwarrior said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Remember the French Revolution? Blind masses, killing anyone who owned anything, or that could read or count. We don't need more of the blind leading the blind. We need a true and balanced scale.


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 5, 2012)

If we had a revolution Obama would be using Drone attacks on the rebels.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 5, 2012)

This is not an entirely accurate description of the French revolution, but what importance details? 
Perhaps the Khmer Rouge.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 5, 2012)

I think those of us who know revolution must happen or we lose the America we have known and loved do need to act though.

We need to get behind the Tea Party spirit, 9/12ers, tax reformers, and constitutionalist groups all who are working to bring us back closer to the Founders' original intent.

We have to get past politics by insult that just exacerbates the divisions and sets people more firmly in their positions and rather start educating by persuasion.  We need to keep the real statistics, the real facts, and the positive principles out there until they become as much a part of the national psyche as the fake ones are.

And I really do think we are going to have to adopt something at least sort of like the resolution in the New Emancipation Proclamation thread in order to oust the career politicians and bureaucrats and re-establish a representative government committed to the Constitution and a stronger, better America.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 5, 2012)

You think this govt is bad??!! In the 80's when I hung out in the OKNG, USAR and regular overtime Army, I talk to alot of vets that was pissed about Reagan starving out us to give to the rich so they could trickle-piss down upon us, these fellas were very serious about armed revolt against the US govt. they had been stealing weapons, at once such place, (I was ther '84-'85 engineer btn)95th Div. Manuver Training and Command, a captain had been stealing from the place and had set charges up the wall to go off after he had started a fire under them, to cover up what he was doing.
The saying of the day was kill them all and let God sort it out and we start with a new members of govt.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Aug 5, 2012)

FA_Q2 said:


> No.  Never thought of actual revolution over the current set of circumstances.  Why?  Because we are always focused on how things are so horrible today that no other time has been so bad.  The fact is that this type of thinking is rather bunk.  I do believe that we are headed in the complete wrong direction and that many of the problems we face could, indeed bring the country down.  I dont believe that our problems are more insurmountable than the past though.  We need change and, quite frankly, change is guaranteed to happen.  The question is how much pain it is going to be to get there.  The sooner we address our loss of liberty, the simpler it will be to get on track.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not to worry, the One Worlders have already begun implementing they contingency plans:

Russian Troops To Target Terrorists in America As Part of Drill&#8230;Joint U.S.-Russian anti-terror exercise stokes fears of martial law&#8230;updated | Project World Awareness

Comprehensive List Of FEMA Camps - govtslaves.info :


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 5, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > If we had a revolution Obama would be using Drone attacks on the rebels.
> ...



Doubtful..

It's against the constitution to murder Americans in your own country. I don't care whose side they're on.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 5, 2012)

"It's against the constitution to murder Americans in your own country. I don't care whose side they're on."

What happened in the Civil War?


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 5, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> I think those of us who know revolution must happen or we lose the America we have known and loved do need to act though.
> 
> We need to get behind the Tea Party spirit, 9/12ers, tax reformers, and constitutionalist groups all who are working to bring us back closer to the Founders' original intent.
> 
> ...



Hopefully some laws against cronyism and nepotism are addressed, gaft laws, get  the money lobbiest out of Congress and demand a balanced budget, except in a time of war or disaster.Lets those wise old money men Jewish fellowsrun things and invest the left over revenue, and audit the fed, I bet they have no idea the exact numbers that exists there.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 5, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> What happened in the Civil War?



people died


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 5, 2012)

mudwhistle said:


> If we had a revolution Obama would be using Drone attacks on the rebels.



You assume more than you can prove which is illogical.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 5, 2012)

It is also against the law to murder Americans in China, Russia, England, Japan...


----------



## gallantwarrior (Aug 5, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> William Joyce said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Unfortunatly, before the garden can bring forth a bounty, the weeds must be uprooted and removed.  It's a painful process for the weeds, and they do seem to come back periodically.


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 5, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > If we had a revolution Obama would be using Drone attacks on the rebels.
> ...



It's illogical to think everyone can prove what they assume.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 5, 2012)

gallantwarrior said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > William Joyce said:
> ...



Do you think there is a will to do the uprooting?   Is there any way to expect change so long as the career politicians and bureaucrats in Washington are able to use our money to enrich and advantage themselves?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 5, 2012)

So would have Bush and so will Romney, if it happens.

What's your point?





mudwhistle said:


> If we had a revolution Obama would be using Drone attacks on the rebels.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 5, 2012)

Wow, your eyes must be rolling in opposite directions in your head.  Wow!



gallantwarrior said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > No.  Never thought of actual revolution over the current set of circumstances.  Why?  Because we are always focused on how things are so horrible today that no other time has been so bad.  The fact is that this type of thinking is rather bunk.  I do believe that we are headed in the complete wrong direction and that many of the problems we face could, indeed bring the country down.  I dont believe that our problems are more insurmountable than the past though.  We need change and, quite frankly, change is guaranteed to happen.  The question is how much pain it is going to be to get there.  The sooner we address our loss of liberty, the simpler it will be to get on track.
> ...


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 5, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> So would have Bush and so will Romney, if it happens.
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> ...



"I'm having what he said." 

Absolutely, no doubt, affirmative.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 5, 2012)

"No. Never thought of actual revolution over the current set of circumstances. Why? Because we are always focused on how things are so horrible today that no other time has been so bad. The fact is that this type of thinking is rather bunk. I do believe that we are headed in the complete wrong direction and that many of the problems we face could, indeed bring the country down. I don&#8217;t believe that our problems are more insurmountable than the past though. We need change and, quite frankly, change is guaranteed to happen. The question is how much pain it is going to be to get there."

An enlightened view.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 5, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> "No. Never thought of actual revolution over the current set of circumstances. Why? Because we are always focused on how things are so horrible today that no other time has been so bad. The fact is that this type of thinking is rather bunk. I do believe that we are headed in the complete wrong direction and that many of the problems we face could, indeed bring the country down. I don&#8217;t believe that our problems are more insurmountable than the past though. We need change and, quite frankly, change is guaranteed to happen. The question is how much pain it is going to be to get there."
> 
> An enlightened view.



Is there no room to argue that the current and projected deficits with a Congress and President who seem determined to increase them in at least the short term, a down graded credit rating, and a national debt that the current generation cannot imagine paying down coupled with a pro-world-government and an anti-American business attitude are all causes for serious alarm?

Is there no room to argue that a continued attitude of oh well, things aren't all THAT bad or we've had bad times before or we've seen it all before could generate apathy or inaction that could eventually make it impossible to reverse?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 5, 2012)

It can be paid down with serious cuts in the budget ($8 in cuts to $1 in revenue), reform of SS, and more efficiency in Medicare and Medicaid in catching the big bad bandits who bilk the government.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 5, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > "No. Never thought of actual revolution over the current set of circumstances. Why? Because we are always focused on how things are so horrible today that no other time has been so bad. The fact is that this type of thinking is rather bunk. I do believe that we are headed in the complete wrong direction and that many of the problems we face could, indeed bring the country down. I dont believe that our problems are more insurmountable than the past though. We need change and, quite frankly, change is guaranteed to happen. The question is how much pain it is going to be to get there."
> ...



Once the government can no longer maintain those entitlement programs with the current tax system they will start doing a door to door collection, and when they can no longer achieve the amount of revenue needed people will revolt. Guess what it will not be the tea party people revolting.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 5, 2012)

"Guess what it will not be the tea party people revolting."

Some might say they already are.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 5, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> "Guess what it will not be the tea party people revolting."
> 
> Some might say they already are.



Well we are doing our damndest while also doing our damndest to not violate anybody's unalienable rights.  What do you think.  Is the Tea Party more effective in its good neighbor, non violent approach to a civil uprising (for want of a better word) or are groups like union thugs, the OWS, etc. more effective in bringing about necessary change?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 5, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigreb is as crazy as Allie and TDM.



Jake likes to violate board rules


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 5, 2012)

"Uh, I'll take thugs, Bob!"

Jus' kiddin'!

We don't need another wing of the Republican Party; the Democrats are already more than enough.


----------



## Cowman (Aug 5, 2012)

America is just like the Colonial British in the sense that we have every desire to crush revolution before it foments.

People who believe our government type stands for revolution are deluding themselves.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 5, 2012)

We had to arrest TP folks to stop them from disrupting town meetings.

I do agree that the tea party folks are not nearly as intimidating as were the far left during the 1960s and 1970s.  The signs with guns and wordings saying "I am not bringing it this time" were risible.



Foxfyre said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > "Guess what it will not be the tea party people revolting."
> ...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 5, 2012)

Cowman said:


> America is just like the Colonial British in the sense that we have every desire to crush revolution before it foments.
> 
> People who believe our government type stands for revolution are deluding themselves.



And anyone who thinks our type of government can't give birth to tyranny is very delusional. We have started moving closer and closer every year, with new legislation voted into law in the name of protection.
And yes an elected by the people body of government can create legislation that will make a law abiding citizen a criminal 
Just look at the ruling of  obamatax and how it was ruled on.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 5, 2012)

Legislation requires a citizen to obey the law.


