My response to this Progressive article talking about Revolution:

[The2ndAmendment]

Robert Reich: Why There?s No Outcry for a Revolution in America - Truthdig

Reform is less risky than revolution, but the longer we wait the more likely it will be the latter.

People ask me all the time why we don’t have a revolution in America, or at least a major wave of reform similar to that of the Progressive Era or the New Deal or the Great Society.

Middle incomes are sinking, the ranks of the poor are swelling, almost all the economic gains are going to the top, and big money is corrupting our democracy. So why isn’t there more of a ruckus?

........

It’s possible. of course, that rightwing Republicans, corporate executives, and Wall Street moguls intentionally cut jobs and wages in order to cow average workers, buried students under so much debt they’d never take to the streets, and made most Americans so cynical about government they wouldn’t even try for change.

.........

At some point, working people, students, and the broad public will have had enough. They will reclaim our economy and our democracy. This has been the central lesson of American history.

Here's my response to the article; enjoy:

"What makes you think that a bunch of sissy males who despise and fear guns are going to entertain a revolution? You've disarmed yourselves physically and psychologically. You are slaves to the system your created. I hope you enjoy the NSA breathing down your neck.

The Enlightenment, the idea of Popular Sovereignty, was the REFORM against BIG GOVERNMENT. You Progressives RESTORED Big Government and REBUKED the Enlightenment. Our Bill of Rights was designed to PROTECT us against the GOVERNMENT, and you Progressives cheer as the Bill of RIghts are stripped away, most importantly, the Second Amendment.

You cannot revolt, because any man with a sense of dignity has left your movement. We will not surrender our firearms --- you already have. We will not surrender the Fourth Amendment, you already have. We will not surrender our right to Free Speech, you have have under the guise of "political correctness."

The Government has devoured Progressives like Kronos devoured his children. You surrendered your rights, now you're slaves, why are you surprised?"

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Progressives designed a system that destroyed themselves.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Reich has always had a moron streak to him.

Once we cross the Revolution Rubicon, then all bets are off. He's under the impression that the Revolution would be focused on the plutocrats but even if it begins that way, we're talking about an America comprised of Reds and Blues (political divide) as well as multicultural and there's no way in hell that matters return to normal once the plutocrats are dispatched by the guillotine.

We're quite likely to see racial division on top of ideological division. Not just economic division as he envisions.

 

[Moonglow]

Slaves, well I live pretty damn well for a slave...

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Slaves, well I live pretty damn well for a slave...

Your subtitle even reads "Liberal Soldier."

Let me show you two quotes by your Dear Leaders, that are actually true, but didn't want you to hear:

Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.

Political Power grows out the barrel of a gun.

 

[mamooth]

Reich stated or implied no such call for violence. Our two conservatives here, however, instantly assumed he was calling for violence.

That is, it's an interesting display in the difference between liberal and conservative mindsets. Conservative minds tend to think of violence as the first option. Liberals, OTOH, have the ideals of the US Constitution backing them up all the way, so they don't need violence.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Reich stated or implied no such call for violence. Our two conservatives here, however, instantly assumed he was calling for violence.

That is, it's an interesting display in the difference between liberal and conservative mindsets. Conservative minds tend to think of violence as the first option. Liberals, OTOH, have the ideals of the US Constitution backing them up all the way, so they don't need violence.

It doesn't matter whether he calling for a non-violent revolution or a violent one. Progressives have disarmed themselves psychologically for either. A group of slaves who submit themselves to the power of absolute government do not possess the SPIRIT for a revolution --- of any sort.

You've neutered yourselves.

You asked for serfdom, now you got it.

Your only "revolutionary solutions" would be continuing to increase the size of the government. You are liberal soldiers (useful idiots) that fight against the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment sought to limit Government, you seek to expand it.

 

[Rikurzhen]

You've neutered yourselves.

You asked for serfdom, now you got it.

