Revolution!!!

[dblack]

"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]

"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]

"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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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

 

[there4eyeM]

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]

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?

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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!

"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]

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.

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]

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.

So we have a revolution; then what?

 

[Vidi]

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.

So we have a revolution; then what?

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

 

[Vidi]

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.

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]

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.

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?

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.

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]

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.

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!

"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.

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

 

[candycorn]

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.

So we have a revolution; then what?

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Pretty much.

 

[Vidi]

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.

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?

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.

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]

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.

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.

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?

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

 

[Vidi]

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?

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

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?