----------



## sealadaigh (Aug 5, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> REVOLUTION!!!! ​
> (Disclaimer: This should not now or ever be construed that I am advocating an overthrow of our government. I would just as soon not have black helicopters hovering over the house and I don't want to wind up on the no fly list.)
> 
> But for speculation and discussion only:
> ...



i think america is too diverse and too evenly divided to have a revolution/ i think a civil war would be more likely. the seeds of revolution begins with the seeds of a common cause andd i do not see that happening.

it wouldn't surprise me though, to see the USA break apart like the soviet union and then later reform itself like the EU at some point.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 5, 2012)

Only if the overriding ideal holding the nation together, the Constitution, is not longer considered worthy enough to hold the citizens in one country.

I don't see that happening anytime soon.



reabhloideach said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > REVOLUTION!!!! ​
> ...


----------



## IGetItAlready (Aug 5, 2012)

"I used to trust the media to me the truth
Tell us the truth
But now I see the payoffs every I look
Who can you trust when everyone's a crook"
-Geoff Tate-Singer, song writer, (g)od

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNdOsL4Xe7Q]Queensryche - Revolution Calling - YouTube[/ame]

Can you hear it calling children?


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 6, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> What do you think. Deep down where you keep your most heartfelt convictions, fears, and longings, do you harbor such thoughts?



NO.  Never.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 6, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Legislation requires a citizen to obey the law.



...and a politican to fight tyranny.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 6, 2012)

reabhloideach said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > REVOLUTION!!!! ​
> ...



Yes, that could very well eventually happen if we continue to not educate our young people coming up in the real history of their country, teach them the concepts the Founders used to write the Constitution, and continue to look to other nations as the way things should be rather than celebrate American exceptionalism.

Those thinking 'revolution' are rarely advocating any form of violence.  But I think they know that if we continue to look to government as our savior and the fountain of all resources, we will lose our American exceptionalism and all the freedoms that it has afforded us.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 6, 2012)

Foxfyre, please define your concept of American exceptionalism.  For me only, it is found in the American people when they live up to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.  When we don't, I have found we are not really different than any other people anywhere.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 6, 2012)

American exceptionalism is the concept that humankind are born with rights given by God, not government.  Government cannot confer rights, but can only deny them to people.  America is unique among all nations on Earth and that have ever existed in a concept of a government given authority by the people and charged to recognize and protect unalienable rights and then leave the people alone to govern themselves.

It produced the most free, most productive, most innovative, most creative, most generous people on Earth.

In every other nation, the government assigns the rights the people will have and can just as easily revoke them.

Some Americans seem hell bent on giving our government that same authority and thereby destroying American exceptionalism.  In my opinion we are very close to that happening.  We already have a government that is no longer limited to what the Constitution allows but is limited only by what the Constitutional expressly forbids. 

In my opinion,  revolution is necessary to fully restore the intent of the Constitution and American exceptionalism.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 6, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> American exceptionalism is the concept that humankind are born with rights given by God, not government.  Government cannot confer rights, but can only deny them to people.  America is unique among all nations on Earth and that have ever existed in a concept of a government given authority by the people and charged to recognize and protect unalienable rights and then leave the people alone to govern themselves.
> 
> It produced the most free, most productive, most innovative, most creative, most generous people on Earth.
> 
> ...



Isn't that, to an extent, just a matter of semantics, though?  There's no reason our government can't restrict or remove rights, if the people back it.  We can always put new amendments into the constitution, and if the people and politicians all agreed to it, we could revoke almost any right currently granted.  Free speech, freedom to assemble, bearing arms.....could not an amendment be added removing these rights?  I'm not saying it's even vaguely likely, just that it seems our system was set up so that the possibility is there without having to completely change.

As far as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.....those can be somewhat vague and have never been absolute.  And the government has always retained the right to take them away from you depending on circumstance (i.e. criminals).  

So, if our rights are god-given and unalienable, then other governments do not grant those same rights, they simply claim the ability to restrict or remove them.  Our system is different in saying the rights come from god, perhaps (although wouldn't a theocracy say the same thing? ), but in practical terms just how much difference does that make?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 6, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > American exceptionalism is the concept that humankind are born with rights given by God, not government.  Government cannot confer rights, but can only deny them to people.  America is unique among all nations on Earth and that have ever existed in a concept of a government given authority by the people and charged to recognize and protect unalienable rights and then leave the people alone to govern themselves.
> ...



No it is not a matter of semantics.  The Founders set up the Constitution so that government could not take away our rights.  Of course we can relinquish or give up our rights, but it has to be by amendment.  The federal government cannot amend the Constitution without consent of the people.

The problem comes, however, in politicians who interpret the Constitution as limited only by what the Constitution expressly forbids.  This is 180 opposite of the Founders intent that the Federal government can do only that which the Constitution allows.

A revolution, if it is to restore American exceptionalism, will correct that wrong interpretation.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 6, 2012)

Foxfyre, your wrong impressions concern the amendment process and the role of SCOTUS in Article III.

There will be no revolution along the lines you desire.  The population is younger, darker, looking forward to the remainder of the century not back to the last one, and the wonders of their world.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Aug 6, 2012)

I think Jefferson was correct. There is a time and a place to establish new government or separate from old ones. But as he also said, it's not something to do lightly for trivial reasons.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 6, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> I think Jefferson was correct. There is a time and a place to establish new government or separate from old ones. But as he also said, it's not something to do lightly for trivial reasons.



Just so.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 7, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > "No. Never thought of actual revolution over the current set of circumstances. Why? Because we are always focused on how things are so horrible today that no other time has been so bad. The fact is that this type of thinking is rather bunk. I do believe that we are headed in the complete wrong direction and that many of the problems we face could, indeed bring the country down. I dont believe that our problems are more insurmountable than the past though. We need change and, quite frankly, change is guaranteed to happen. The question is how much pain it is going to be to get there."
> ...



I never said any of that.  Things are bad and destined to get a lot worse when those debts actually become untenable to the point that people cannot deny it any longer.  What I said was they are not insurmountable problems nore are they large enough to warrant insurrection.

I think the problem lies in the term revolution (and I assume an armed one because a revolution at the ballot box is NOT a revolution  it is working within the system) and those that call for it not recognizing how horrible that is.

War, and make no mistake, that is what we are talking about with armed revolution, is far uglier than anyone even bothers to acknowledge.  When things are so terrible, that it is worth burning women in children alive in the middle of the street, THEN AND ONLY THEN, is revolution tenable.  Not because that is what you are going to do but because, no matter how careful you are, that IS what is going to happen. 

Have we not learned the lesson if Iraq?  That war is NOT something to take lightly.  That innocents will die in the most horrific ways imaginable.  Look at your neighbors, friends, YOUR FAMILY.  Are things so bad in this nation that you are willing to sacrifice the lives of many of them in the purist of fixing it?  If not, then you have neither the determination nor the willingness for revolt and embarking on it is foolishly risking lives.


In short, we are not so far gone that lives need be wasted.  There is a point when such things are proper and necessary but we are NOT EVEN CLOSE.  Things must be extremely far gone for me to justify the horrific actions required in armed conflict.


----------



## dblack (Aug 7, 2012)

FA_Q2 said:


> War, and make no mistake, that is what we are talking about with armed revolution, is far uglier than anyone even bothers to acknowledge.  When things are so terrible, that it is worth burning women in children alive in the middle of the street, THEN AND ONLY THEN, is revolution tenable.  Not because that is what you are going to do but because, no matter how careful you are, that IS what is going to happen.



Yes. Exactly. And someday it may be worth all that. But I sure as hell hope not.


----------



## 007 (Aug 7, 2012)

When Europe's finances implode, and I think it's imminent, with their economy having such an effect on our's, and our's so far in the toilet, our economy will crash as well, which will crash China's, and so on it will go, and at that point anarchy will ensue in America. It won't be a Civil or Revolutionary war, but it will pit groups of people against one another, possibly states. It could turn into more than just anarchy after the fighting evolves, and the political as well as social and financial structure of America could look dramatically different than it does. Well, it would have to, or we'd never get anything fixed. The status quo and apathy of Americans is in large part why we're in the fix we're in. We have allowed our government to grow exponentially and unchecked, and now it's an out of control behemoth. Another Revolutionary war would do this country a lot of good as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 7, 2012)

I am not seeing so drastic a concept as some of the rest of you even though we continue to have certain segments of society who create mob violence presumably not to effect change but mostly just to raise hell.  I am thinking of the Watts riots of the 60's, the anti-Vietnam riots of the late 60's and 70's, the LA Riots of the 90's, and even our more recent OWS demonstrations.   The large majority of people participating in such events usually don't even know why they are destroying property, setting fires, looting, and terrorizing people.

So could it happen if the government was reformed and began scaling back the privileges and freebies now?   Almost without question.  But as the majority of Americans held the rioters in disgust and contempt, I think the case would be the same now.  I don't see that the huge majority of Americans have any appetite whatsoever for any part of civil war on any scale and will promote a bloodless and non violent revolution.