Your only "revolutionary solutions" would be continuing to increase the size of the government. You are liberal soldiers (useful idiots) that fight against the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment sought to limit Government, you seek to expand it.

Someone else on this board posted this photo and I liked it so much that I went out and found a higher res. copy.

 

[g5000]

You've neutered yourselves.

You asked for serfdom, now you got it.

Your only "revolutionary solutions" would be continuing to increase the size of the government. You are liberal soldiers (useful idiots) that fight against the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment sought to limit Government, you seek to expand it.

Someone else on this board posted this photo and I liked it so much that I went out and found a higher res. copy.

That's a great picture.

But don't kid yourself. It isn't just the hippies who want more government. The Right HOWLED for more government after 9/11.

 

[auditor0007]

Reich stated or implied no such call for violence. Our two conservatives here, however, instantly assumed he was calling for violence.

That is, it's an interesting display in the difference between liberal and conservative mindsets. Conservative minds tend to think of violence as the first option. Liberals, OTOH, have the ideals of the US Constitution backing them up all the way, so they don't need violence.

The revolution will come at the polls as soon as some Republicans see how they have been duped into believing that allowing the very wealthy to control everything was a great idea.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Reich stated or implied no such call for violence.

Also, you're straight up wrong here, read his last sentence:

Reform is less risky than revolution, but the longer we wait the more likely it will be the latter.

He's saying if Liberals, like himself and you, don't get their way, by endlessly increasing the size of Government, then liberals are going to use force of arms to expand the size of Government --- out of necessity.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

But don't kid yourself. It isn't just the hippies who want more government. The Right HOWLED for more government after 9/11.

Classical Liberals, like myself, don't kid ourselves, we're fully aware that Neocons spearheaded the Patriot Act, which evolved into the annihilation of the Fourth Amendment. Karl Rove actually defends Obama on this issue, so that should be very telling.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Robert Reich: Why There?s No Outcry for a Revolution in America - Truthdig

Reform is less risky than revolution, but the longer we wait the more likely it will be the latter.

People ask me all the time why we don’t have a revolution in America, or at least a major wave of reform similar to that of the Progressive Era or the New Deal or the Great Society.

Middle incomes are sinking, the ranks of the poor are swelling, almost all the economic gains are going to the top, and big money is corrupting our democracy. So why isn’t there more of a ruckus?

........

It’s possible. of course, that rightwing Republicans, corporate executives, and Wall Street moguls intentionally cut jobs and wages in order to cow average workers, buried students under so much debt they’d never take to the streets, and made most Americans so cynical about government they wouldn’t even try for change.

.........

At some point, working people, students, and the broad public will have had enough. They will reclaim our economy and our democracy. This has been the central lesson of American history.

Here's my response to the article; enjoy:

"What makes you think that a bunch of sissy males who despise and fear guns are going to entertain a revolution? You've disarmed yourselves physically and psychologically. You are slaves to the system your created. I hope you enjoy the NSA breathing down your neck.

The Enlightenment, the idea of Popular Sovereignty, was the REFORM against BIG GOVERNMENT. You Progressives RESTORED Big Government and REBUKED the Enlightenment. Our Bill of Rights was designed to PROTECT us against the GOVERNMENT, and you Progressives cheer as the Bill of RIghts are stripped away, most importantly, the Second Amendment.

You cannot revolt, because any man with a sense of dignity has left your movement. We will not surrender our firearms --- you already have. We will not surrender the Fourth Amendment, you already have. We will not surrender our right to Free Speech, you have have under the guise of "political correctness."

The Government has devoured Progressives like Kronos devoured his children. You surrendered your rights, now you're slaves, why are you surprised?"

As I recall all of those who are toting firearms were cheering when the prior administration stripped away your right to privacy with the Patriot Act. In fact not a single "well armed" person stood up against your loss of habeas corpus rights under the Patriot Act.

It was those nambe-pamby "liberals" at the ACLU that took up the fight to restore those rights to the American people while the gun toters mocked them as "terrorist lovers" at the time.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

As I recall all of those who are toting firearms were cheering when the prior administration stripped away your right to privacy with the Patriot Act. In fact not a single "well armed" person stood up against your loss of habeas corpus rights under the Patriot Act.

It was those nambe-pamby "liberals" at the ACLU that took up the fight to restore those rights to the American people while the gun toters mocked them as "terrorist lovers" at the time.

Apparently you didn't my above post. Yes, there are many Neocons who "cling to their guns" whilst clinging to serfdom at the same time. Without a doubt, Dick Cheney (the real President from 2001 to 2008) stripped away the Fourth Amendment and Habeas Corpus, and you're Boy King Obama solidified and reinforced the Government's chokehold on the People. Before Obama came into office, there was plenty of time to reverse course. That's why Obama won so overwhelming into 2008, even I voted for him. Going down the Mccain Neo-con road was certainly not going to make anything better, in fact we'd probably in World War 3 by now if Mccain had won.

And the ACLU is most often correct, especially in their fight against drone usage.

But the ironic part [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] is that you think you're very clever by dropping an un-refutable talking point about the LEVIATHAN OF GOVERNMENT, and yet you truly believe that MORE GOVERNMENT is the solution.

You're not debating some Neo-con sociopath [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] you're debating a Ron Paul conservative. You better google a different set of talking points to debate me.

Most Neo-con gun clingers wouldn't recognize Tyranny if it slapped them in the face. The only Tyranny they'd recognize is the overt confiscation of firearms. Yet, if their own Neo-con champion abolished Trial by Jury, which is protected in the Constitution several times, the Neo Con gun clingers wouldn't revolt, because they wouldn't even understand how the Jury System is the ultimate (peaceful) bulwark against rampant Tyranny.

When the "revolution" occurs, it's going to be a battle of Enlightened Classical Liberals trying to Restore the Rule of Law, vs a bunch of Big Government Thugs trying to Preserve the Rule of the Jungle. Neocon and Progressive drones will watch from the sidelines, and cheer whichever side is winning --- they will flock to the strongest group, not the righteous group. This is because they stand for nothing, and are for nothing, other than being "comfortable" as [MENTION=30820]Moonglow[/MENTION] openly admitted. What do Progressives like [MENTION=30820]Moonglow[/MENTION] care about being free, when living as a slave is far more comfortable?

 

[Moonglow]

Reich stated or implied no such call for violence. Our two conservatives here, however, instantly assumed he was calling for violence.

That is, it's an interesting display in the difference between liberal and conservative mindsets. Conservative minds tend to think of violence as the first option. Liberals, OTOH, have the ideals of the US Constitution backing them up all the way, so they don't need violence.

It doesn't matter whether he calling for a non-violent revolution or a violent one. Progressives have disarmed themselves psychologically for either. A group of slaves who submit themselves to the power of absolute government do not possess the SPIRIT for a revolution --- of any sort.

You've neutered yourselves.

You asked for serfdom, now you got it.

Your only "revolutionary solutions" would be continuing to increase the size of the government. You are liberal soldiers (useful idiots) that fight against the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment sought to limit Government, you seek to expand it.

I don't see you taking up arms or committing violence to break your chains... you do not speak for me, nor are you allowed to put words in my mouth, just because you are nothing more than a loud mouthed nobody that is not revolting..nor have you tried internally or externally to stop society or politics from what they are doing..You remind me of those whinebag hippies from the 1960's and early 1970's...

 

[Derideo_Te]

As I recall all of those who are toting firearms were cheering when the prior administration stripped away your right to privacy with the Patriot Act. In fact not a single "well armed" person stood up against your loss of habeas corpus rights under the Patriot Act.

It was those nambe-pamby "liberals" at the ACLU that took up the fight to restore those rights to the American people while the gun toters mocked them as "terrorist lovers" at the time.