But I hope America is ready to push for that revolution.  For I think if we do not, there soon won't be enough of us with the will and understanding to do it.  And when that happens, American exceptionalism will be lost along with a large chunk of our guaranteed freedoms and opportunity.


----------



## copsnrobbers (Aug 7, 2012)

We are being failed purposely...... The New World bank will come to the rescue and make us an offer our politicians can't refuse..
Once again the unintended consequences will become obvious. It's not going to be pretty.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 7, 2012)

I think once the real damage our debt and deficit is realized by the youth who will be burdened with it, we have a great deal of potential for an uprising.


----------



## Swagger (Aug 7, 2012)

Pale Rider said:


> When Europe's finances implode, and I think it's imminent, with their economy having such an effect on our's, and our's so far in the toilet, our economy will crash as well, which will crash China's, and so on it will go, and at that point anarchy will ensue in America. It won't be a Civil or Revolutionary war, but it will pit groups of people against one another, possibly states. It could turn into more than just anarchy after the fighting evolves, and the political as well as social and financial structure of America could look dramatically different than it does. Well, it would have to, or we'd never get anything fixed. The status quo and apathy of Americans is in large part why we're in the fix we're in. We have allowed our government to grow exponentially and unchecked, and now it's an out of control behemoth. Another Revolutionary war would do this country a lot of good as far as I'm concerned.



I agree with pretty much all of what you've posted. I think that in the next few years we're going to see blood spilled on the streets of southern Europe as dwindling and underpaid government forces struggle to maintain martial law as the Eurozone tanks completely and the people of those countries are forced to look after themselves, which will incurr violence, because southern Europe has been so dependent on the EU teet for so long. In short, they'll resort to drastic measures in the absence of any experience in looking after themselves. How far this will spread to western Europe and America is debateable, but I foresee street-level violence at the very least. 

Coincidentally, the online sale of crossbows in the UK have rocketed over the last year. But I don't think people are all that concerned with taking up crossbow archery all of a sudden, if you know what I mean.


----------



## candycorn (Aug 7, 2012)

Revolution could do the job but it isn't necessary.  What is necessary is an understanding that we need to make fundamental changes to our system of government at pre-selected intervals to avoid revolution and preserve the nation for the future. 

It's silly to live under a document written 225 years ago.  Point blank.  Once we understand that it is an imperfect document written by imprefect men, we can agree it needs to be further perfected.

The extermes of armed revolt are not needed, not necessary, and are the worst possible actions one can take under the guise of "preserving" anything.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 7, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Revolution could do the job but it isn't necessary.  What is necessary is an understanding that we need to make fundamental changes to our system of government at pre-selected intervals to avoid revolution and preserve the nation for the future.
> 
> It's silly to live under a document written 225 years ago.  Point blank.  Once we understand that it is an imperfect document written by imprefect men, we can agree it needs to be further perfected.
> 
> The extermes of armed revolt are not needed, not necessary, and are the worst possible actions one can take under the guise of "preserving" anything.



The principles the Founders incorporated into the Constitution are as sound and appropriate and pertinent for our time as they were for their time.  The Constitution is not the problem, but rather the corruption of Constitutional intent with a resulting broken system.

The companion thread "A New Emancipation Proclamation" (also in the CDZ) offers a solution to fix the system.

All we need is sufficient agreement and the will and the courage to do it.


----------



## Swagger (Aug 7, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Revolution could do the job but it isn't necessary.  What is necessary is an understanding that we need to make fundamental changes to our system of government at pre-selected intervals to avoid revolution and preserve the nation for the future.
> 
> It's silly to live under a document written 225 years ago.  Point blank.  Once we understand that it is an imperfect document written by imprefect men, we can agree it needs to be further perfected.
> 
> *The extermes of armed revolt are not needed*, not necessary, and are the worst possible actions one can take under the guise of "preserving" anything.



I disagree. They provide a proven deterrent against tyrannical regimes, especially when you consider that governments hold the keys to the nation's disproportionately advanced armoury.


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 7, 2012)

It was Ben Franklin that was correct when he said that the Constitution would not last forever but only until the people become so corrupt that they vote themselves a despotic government.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Aug 7, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> I am not seeing so drastic a concept as some of the rest of you even though we continue to have certain segments of society who create mob violence presumably not to effect change but mostly just to raise hell.  I am thinking of the Watts riots of the 60's, the anti-Vietnam riots of the late 60's and 70's, the LA Riots of the 90's, and even our more recent OWS demonstrations.   The large majority of people participating in such events usually don't even know why they are destroying property, setting fires, looting, and terrorizing people.
> 
> So could it happen if the government was reformed and began scaling back the privileges and freebies now?   Almost without question.  But as the majority of Americans held the rioters in disgust and contempt, I think the case would be the same now.  I don't see that the huge majority of Americans have any appetite whatsoever for any part of civil war on any scale and will promote a bloodless and non violent revolution.
> 
> But I hope America is ready to push for that revolution.  For I think if we do not, there soon won't be enough of us with the will and understanding to do it.  And when that happens, American exceptionalism will be lost along with a large chunk of our guaranteed freedoms and opportunity.



Considering the way the highest leaders have been promoting racial division and vilifying the "rich", the stage is being set for an upcoming revolt.  It is inevitable that social welfare programs will be scaled back.  The majority of the public is demanding it be done.  (I doubt we'll see corporate welfare decreased because that is a primary means of laundering public money and routing it into political campaigns.)  The beneficiaries of government largess have been repeatedly told that their problems lie with the more well-off citizens, who have gleaned their "wealth" (really, $250,000 is not wealthy) by taking it from those who have so little.  The ranks of the population will be thinned out by a government fomented revolt wherein the "poor" will attack and destroy the "rich".  That revolt will be cited as the reason for government to step in and establish martial law.  By using martial law statutes, the military will most likely be more than willing to obey orders to suppress the violence.  If our own military will not cooperate, there are already UN troops stationed here in the States, with more ready to deploy here, if needed.  
Buckle up, it's gonna be a bumpy ride.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 7, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> It was Ben Franklin that was correct when he said that the Constitution would not last forever but only until the people become so corrupt that they vote themselves a despotic government.



He more specifically said that the Republic would be doomed once they figured out how to vote themselves money from the public treasury.

The Emancipation Proclamation thread proposes a means to free us from the increasingly despotic government we have been creating for some time now and restore the oroginal intent of the Constitution.

Since I think the problem is not the people we elect, but rather the system that has gradually been put into place, we have to fix the system--restore the original system.  And that will run the self serving career politicans off and leave room for honorable public servants to again occupy the halls of Congress and the White House.


----------



## copsnrobbers (Aug 7, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> I think once the real damage our debt and deficit is realized by the youth who will be burdened with it, we have a great deal of potential for an uprising.



*Its coming sooner than you may think..  Its starting right now in Chicago. Here comes the Obama Civil army. Brainwashed Black kids.. yes, Muslim beliefs and murderous appetites.
We'll be fighting them soon. Chicago is the test ground.. They're hiding behind non other than Farrakhan.  Hired by Raum Emanual.. Who goes from the White House to be corruptly voted in as Mayor of the most Corrupt and Dangerous City in America.. Obama's Chief of Staff that's who.*

*Remember this post......*


----------



## copsnrobbers (Aug 7, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> REVOLUTION!!!! ​
> (Disclaimer: This should not now or ever be construed that I am advocating an overthrow of our government. I would just as soon not have black helicopters hovering over the house and I don't want to wind up on the no fly list.)
> 
> But for speculation and discussion only:
> ...



I'm Glad you started this thread Foxy... an eye opener for many on the left.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Aug 7, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > It was Ben Franklin that was correct when he said that the Constitution would not last forever but only until the people become so corrupt that they vote themselves a despotic government.
> ...



I disagree that the problem is the people we elect or the system. I think the problem is the people itself. Those other issues are just symptoms of the problem.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 7, 2012)

copsnrobbers said:


> I'm Glad you started this thread Foxy... an eye opener for many on the left.



I'm in the center, and I want the revolutionaries, of both sides, to know that I applaud the army, navy, air force and marines using any means necessary to put down a revolution against this country.  

I didn't storm military bases when George Bush started an unconstitutional war in Iraq that has subsequently claimed several thousand American lives and cost us trillions of dollars.  I understood that George Bush was elected via a political process and that I was part of that process, and thus, was responsible for him serving in that office.  I could have campaigned against him, been more involved in the political process, and made sure that someone else was elected.

*Anyone who takes up arms against this country is a traitor who deserves to be shot in the street like a rabid dog.*


----------



## mal (Aug 7, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> REVOLUTION!!!! ​
> (Disclaimer: This should not now or ever be construed that I am advocating an overthrow of our government. I would just as soon not have black helicopters hovering over the house and I don't want to wind up on the no fly list.)
> 
> But for speculation and discussion only:
> ...



I am pretty Certain some things were done during and after the Civil War that made this no longer a... Legal and or Constitutional Option for the "the People".



peace...


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 7, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Well we need to figure that out.  I think it is the system because I've seen too many truly visionary and public service spirited people sent to Washington that all too soon became corrupted by the system.  You have to go along to get along or the leadership (of both parties) can make your time there a hellish existance of marginalized irrelevance.  So those who are enriching themselves at our expense can easily force the newcomers to toe the line and, once they do, it is all too easy for human nature to take over and just do what everybody else does.  And justify it by everybody else has done it and is doing it.

I think reforming the system so that those in Congress, the White House, and the bureaucracy are unable to increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes at our expense, and you fix 90% or better of the worst problems all of us see no matter what side of the political aisle we favor.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 7, 2012)

Influence can be gained without a present return of campaign funds or bribes.  It can be post term jobs or help to family and so on.  Power is limited most by the time you can influence decisions.  Term limits!

You change your underwear everyday (hopefully), politicans stink worse.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 7, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Influence can be gained without a present return of campaign funds or bribes.  It can be post term jobs or help to family and so on.  Power is limited most by the time you can influence decisions.  Term limits!
> 
> You change your underwear everyday (hopefully), politicans stink worse.



We have term limits in Florida, they've resulted in a higher level of party corruption and influence and lesser competence in politicians.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 7, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Influence can be gained without a present return of campaign funds or bribes.  It can be post term jobs or help to family and so on.  Power is limited most by the time you can influence decisions.  Term limits!
> ...



Florida might not be a good example.  Locally, we were able to move a state representative to the state senate, because he was term limited and we still wanted him.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Aug 7, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Influence can be gained without a present return of campaign funds or bribes.  It can be post term jobs or help to family and so on.  Power is limited most by the time you can influence decisions.  Term limits!
> 
> You change your underwear everyday (hopefully), politicans stink worse.



The problem with term limits is that it insulates politicians from being accountable to the people. If you can be reelected, you are more likely to listen to what the people you represent say than if you know you arent going to be.


----------



## Swagger (Aug 7, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Influence can be gained without a present return of campaign funds or bribes.  It can be post term jobs or help to family and so on.  Power is limited most by the time you can influence decisions.  Term limits!
> ...



Due you think that's down to politicians/representitives in Florida having less time to line their pockets than elsewhere in the country? So they spend more time focused on enriching themselves than serving their constituents due to the limited timeframe they have, as opposed to potentially having longer in office to balance - or cover - their dishonesty with official duties?


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 7, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Influence can be gained without a present return of campaign funds or bribes.  It can be post term jobs or help to family and so on.  Power is limited most by the time you can influence decisions.  Term limits!
> ...



I hate it when I leave out the public flogging part.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 7, 2012)

There is absolutely no way an armed revolution could 'succeed' (whatever that might mean) in the foreseeable future. The stakes are far too big for those that hold the power to let them go and their means are far too powerful. They are prepared to do whatever is necessary.

An AR15 or AK47 will not do the job. It is much harder and much more complex than that.

It is also the easiest thing in the world.

You may not be able to change a person's mind in a lifetime, but one can change one's own mind in a second. 

When people think differently, the revolution will have happened.

(and it will happen too quickly to televise)


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 7, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Florida has had statewide term limits for almost 20 years now, and we're clusterfucked beyond all recognition at this point.  I wish people would visit Florida and see exactly how well term limits work before recommending them.  We're a freaking banana republic here.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 7, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



I would be happy with reinstating the stocks.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 7, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Influence can be gained without a present return of campaign funds or bribes.  It can be post term jobs or help to family and so on.  Power is limited most by the time you can influence decisions.  Term limits!
> ...



Also, government now manages more complex projects than ever.  It takes time to learn how state systems work.  Term limits ensure that about the time a politician has learned somethign useful, he/she's out of office.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 7, 2012)

Swagger said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



They have to pander for influence with the party and donors much more rapidly in order to even make it onto the ticket.  So, the corruption has shifted from the individual level to the party system.  It's harder and more expensive  to corrupt 100+ state representatives than to corrupt the leadership of 2 political parties.  Exhibit 1:  Marco Rubio.  Exhibit 2:  Rick Scott.  Exhibit 3:  Bill Nelson


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 7, 2012)

Limit campaign spending.
Make it public funded (oh, no, then every candidate would get equal time and people would actually hear of them!).
Use the pocket book against the pocketbook.


----------



## dblack (Aug 7, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> Limit campaign spending.
> Make it public funded (oh, no, then every candidate would get equal time and people would actually hear of them!).
> Use the pocket book against the pocketbook.



Ahh... but how do we decide which candidates get "equal" time, and which don't?


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 7, 2012)

Details....

but one way would be to have an initial playoff and only keep, say, those that get over five percent.


----------



## Liability (Aug 7, 2012)

Some say that a good politician is defined as one who stays bought once bought.

Others say that a good politician is one who will not be bought.

But if they can't be bought, then you have no way of measuring whether or not they will stay bought.

So, I don't know.

We probably need the spoils system now more than ever.

Right?


----------



## dblack (Aug 7, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> Details....



Yup. Where the devil hides...



> but one way would be to have an initial playoff and only keep, say, those that get over five percent.



And will campaign spending be controlled for that initial runoff?


----------



## Liability (Aug 7, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> REVOLUTION!!!! ​
> (Disclaimer: This should not now or ever be construed that I am advocating an overthrow of our government. I would just as soon not have black helicopters hovering over the house and I don't want to wind up on the no fly list.)
> 
> But for speculation and discussion only:
> ...



I think Jefferson meant it when he spoke of watering the tree of liberty.

I think the Founders and Framers meant it when they spoke of an armed citizenry as a safeguard against the tendency of government to be tyrannical.

Overthrowing the Brits was all well and good, especially since we replaced their offensive imposition of government by brute force with our more refined and logical system.

But when it comes to the notion of revolution these days, fuck it.  I am a loyalist.  And what's more, I want to compel our leaders to pay more than mere lip service to the limits we have fashioned for our federal government.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 7, 2012)

"And will campaign spending be controlled for that initial runoff?"

Necessarily.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Aug 7, 2012)

candycorn said:


> It's silly to live under a document written 225 years ago.  Point blank.  Once we understand that it is an imperfect document written by imprefect men, we can agree it needs to be further perfected.



It has and will continue to be.

Except it has always been to _grant more freedom_........rather than to _restrict freedom_.


----------



## dblack (Aug 7, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> "And will campaign spending be controlled for that initial runoff?"
> 
> Necessarily.



Then how do you decide who gets money for the initial runoff? (do you see where this is going?)


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 7, 2012)

"Then how do you decide who gets money for the initial runoff? (do you see where this is going?)"

How could this be more obvious. Of course it must be limited, but to an absolute spending limit from whatever (domestic) sources available to the person offering him/her self.


----------



## dblack (Aug 7, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> "Then how do you decide who gets money for the initial runoff? (do you see where this is going?)"
> 
> How could this be more obvious. Of course it must be limited, but to an absolute spending limit from whatever (domestic) sources available to the person offering him/her self.



The point is, you're suggesting a system that favors some candidates with grants of taxpayer money, and blocks others from receiving those funds. That sounds, to me, very undemocratic and would inevitably be heavily politicized, with parties that are deemed a threat to the status-quo blocked from receiving campaign funds.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 7, 2012)

Not at all, but we are diverging from the theme of the thread: revolution (maybe just for the hell of it).

'There is a firearm for every twelve people in the world. The question is, how do we arm the other eleven?'


----------



## dblack (Aug 7, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> Not at all, but we are diverging from the theme of the thread: revolution (maybe just for the hell of it).



Good point. It's just that, while I respect the intent of publicly financing elections (getting big money out of politics), I've yet to see an implementation that isn't worse than the current problem. Maybe we can cuss and discuss it in another thread.


----------



## Swagger (Aug 7, 2012)

Liability said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > REVOLUTION!!!! ​
> ...



They were free to impose whatever laws and policies they wished upon the territory they owned (and make no mistake, they did own the Thirteen Colonies). Even though those laws and policies ultimately backfired on a grand scale, I hasten to add.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 7, 2012)

Should the firearms for the 'other eleven' be publicly financed?


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 7, 2012)

I want a .25 cal. for my stocking gun, a .357 on my belt, and a slug-capable pump shotgun. 

What'll you have?


----------



## Liability (Aug 7, 2012)

Swagger said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



the problem was, Swagz, that the British Crown dealt with the people in the colonies as non-British subjects.  Brits enjoyed representation (or a kind) in Parliament.  The colonists?  Not so much.

Fucking dopey British monarch blew it.

So, yeah.  They imposed their shit on us against our will and we declared it to be illegitimate.  We were correct. And we threw them off.

Bravo for us.  Fuck the old British monarch and the hose he rode in on!


----------



## Swagger (Aug 7, 2012)

Liability said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



"Us"? "We"? No-one commenting on this thread was alive during that period. But like I said, it was their territory, on which they were free to impose whatever laws and policies they chose.


----------



## candycorn (Aug 7, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Revolution could do the job but it isn't necessary.  What is necessary is an understanding that we need to make fundamental changes to our system of government at pre-selected intervals to avoid revolution and preserve the nation for the future.
> ...