Apparently you didn't my above post. Yes, there are many Neocons who "cling to their guns" whilst clinging to serfdom at the same time. Without a doubt, Dick Cheney (the real President from 2001 to 2008) stripped away the Fourth Amendment and Habeas Corpus, and you're Boy King Obama solidified and reinforced the Government's chokehold on the People. Before Obama came into office, there was plenty of time to reverse course. That's why Obama won so overwhelming into 2008, even I voted for him. Going down the Mccain Neo-con road was certainly not going to make anything better, in fact we'd probably in World War 3 by now if Mccain had won.

And the ACLU is most often correct, especially in their fight against drone usage.

But the ironic part [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] is that you think you're very clever by dropping an un-refutable talking point about the LEVIATHAN OF GOVERNMENT, and yet you truly believe that MORE GOVERNMENT is the solution.

You're not debating some Neo-con sociopath [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] you're debating a Ron Paul conservative. You better google a different set of talking points to debate me.

Who knew that a "Ron Paul conservative" could read the minds of USMB posters?

That you feel the need to attack me and your fellow "Neo-con sociopaths" instead of the issue says volumes about the weakness of your position.

I am an Independent and to be more precise I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I am also a defender of not only the 2nd Amendment but ALL of the rights of We the People.

So when someone makes utterly bogus allegations about what I am supposed to "truly believe" they have to PROVE it by providing links to posts where I have advocated those positions.

Until you provide those links all that is coming from your direction is empty noise with zero substance!

Have a nice day!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I don't see you taking up arms or committing violence to break your chains

There is no justification for revolt against the United States Government. The primary method of peaceful resistance still remains --- Trial by Jury.

Until Trial by Jury is abolished or suspended, the People can only blame themselves as they are convicting each other.

Thomas Jefferson wrote volumes about Trial by Jury and claimed it's the most powerful and clever device that anchors a Government to the chains of the Constitution. Why would any sane individual take up arms against the Government unless the Government is seizing Property (eminent domain), seizing firearms, or usurping the Jury System? What other justification for revolt against the United States can even hypothetically exist?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

As I recall all of those who are toting firearms were cheering when the prior administration stripped away your right to privacy with the Patriot Act. In fact not a single "well armed" person stood up against your loss of habeas corpus rights under the Patriot Act.

It was those nambe-pamby "liberals" at the ACLU that took up the fight to restore those rights to the American people while the gun toters mocked them as "terrorist lovers" at the time.

Apparently you didn't my above post. Yes, there are many Neocons who "cling to their guns" whilst clinging to serfdom at the same time. Without a doubt, Dick Cheney (the real President from 2001 to 2008) stripped away the Fourth Amendment and Habeas Corpus, and you're Boy King Obama solidified and reinforced the Government's chokehold on the People. Before Obama came into office, there was plenty of time to reverse course. That's why Obama won so overwhelming into 2008, even I voted for him. Going down the Mccain Neo-con road was certainly not going to make anything better, in fact we'd probably in World War 3 by now if Mccain had won.

And the ACLU is most often correct, especially in their fight against drone usage.

But the ironic part [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] is that you think you're very clever by dropping an un-refutable talking point about the LEVIATHAN OF GOVERNMENT, and yet you truly believe that MORE GOVERNMENT is the solution.

You're not debating some Neo-con sociopath [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] you're debating a Ron Paul conservative. You better google a different set of talking points to debate me.

Who knew that a "Ron Paul conservative" could read the minds of USMB posters?

That you feel the need to attack me and your fellow "Neo-con sociopaths" instead of the issue says volumes about the weakness of your position.

I am an Independent and to be more precise I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I am also a defender of not only the 2nd Amendment but ALL of the rights of We the People.

So when someone makes utterly bogus allegations about what I am supposed to "truly believe" they have to PROVE it by providing links to posts where I have advocated those positions.