Their principles included slavery being perfectly okay.  Thanks but I'll stick with a somewhat enlightened viewpoint.  

I read it.  Nothing in the proclamation or little of it anyway is relevant or intelligent.

Sufficient agreement is illusive when the rules allow for an "anything goes" atmosphere on capitol hill.  Lobbyists are writing legislation, men are spending tens (if not hundreds) of millions to keep jobs that pay in the low six figures--that should tell you something about the system, parties and their sympathizers are funding elections thusly making the winners beholden to those interests that placed them there.  

No.

What is needed is quite simply this; the rules written in 1787 were done so with the thought that the unwritten rules would steer the debate of country-first; not party first.  Those rules have been violated for going on three generations now.  

It is time to define the unwritten rules so that the representatives we select have minimum leeway in bastardizing the Constitution any further.


----------



## candycorn (Aug 7, 2012)

Swagger said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Revolution could do the job but it isn't necessary.  What is necessary is an understanding that we need to make fundamental changes to our system of government at pre-selected intervals to avoid revolution and preserve the nation for the future.
> ...



So we have a revolution; then what?


----------



## Vidi (Aug 7, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...





Meet the new boss, same as the old boss


----------



## Vidi (Aug 7, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > It was Ben Franklin that was correct when he said that the Constitution would not last forever but only until the people become so corrupt that they vote themselves a despotic government.
> ...



the problem is the people. Not the people we elect but the American people themselves.

When its easier to get people to vote for the Next American Idol than the next United States President, then the problem is the People.


----------



## The Gadfly (Aug 7, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Only if the overriding ideal holding the nation together, the Constitution, is not longer considered worthy enough to hold the citizens in one country.
> 
> I don't see that happening anytime soon.
> 
> ...



Nor do I , Jake, UNLESS there is some major precipitating event of the sort I mentioned in my earlier post. It would have to be both calamitous and widespread, but in such an instance, all bets would be off. We might just have avoided one such event in the fall of 2008, as much by luck as anything else.We came closer to a complete meltdown of the international credit system than many realize, and had that occurred...well, things might be very different today, and not for the better. Whether one wished to label the potential result of such an event as "revolution", "civil war" or "civil disorder and anarchy", would make little difference; the outcome would be a horribly violent and bloody affair-it is hard to see the nation either being held together or coming apart without massive violence in such a case.

We are, I think, living in a time, when there is neither enough consensus in this society to support a "revolt" (armed or not) and at the same time, not enough resilience to get through a major economic or social disruption without breaking apart, or holding the country together by brute force (if that is worth the price). War is a terrible thing, and a civil conflict is the most terrible of wars; so terrible, that one would hope no one would deliberately initiate such a thing. However, we are more likely to blunder into something like that by miscalculation or accident than by design. Were we to do so, casualties would likely run into the millions. It is not a pleasant thing to contemplate, and we may hope it is unlikely for the time being; it is not, however, impossible.


----------



## Liability (Aug 7, 2012)

Swagger said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Swagger said:
> ...




Yes.  Us and we.  Us being Americans and You being Brits.


----------



## candycorn (Aug 7, 2012)

Vidi said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Swagger said:
> ...



Pretty much.


----------



## Vidi (Aug 7, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Only if the overriding ideal holding the nation together, the Constitution, is not longer considered worthy enough to hold the citizens in one country.
> 
> I don't see that happening anytime soon.
> 
> ...



Jake,

Would you say we are being held together?

Look at this forum as an example. Are we being held together? Or are we violently opposed to one another?


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 7, 2012)

Vidi said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Only if the overriding ideal holding the nation together, the Constitution, is not longer considered worthy enough to hold the citizens in one country.
> ...



To be fair, you're a bit far away for a left hook.


----------



## Vidi (Aug 7, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



LOL true...but based on the rest of this forum, is there any doubt that several of these posters would have come to blows had they had the same conversation face to face?


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 7, 2012)

Vidi said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...





I suspect most of us are far more respectful in person.  Then again, I can be far more intimidating in person, or so I've been told.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 7, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



I agree with save (about people being more respectful in person; I can't speak to his intimidation factor ).  I don't think the majority of conversations that happen here would be the same at all in person.

I think there is plenty of opposition in this country but, thankfully, it is rarely violent.


----------



## Vidi (Aug 7, 2012)

Of course it wouldnt happen in person.

Most people are cowards who dont have the balls to say what they really feel if theres a chance a punch to the face would be the answer.

And yeah ive been told Im intimidating too. Why? I have no idea. Anyone thats intimidated by me has got to be a complete pussy. Im old, Im fat and Im slow.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 7, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Of course it wouldnt happen in person.
> 
> Most people are cowards who dont have the balls to say what they really feel if theres a chance a punch to the face would be the answer.
> 
> And yeah ive been told Im intimidating too. Why? I have no idea. Anyone thats intimidated by me has got to be a complete pussy. Im old, Im fat and Im slow.



Well, I don't think it's all cowardice.  I think people are just more polite and civil in person.  The anonymity of the internet has created a different set of rules and values for interpersonal communication.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Aug 8, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> Limit campaign spending.
> Make it public funded (oh, no, then every candidate would get equal time and people would actually hear of them!).
> Use the pocket book against the pocketbook.



How about limiting campaign  contributions?  Contributions only allowed from individuals, and only from the constituency to be represented.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 8, 2012)

"How about limiting campaign contributions? Contributions only allowed from individuals, and only from the constituency to be represented."

That sounds reasonable, but again with absolute limits on the total amount.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 8, 2012)

What about the question of public financing to arm those who are not quite fully equipped for the revolution? I mean, we want a level playing field.
Which reminds me, I want to add an item to my list. One of those 17 round 9mm semi-auto pistols might be nice for 'blazing away' sessions.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 8, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



I view my intimidation factor more like Akmed the Dead Terrorist.  Others just drop everything but the terrorist part.


----------



## Liability (Aug 8, 2012)

Building on some prior observations made by others in this thread, I shall now (as a public service) boil this down to its essence.  No need to thank me.

1.  Whether Revolution is a good and virtuous thing (or not) depends on what is being revolted against.

2.  Before engaging in Revolution, it is always a good idea to know what follows (i.e., what do you plan to replace the thing with?) after the Revolution is successfully completed.

Thank me.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 8, 2012)

Well lately it means a theocracy fills the vacuum...


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 8, 2012)

Liability said:


> Some say that a good politician is defined as one who stays bought once bought.
> 
> Others say that a good politician is one who will not be bought.
> 
> ...



I once worked for a very good mayor who was a fairly corrupt business person before taking office.  I never observed any corruption in her time as mayor, but she got a ton of things done (in spite of or perhaps because of being labeled a heinous bitch).  I decided then that sometimes, you need a little dirt and grease to keep the wheels of government running.  A subsequent set of mayors with cleaner hands were decidedly impotent by comparison.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 8, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Look at this forum as an example. Are we being held together? Or are we violently opposed to one another?



I am not violently opposed to anyone on this forum.  Some degree of belligerence in public discourse is practically an American tradition.  I think we've come a long ways since Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton in a duel over some harsh political words back in the late 18th century.  I might seem like a bitch here, but there isn't a member of this forum that I wouldn't take a bullet for if necessary.

There is a difference between harsh words and use of force.   You should learn it.


----------



## dblack (Aug 8, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Well lately it means a theocracy fills the vacuum...



You think that would happen here?


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 8, 2012)

dblack said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Well lately it means a theocracy fills the vacuum...
> ...



I suspect they would increase their influence.


----------



## copsnrobbers (Aug 8, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Looking at your choice of avi I kinda doubt it...........


----------



## copsnrobbers (Aug 8, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Some say that a good politician is defined as one who stays bought once bought.
> ...



A little bit of corruption is good for business.. keep the wheels turning.

This administration has gone way beyond the usual.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 8, 2012)

Obama was never a businessman, so I fail to see how he's anything but corrupt.


----------



## dblack (Aug 8, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



I'm not that worried about that here. If there's one thing that's gone right in the US experiment it was teasing apart religious and state power. It's widely accepted here that government has no business meddling in religious matters and vice versa. There's influence, to be sure, but I think theocratic rule would be flatly rejected, even by most of our religious zealots.

No, I think the next "revolution" in the US (whether literally a revolution, or simply working out some fundamental changes politically) will center around doing something similar to separate economic and political power. I'd like to see us pursue the principle of a "wall of separation" between government and economy that would effect the same kind of decentralization of power we achieved with the first amendment.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 8, 2012)

Money is power.  You're not going to separate the two.


----------



## dblack (Aug 8, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Money is power.  You're not going to separate the two.



The power of the Church used to be just as unquestionable. It'll take time.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 8, 2012)

dblack said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Money is power.  You're not going to separate the two.
> ...



The level of privacy we would have to give up is not supportive of liberty.


----------



## dblack (Aug 8, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



How do you mean? I'd imagine getting government out of economic affairs would grant us more privacy, not less.


----------



## notatallanti (Aug 8, 2012)

Aren't economic affairs and government pretty much joined at the hip? There are necessary public services that must be paid for (roads, sewers, waste processing, etc.), and the economic sector pays for that, so it wants to regulate it.