Until you provide those links all that is coming from your direction is empty noise with zero substance!

Have a nice day!

So what exactly do we disagree about?

 

[westwall]

Robert Reich: Why There?s No Outcry for a Revolution in America - Truthdig

Reform is less risky than revolution, but the longer we wait the more likely it will be the latter.

People ask me all the time why we don’t have a revolution in America, or at least a major wave of reform similar to that of the Progressive Era or the New Deal or the Great Society.

Middle incomes are sinking, the ranks of the poor are swelling, almost all the economic gains are going to the top, and big money is corrupting our democracy. So why isn’t there more of a ruckus?

........

It’s possible. of course, that rightwing Republicans, corporate executives, and Wall Street moguls intentionally cut jobs and wages in order to cow average workers, buried students under so much debt they’d never take to the streets, and made most Americans so cynical about government they wouldn’t even try for change.

.........

At some point, working people, students, and the broad public will have had enough. They will reclaim our economy and our democracy. This has been the central lesson of American history.

Here's my response to the article; enjoy:

"What makes you think that a bunch of sissy males who despise and fear guns are going to entertain a revolution? You've disarmed yourselves physically and psychologically. You are slaves to the system your created. I hope you enjoy the NSA breathing down your neck.

The Enlightenment, the idea of Popular Sovereignty, was the REFORM against BIG GOVERNMENT. You Progressives RESTORED Big Government and REBUKED the Enlightenment. Our Bill of Rights was designed to PROTECT us against the GOVERNMENT, and you Progressives cheer as the Bill of RIghts are stripped away, most importantly, the Second Amendment.

You cannot revolt, because any man with a sense of dignity has left your movement. We will not surrender our firearms --- you already have. We will not surrender the Fourth Amendment, you already have. We will not surrender our right to Free Speech, you have have under the guise of "political correctness."

The Government has devoured Progressives like Kronos devoured his children. You surrendered your rights, now you're slaves, why are you surprised?"

As I recall all of those who are toting firearms were cheering when the prior administration stripped away your right to privacy with the Patriot Act. In fact not a single "well armed" person stood up against your loss of habeas corpus rights under the Patriot Act.

It was those nambe-pamby "liberals" at the ACLU that took up the fight to restore those rights to the American people while the gun toters mocked them as "terrorist lovers" at the time.

That isn't exactly true. I can't think of a single RE talk radio pundit who was in support of the Patriot (what a farce that name is) Act. And that is how I view these laws now, I look at whatever they call them and automatically assume they mean the opposite. The elite of both the Repubs and Progressive Democrats are shuffling this country towards a dictatorship as fast as they can.

Bloomberg and his fellow billionaires are trying like hell to disarm the People of this country so that they can finally enslave them which has been their goal the whole time.

Just remember that folks, the ultra rich are trying to disarm you...why?

 

[Rikurzhen]

I don't see you taking up arms or committing violence to break your chains

There is no justification for revolt against the United States Government. The primary method of peaceful resistance still remains --- Trial by Jury.

There sure is justification for revolt. Trial by Jury as a solution is dependent upon having laws in place which address the problem. If the problem is, for instance, the political class and they insure that no laws are passed which hold them accountable, then you can have all the trial by jury that your heart desires and not one single trial will address the issue(s).

Until Trial by Jury is abolished or suspended, the People can only blame themselves as they are convicting each other.

The OJ Trial is a classic case of what happens when A PEOPLE become divided. White America saw OJ's guilt. Black America saw a hero being railroaded.

What other justification for revolt against the United States can even hypothetically exist?

Purposeful intent to create a Brazilian style racial caste system. Purposeful intent to flood the labor market in order to structurally advantage Capital over Labor. Purposeful suppression of civil rights in order to make multiculturalism function. Increasing levels of income redistribution in order to make multiculturalism function.

Multiculturalism is a goal which must be protected and Civil Liberties and the Constitution are expendable in furtherance of that goal.