----------



## dblack (Aug 8, 2012)

notatallanti said:


> Aren't economic affairs and government pretty much joined at the hip? There are necessary public services that must be paid for (roads, sewers, waste processing, etc.), and the economic sector pays for that, so it wants to regulate it.



They're joined at the hip currently, and that's the problem in my view. And just as the authority of the Church to collude with government and control us via religion was unquestioned in the medieval mind, we currently have a hard time conceiving of government that doesn't seek to control us through economic power. But I think it can happen. And I think it should.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 8, 2012)

dblack said:


> notatallanti said:
> 
> 
> > Aren't economic affairs and government pretty much joined at the hip? There are necessary public services that must be paid for (roads, sewers, waste processing, etc.), and the economic sector pays for that, so it wants to regulate it.
> ...



I disagree.  I think that we are now in a position as a country where our economic and trade policies must put us on a competitive footing with other nations.  Our citizens compete not with each other, but within a global economy. Thinking we can go back to how things were done in 1776 is silly.


----------



## dblack (Aug 8, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > notatallanti said:
> ...



I don't think of it as going back at all, rather the next step forward. It's interesting that the rationale you use for keeping government and economy merged is quite similar to the excuse for the church/state collusion. Each used the other to pursue empire.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 8, 2012)

dblack said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



How do you track the involvement of government in money related matters?  Is that restricted to just those in government or do all of us get tracked?  Having every aspect of our economic lives a matter of public record doesn't seem like privacy to me.


----------



## dblack (Aug 8, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



The idea is to constitutionally limit government's ability to meddle in economic matters. This would abolish discriminatory taxation (tax "incentives" and the like) and ideally, income tax altogether. It would mandate that government end the practice of making laws specifically designed to "create jobs" or "stimulate" the economy, or otherwise reward and punish people or businesses for non-justice related reasons.

You seem to be looking at this from an entirely different angle than I am. I'm not really sure I understand where you're coming from.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 8, 2012)

I thought someone mentioned the best way to limit our representatives from undo influence was to separate money from government.


----------



## dblack (Aug 8, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> I thought someone mentioned the best way to limit our representatives from undo influence was to separate money from government.



Indeed. But how to do that?

I think we need to realize it's a two-way street. People with economic ambitions are desperate to influence government because government has so much power over their success or failure. With regard to separating church and state, this was the genius of the founders who sought to limit religious influence in government. They realized that the best way to keep religion out of government was to limit government's ability to interfere with religion. Likewise, when government can no longer be used by ambitious people to enhance their own wealth, there will be much less incentive for them to use their wealth to influence government.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 8, 2012)

dblack said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > I thought someone mentioned the best way to limit our representatives from undo influence was to separate money from government.
> ...



You stated money needed to be removed from the system.  You can't remove it.  You can require a great deal of tracking and reporting.  That means we all are going to see more personal financial iinformation released and I correctly mentioned that reduces privacy/liberty.


----------



## Liability (Aug 8, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Well lately it means a theocracy fills the vacuum...



I would like to see the evidence for that in any society not already fucked up by the disease of Islam.


----------



## dblack (Aug 8, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> You stated *money needed to be removed from the system*.  You can't remove it.  You can require a great deal of tracking and reporting.  That means we all are going to see more personal financial iinformation released and I correctly mentioned that reduces privacy/liberty.



I don't recall stating that, and I'm not even sure what "removing money from the system" would mean. I'm talking about separating economic and state power - ensuring that people can't use government to make themselves rich, and likewise that government can't use its power over the economy to coerce behavior.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 8, 2012)

Liability said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Well lately it means a theocracy fills the vacuum...
> ...



What part of lately is giving you troubles Liability?  I would guess that in this imaginery revolution we are talking about, conservatives will be organizing themselves.  Much of the speeches and information of the first one was at a church.  Not a big leap to expect something similiar the second time.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 8, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Only if government is allowed to pick winners and losers.  In such a system you can send a whole battalian of auditors to Washington to see who is using the money for what and never get a handle on it.

But if you restrict what government can use the money for rather than try restrict who is allowed to have it, you pretty well fix the problem.  When they can't use our money for their own benefit, the incentive to try to get more and more of our money is removed.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 8, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I still say all that requires reporting and tracking.


----------



## Intense (Aug 8, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



By who? More over paid Government Workers?


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 8, 2012)

Intense said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Oh I don't know, maybe some of the Obama Truth Squad will help too...


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 8, 2012)

We have known for a long time that assigning a fox to guard the hen house against foxes is a really bad idea.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 8, 2012)

Information is power too and government will not give that away.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 8, 2012)

All too true, UNLESS we replace career politicians with true public servants again.  You know, people who love America and want to make it better.  And who are there to serve instead of for the sole purpose of increasing their power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth?

When we take away their power to advantage themselves, there is much more incentive to do the best possible job for us.  Praise and satisfaction in a job well done can be a powerful incentive too.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 8, 2012)

So....we are back to term limits again.  Anybody dizzy yet?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 8, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> What part of lately is giving you troubles Liability?  I would guess that in this imaginery revolution we are talking about, conservatives will be organizing themselves.  Much of the speeches and information of the first one was at a church.  Not a big leap to expect something similiar the second time.



Do you make a distinction between revolution and civil war?

Also, isn't most of the organization to redefine society, particularly from a cultural point of view, done in the universities and pushed down to the lower levels of academia? Aren't most modern speeches advocating the dismemberment of American society done in the classroom?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 8, 2012)

Re term limits, not at all.  We all know private sector people who provide service to others for long periods purely because they enjoy providing the service.  The appreciation and admiration of their fellows is all the reward they need to enjoy doing what they do.   Think Sgt Ollie in his position as commander of his local American Legion.  Does he do that for personal reward?   Not at all.  How long do you think his fellows will allow him that position if he does not voluntarily step down at some point?  And will his 20th year be any less exemplary than his first?

America used to have public servants in Washington of that caliber.  And I believe we can have that again if we fix the system which is the whole idea of "revolution".   Some will choose to term limit themselves; some will be replaced by the voters; and some will stay on which would not be a bad thing as there is something to say for experience and not to have all people who are training on the job.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 8, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Only if government is allowed to pick winners and losers.  In such a system you can send a whole battalian of auditors to Washington to see who is using the money for what and never get a handle on it.
> 
> But if you restrict what government can use the money for rather than try restrict who is allowed to have it, you pretty well fix the problem.  When they can't use our money for their own benefit, the incentive to try to get more and more of our money is removed.



{To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. 

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. ] - Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 8, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > What part of lately is giving you troubles Liability?  I would guess that in this imaginery revolution we are talking about, conservatives will be organizing themselves.  Much of the speeches and information of the first one was at a church.  Not a big leap to expect something similiar the second time.
> ...



Oddly enough I think a 'revolution' that would fix the broken system in Washington would eventually have an effect on academia and the mainstream media who mostly seem to feed on concepts of leftist government.  

Currently academia and the mainstream media are totally in bed with leftist government.  But return the government to Constitutional intent and there is no way to use government for leftist purposes.  So what would the professors teach?   I think the next generation of Academia would have a much more realistic point of view.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 8, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > What part of lately is giving you troubles Liability?  I would guess that in this imaginery revolution we are talking about, conservatives will be organizing themselves.  Much of the speeches and information of the first one was at a church.  Not a big leap to expect something similiar the second time.
> ...



You expect a revolution from acedemics that would most certainly reduce their funding?  Yes, I make a distinction between civil war and a revolution.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 8, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Oddly enough I think a 'revolution' that would fix the broken system in Washington would eventually have an effect on academia and the mainstream media who mostly seem to feed on concepts of leftist government.



Perhaps. But I question the concept of "revolution." I see the country lurching toward civil war, with the divide increasing by the day. This isn't the same as revolution, though. Even Obama hasn't openly advocated the dissolution of constitutional government in favor of another form. 

I believe that the powers behind Obama would welcome violence as a means of consolidating power and further reducing civil liberties. But this isn't a revolution, rather the prodding of the public in hope of fomenting a response. 



> Currently academia and the mainstream media are totally in bed with leftist government.  But return the government to Constitutional intent and there is no way to use government for leftist purposes.  So what would the professors teach?   I think the next generation of Academia would have a much more realistic point of view.



I agree, and also wish to point out that the model of education we currently have is collapsing. Traditional universities are unable to provide the educational skills Americans need. As a result, more specialized, private institutions are emerging. 20 years ago I tended to look down my nose at schools like DeVry, yet today they graduate people in the IT world that are FAR more qualified than those from more traditional venues. Just as the Internet has supplanted newspapers, and email has supplanted snail mail, specialized higher education is supplanting the old ivory towers of the left.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 8, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> You expect a revolution from acedemics that would most certainly reduce their funding?  Yes, I make a distinction between civil war and a revolution.



In that case, I don't see revolution within the realm of possibilities.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 8, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> All too true, UNLESS we replace career politicians with true public servants again.  You know, people who love America and want to make it better.  And who are there to serve instead of for the sole purpose of increasing their power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth?



How do you propose to recruit wholesome pink-cheeked idealists for a job that is by definition like making dirty sausage in a pork processing plant?


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 8, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > You expect a revolution from acedemics that would most certainly reduce their funding?  Yes, I make a distinction between civil war and a revolution.
> ...



I agree.  A revolution from academia is not likely.  Further, the entitlement crowd is not going to be attending too many college classes.  If you don't change that mindset, you probably won't reach enough people to make a change.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 8, 2012)

catzmeow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > All too true, UNLESS we replace career politicians with true public servants again.  You know, people who love America and want to make it better.  And who are there to serve instead of for the sole purpose of increasing their power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth?
> ...



You do it by taking away the federal government's ability, at any level, to use the people's money to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes.  See the companion thread to this one:  A New Emancipation Proclamation also in the CDZ.


----------



## American Horse (Aug 8, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Just an observation, but Isn't it a fact, that except for the American Revolution, about all of them begin with intellectuals, or self styled intellectuals who vie for positions of leadership, command, and control?  Intellectuals and student aged populations tend to suffer from the impetus of frustration that it takes to motivate others or be motivated to inspire a mass movement, a lot owing to their youth. Even the ancient prophets were disaffected "scribes", according to a theory propounded by Eric Hoffer. Look at the OWS population; it's made up of self styled intellectuals who are predominantly driven by frustration.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 8, 2012)

American Horse said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



I gently disagree with this theory in this case.  I believe the mainstream media (who consider themselves intellectuals) and academia are quite content with the more authoritarian and ever trending toward socailism government that we have.

I think the OWS is not drive by intellectual frustrations but is drive by mostly union thugs who oppose individual freedoms and ne-er do wells who have zoned out, drugged, out, dropped out, and who don't have a clue what they  are protesting or why.   I have watched interview after interview of participants, and not one could articulate a reasoned justification for their protests.

Conversely the Founders were of one mind of why revolution was justified in America and exactly what they were protesting.  It took them awhile to come to agreement on how to accomplish what they wanted America to be--we debating now are certainly not yet in agreement on what we want America to be--but they got there once they had the freedom to work to accomplish it.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 8, 2012)

My recap of this thread.  It would be great if we could find some commonground and put forth some rules and boundaries for our leaders.  The problem with this is complex.  You need to be somewhat general so as to create a critical mass of supporters.  You also need to be sufficiently precise, so as to eliminate political swiggle room.  (yes technical term there)

So...it means compromise in order to have a platform.

Can we restate where we are right now and then start to do some compromising?


----------



## eots (Aug 8, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> REVOLUTION!!!! ​
> (Disclaimer: This should not now or ever be construed that I am advocating an overthrow of our government. I would just as soon not have black helicopters hovering over the house and I don't want to wind up on the no fly list.)
> 
> But for speculation and discussion only:
> ...



rev·o·lu·tion  (rv-lshn)
n.
1.
a. Orbital motion about a point, especially as distinguished from axial rotation: the planetary revolution about the sun.
b. A turning or rotational motion about an axis.
c. A single complete cycle of such orbital or axial motion.
2. The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another.
*3. A sudden or momentous change in a situation*
4. Geology A time of major crustal deformation, when folds and faults are formed.

A_ sudden or momentous change in a situation could be in order.._


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 8, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> I gently disagree with this theory in this case.  I believe the mainstream media (who consider themselves intellectuals) and academia are quite content with the more authoritarian and ever trending toward socailism government that we have.



I completely agree.

This is why I pointed out that while I believe Obama and the ruling left are prodding a civil war, or at least civil disobedience, there is no chance of revolution.

Civil war serves the leftist elite in that it allows for more authoritarian measures. If a contingent arose to challenge the rulers in DC, then was put down, as they surely would be, then our rulers could use this as justifications for a crack down on ideas and organizations that are "dangerous."



> I think the OWS is not drive by intellectual frustrations but is drive by mostly union thugs who oppose individual freedoms and ne-er do wells who have zoned out, drugged, out, dropped out, and who don't have a clue what they  are protesting or why.   I have watched interview after interview of participants, and not one could articulate a reasoned justification for their protests.



I mostly agree. The OWS is an astroturf movement created by the left to promote unions and public employees. It is a reaction to the Tea Party, which was legitimate protest. That most couldn't articulate what they were there for was a by product of being a manufactured movement. 



> Conversely the Founders were of one mind of why revolution was justified in America and exactly what they were protesting.  It took them awhile to come to agreement on how to accomplish what they wanted America to be--we debating now are certainly not yet in agreement on what we want America to be--but they got there once they had the freedom to work to accomplish it.



Compromise is part of any society, and ours is no exception. As the left becomes ever less willing to compromise, on anything, one is left with the conclusion that the goal is to agitate rather than reconcile. Even when compromise is reached in the legislature, the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania opts for dictatorial solutions in defiance of constitutional governance, such as was done with amnesty for illegals.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 8, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> My recap of this thread.  It would be great if we could find some commonground and put forth some rules and boundaries for our leaders.  The problem with this is complex.  You need to be somewhat general so as to create a critical mass of supporters.  You also need to be sufficiently precise, so as to eliminate political swiggle room.  (yes technical term there)
> 
> So...it means compromise in order to have a platform.
> 
> Can we restate where we are right now and then start to do some compromising?



I see us as a declining nation giving in to the entitlement mentality that is making competent government impossible, that is eroding our individual liberties drip by drop, and that is pushing us headling into perpetual economic crisis that will ensure that we can never again be the amazing, exceptional nation that we once were.

Maybe others have a different point of view where are are right now.


----------



## SayMyName (Aug 8, 2012)

I project 50 years of continuing and growing entitlement in the United States, more or less like the Senators throwing bread to the crowds in the arena. The military and security services will continue to be richly rewarded with travel, pension, salary, and medals to always be trusted to see any threat to the status quo as one needing immediate removal. 

There is too much food, too much entertainment, too much of everything to keep people satiated for them to be thinking about cutting down their very own milk cow.

I can't see the people of the United States rising up except in the smallest enclaves where people believe they are actually aspiring to the life of the founding fathers. That simply isn't going to come back in this country at this time or in the near future.

Revolution? I can't see it, let alone see it happening in the next 50 years or earlier.


----------



## Swagger (Aug 8, 2012)

SayMyName said:


> I project 50 years of continuing and growing entitlement in the United States, more or less like the Senators throwing bread to the crowds in the arena. The military and security services will continue to be richly rewarded with travel, pension, salary, and medals to always be trusted to see any threat to the status quo as one needing immediate removal.
> 
> *There is too much food, too much entertainment, too much of everything to keep people satiated for them to be thinking about cutting down their very own milk cow.*
> 
> ...



Nailed it.


----------



## Intense (Aug 8, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> My recap of this thread.  It would be great if we could find some commonground and put forth some rules and boundaries for our leaders.  The problem with this is complex.  You need to be somewhat general so as to create a critical mass of supporters.  You also need to be sufficiently precise, so as to eliminate political swiggle room.  (yes technical term there)
> 
> So...it means compromise in order to have a platform.
> 
> Can we restate where we are right now and then start to do some compromising?



There are at least two different form of compromise, one that limits Power and or Authority, and one that corrupts principle.


----------



## candycorn (Aug 8, 2012)

Vidi said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Swagger said:
> ...



Wasn't there part of that song that went, "They decide and the shotgun sings the song?"  Violence begets more violence.  



> "The ultimate weakness of violence
> is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks
> to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies
> it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you
> ...


 Dr. Martin Luther King.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 8, 2012)

Intense said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > My recap of this thread.  It would be great if we could find some commonground and put forth some rules and boundaries for our leaders.  The problem with this is complex.  You need to be somewhat general so as to create a critical mass of supporters.  You also need to be sufficiently precise, so as to eliminate political swiggle room.  (yes technical term there)
> ...



I'd agree with one that breaks principle and another that pragmatically bends within limits.


----------



## Intense (Aug 8, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Agreed. It compounds the problem, leaving the solution farther away.  Welcome to the New Testament.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 8, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > My recap of this thread.  It would be great if we could find some commonground and put forth some rules and boundaries for our leaders.  The problem with this is complex.  You need to be somewhat general so as to create a critical mass of supporters.  You also need to be sufficiently precise, so as to eliminate political swiggle room.  (yes technical term there)
> ...



We could limit government spending to a percentage of GDP for example.  This allows for some growth that hopefully satisfies the left, while offering some type of limit to the right.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 9, 2012)

A nice idea, except that GDP growth has to and will stop. It is impossible for it to continue. That epoch of history is over. 
'Progress' today is not what we have considered it to be. It is in another direction. In fact, it is in another whole dimension.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 9, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> A nice idea, except that GDP growth has to and will stop. It is impossible for it to continue. That epoch of history is over.
> 'Progress' today is not what we have considered it to be. It is in another direction. In fact, it is in another whole dimension.



So government will have to shrink in that environment.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 9, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> REVOLUTION!!!! ​
> (Disclaimer: This should not now or ever be construed that I am advocating an overthrow of our government. I would just as soon not have black helicopters hovering over the house and I don't want to wind up on the no fly list.)
> 
> But for speculation and discussion only:
> ...



I am more thinking we are going to end up in a 2nd "civil" war than actually overthrowing the govt but let me stay on topic.

I do feel that our govt currently is destructive to my liberty and is ever increasing its impedeance to my ability to enjoy life and persue happiness by ever increasing its burden on me as a citizen.   

So, according to the declaration, it is my duty to partake in a revolution....however I dont see the american people having a realistic overthrow of the govt under the typical defintion of a revolution.  We would have to more likely have a "voter" revolution to fix the govt but i also don't have confidence that this will happen either.

I feel like I didn't answer you


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 9, 2012)

I have seen two revolutions in my lifetime. The Civil Rights revolution in the 50's and 60's. One that was created by direct citizen participation. The second, the drifting of our government toward an oligarchy. That started in the 80's and continues today. Created by citizen apathy and tax laws pushed by the very wealthy and their usefull fools.

A violent revolution? Not going to happen. *Edited.*


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 9, 2012)

I get pretty mad at times about all of this, but then I remember one of my good friends is a policeman.  I just can't bring myself to a position that puts us at odds in a conflict.


----------



## dblack (Aug 9, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> I get pretty mad at times about all of this, but then I remember one of my good friends is a policeman.  I just can't bring myself to a position that puts us at odds in a conflict.



Can your friend?


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 9, 2012)

dblack said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > I get pretty mad at times about all of this, but then I remember one of my good friends is a policeman.  I just can't bring myself to a position that puts us at odds in a conflict.
> ...



I'm not willing to put him in that position.  Point is, most of us put all of this in a faceless conflict.  Think about people in your own family on opposite sides.  Gets complicated in a big hurry.


----------



## Intense (Aug 9, 2012)

The only successful Revolution will take place between the ears, in the form of Ideas.


----------



## dblack (Aug 9, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



I hear you. I have similar relationships. I'm just pointing out that it's a two-way street. If the state passes laws that make a criminal out of you, your friend has a similar dilemma. Part of the calculus of revolution or, more mildly, civil disobedience is the choice of law enforcement and military personnel to protect the interests of the state over their friends (or not).


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 9, 2012)

Intense said:


> The only successful Revolution will take place between the ears, in the form of Ideas.



Back stabbing, underhanded legal actions and PAC ads are NOT ideas people.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 9, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



We already have a wide disparity of numbers and questionable accounting coming from our government.  Look around you.  Do you believe the honest unemployment number to be 8.2% Do you trust the numbers the government furnishes as the number of jobs created or the economic benefits of whatever government program?    When we have to trust the government numbers for what the GDP is, it is a given that the GDP would be whatever they needed it to be to spend whatever they wanted to spend.   Most especially when they will say that government spending increases the GDP.



> THE CONSEQUENCES OF UNPRODUCTIVE SPENDING AND THE MULTIPLIER EFFECT
> 
> Proponents of government spending often point to the fiscal multiplier as a way that spending can fuel growth. The multiplier is a factor by which some measure of economy-wide output (such as GDP) increases in response to a given amount of government spending. According to the multiplier theory, an initial burst of government spending trickles through the economy and is re-spent over and over again, thus growing the economy. A multiplier of 1.0 implies that if government created a project that hired 100 people, it would put exactly 100 (100 x 1.0) people into the workforce. A multiplier larger than 1 implies more employment, and a number smaller than 1 implies a net job loss.
> 
> ...



No, I honestly can see no way that the problem will be corrected without limiting what the government is allowed to spend money on.  Return the federal government to the principle that it can only do what the Constitution allows it to do, and the problem is mostly solved.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 9, 2012)

Intense said:


> There are at least two different form of compromise, one that limits Power and or Authority, and one that corrupts principle.



Compromise is going to mean that some of the goals sought will be relinquished or postponed. Generally this can be accomplished without corrupting or sacrificing principle.

Let's take the example of a socialist who strongly believes that socialized medicine is a moral obligation. To get a bill passed, he may have to compromise and accept that only the poor will receive government paid care. Is this a corruption of principle for him? I don't think so, he still holds the same goal, he just wasn't able to achieve it at that time.

I believe that people can compromise and still be true to their principles.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 9, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Wasn't there part of that song that went, "They decide and the shotgun sings the song?"  Violence begets more violence.  ​




That wasn't the point. Pete Townsend wrote that in reaction to the Khmer Rouge. The promise of revolution was replaced by genocide. The point is the futility of revolutions, particularly the Marxist revolutions that were common in the 60's and 70's. Usually the people found themselves much worse off after the revolution.​


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 9, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> A nice idea, except that GDP growth has to and will stop. It is impossible for it to continue. That epoch of history is over.
> 'Progress' today is not what we have considered it to be. It is in another direction. In fact, it is in another whole dimension.



That is an astounding claim. What in the world do you base it on?

For GDP to stop increasing, all technical advances would need to stop. Do you think that a dark age is looming on the horizon?

All indicators point to biotechnology dwarfing the electronic revolution and ushering in an era of astounding growth, in the very near future.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 9, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> I am more thinking we are going to end up in a 2nd "civil" war than actually overthrowing the govt but let me stay on topic.



I believe you to be correct, and I believe that to be Obama's goal.



> I do feel that our govt currently is destructive to my liberty and is ever increasing its impedeance to my ability to enjoy life and persue happiness by ever increasing its burden on me as a citizen.
> 
> So, according to the declaration, it is my duty to partake in a revolution....however I dont see the american people having a realistic overthrow of the govt under the typical defintion of a revolution.  We would have to more likely have a "voter" revolution to fix the govt but i also don't have confidence that this will happen either.
> 
> I feel like I didn't answer you



It would be nice if the goals could be achieved through the ballot box. I don't believe that is an option, but it would be nice.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 9, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> I have seen two revolutions in my lifetime. The Civil Rights revolution in the 50's and 60's. One that was created by direct citizen participation. The second, the drifting of our government toward an oligarchy. That started in the 80's and continues today. Created by citizen apathy and tax laws pushed by the very wealthy and their usefull fools.
> 
> A violent revolution? Not going to happen. *Edited.*



The civil rights movement is in no way congruent with the definition of a revolution.

The dismantling of the moral and ethical foundation of the nation via the cultural revolution that the left has imposed is a much more valid example, but it too was a creeping change, rather than a violent and rapid change.

Our nation changed nature in 1863, when the republic was dissolved in favor of an empire. It was again changed in 1933, when private property was usurped in favor of government ownership and entitlement. There was no significant change in structure in the 80's, just political losses by the left.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 9, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> I get pretty mad at times about all of this, but then I remember one of my good friends is a policeman.  I just can't bring myself to a position that puts us at odds in a conflict.



Most of my life I have viewed the local police as the last line of defense against the encroaching nationalist government. 

But in the last decade, they have been bought off and changed sides.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 9, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> We already have a wide disparity of numbers and questionable accounting coming from our government.  Look around you.  Do you believe the honest unemployment number to be 8.2% Do you trust the numbers the government furnishes as the number of jobs created or the economic benefits of whatever government program?    When we have to trust the government numbers for what the GDP is, it is a given that the GDP would be whatever they needed it to be to spend whatever they wanted to spend.   Most especially when they will say that government spending increases the GDP.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The unemployment numbers are consistent actually.  There are several measures and they are very difficult to understand at times.  Inflation numbers are crazy was they allow for substitutions on certain commodities.  Core inflation is really meaningless, as it basically suggests a person can avoid buying gas for their car and such.

GDP is pretty consistent and not too prone to large corrections.  If trust is now an issue, no piece of paper you create makes a difference now does it?

As a side, since you brought it up...

This was contained in your post:  According to the multiplier theory, an initial burst of government spending trickles through the economy and is re-spent over and over again, thus growing the economy.

Interesting how the government can stimulate an economy, but the rich cannot.  How can you believe in the multiplier and not supply side economics?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 9, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > We already have a wide disparity of numbers and questionable accounting coming from our government.  Look around you.  Do you believe the honest unemployment number to be 8.2% Do you trust the numbers the government furnishes as the number of jobs created or the economic benefits of whatever government program?    When we have to trust the government numbers for what the GDP is, it is a given that the GDP would be whatever they needed it to be to spend whatever they wanted to spend.   Most especially when they will say that government spending increases the GDP.
> ...



If you are a government that is wholly self serving or a President who doesn't have a clue how a laizzez-faire economy works, you are free to believe anything you want.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 9, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



If you expect a piece of paper to change government, you also have to believe the government will respond with integrity to that paper.  You can't make the claims you are Foxfyre and then expect your plan to work at the same time.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 9, 2012)

candycorn said:


> It's also instructive that nothing in the constitution mentions departmets of labor, commerce, veterans affairs, etc...  We wouldn't know what the unemployment rate was if we lived under the constitution as it was written.  Of course nothing in the constitution says that running water needs to be clean since, of course, the document was written well before running water.



Your comments are not germane to the OP.  In the CDZ, its a requirement.  You need to link it to the OP better, retract it or get reported.


----------

