posted on July 17, 2001 11:23:50 PM
A few questions on this 'pending revolution' what type of government are we going to put in place of the one we have? A monarchy? Since you're calling for a revolution it would seem that democracy is out, otherwise why the need for a revolution.
Any ideas on who the leader of this people's revolution will be? Al Sharpton, Rush Limbaugh, David Duke, Louis Farrakan? I'm sure there is someone that the masses will agree on.
posted on July 18, 2001 12:00:54 AM
uaru - no, we don't want to replace our government! We want to let our politicians know we want everyones votes to be counted. We want our elected officials to do what they promised to do. We want them to listen. I don't know about you, but I don't feel like I'm part of the system anymore.
When I talk about a leader, I don't mean one man overtaking the government and gaining control. You do need someone strong to rally the people. Why you throw out the names you did I don't know. I would think we would want someone like Martin Luther King, Kennedy. But, you see there is the problem, we don't have anyone of that caliber that we could trust to look out for the people and the countries interest. (Well, personally I would trust Clinton.)
For the people who weren't around or didn't participate in the movements of the 60's and 70's you just can't imagine how communities came together and there were results. Is that not true?
[ edited by chococake on Jul 18, 2001 12:05 AM ]
posted on July 18, 2001 12:13:47 AMWhy you throw out the names you did I don't know.
I choose those names because you aren't going to find a moderate or a politician to lead a revolution, they would want to use the existing government to make the changes. You have to find someone that feels there is no hope of change with our present from of government. Clinton to lead a revolution? I kind of doubt that.
I'd be a poor choice as a leader of a revolution, I don't even see the crisis. I'd first have to be a prophet of doom and then I'd need to learn how to panic others that didn't see a reason to panic.
rise you oppressed masses, take to the streets, fight the tyrany! I'll have to practice more, I just can't be sincere when I type that.
posted on July 18, 2001 07:33:50 AM
chococake - OK if we could do a rewind and go back to the point in time where the Federal government had not stepped beyond the powers given them and started stepping upon the powers vested in the states and "to the poeple" exactly what controls would you put in place to limit the federal power grab?
Seems to me you could make a case that things started going bad as early as the Whisky Rebellion.
If you had say a "Constitutional Party" as a third party what changes would you propose as it's platform?
Do away with election by delegates?
Undo constitutional amendment that allowed income tax?
Require backing for money?
take to the streets, - no thanks - and get my butt shot off by a bunch of young bucks with M-16s? No. Have to be a lot more subtle.
[ edited by gravid on Jul 18, 2001 07:36 AM ]
[ edited by gravid on Jul 18, 2001 07:39 AM ]
posted on July 18, 2001 08:58:53 AMwe don't want to replace our government! We want to let our politicians know we want everyones votes to be counted. We want our elected officials to do what they promised to do. We want them to listen
So in this revolution, you don't want a monarchy, but the in place politicians to listen.
and through our military to use in this revolution
So your going to hold a gun to these politicians head so they listen? Tie them up, and make them do what you want.
Everyone wants something different, so you first need an agenda of what it is you really want
Borillar compared the former USSRs overthrow, using the military. They wanted democracy in their country, and yeah they got it, but do you know what a mess it is right now? How long will it take until they settle down in Russia?
And as someone else mentioned third world contries, they do this all the time.... you ever wonder why they are third world countries?
Israel is right there in the middle of all that, and they prospered, that tiny country, the land is now fertile, while all around them is desolation and desert. And they have to keep guard at all times, and built one of the best armies in this entire world, that tiny country, while these huge countries around them, still can't penetrate their boundries, why? These huge countries want Israel, sure they do, for religious reasons, but also they want the great resources that country has worked so hard for this past half century.
So you want to tear down what this country has done for itself over all these years? Start new? And for what? Because you feel the President we have was selected, fine. We still are a Republic, even with a selected President.
Does anyone remember history and the revolutionary war, and how long and hard, and right here on our soil fought, to gain freedom from a monachary. We do not have a monachary. Yes, a lot of people think we do, because of this past election, but we do not.
And because of this, you want a bloodied, maiming war on our own soil. Tear down the corporations, pit brother against brother, sister against sister, parents against children? For what? Just so you can get George Bush out of his office, is what it all seems to boil down to.
posted on July 18, 2001 09:04:40 AM
I bet if Borillar analyzed the voting record for the U.S. military personnell he wouldn't be so anxious for a coup detat.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Jul 18, 2001 09:07 AM ]
posted on July 18, 2001 09:23:56 AMchococake, they know that you're a supporter of the idea that we must do something to rid ourselves of this corporate government around ourr necks. And they know that you have stated that you are willing, as a patriotic, loyal, American citizen, that you are willing to go the distance and do what needs to be done, no matter how nasty things might end up in the long-run. They themselves don't have the guts, the courage, the wherewithal to stand up for what they believe in versus being rolled over and taking it in a painful place. All you are saying is that you want a leader that you can trust. I'd like one too, and I'll bet that most Americans would also want one at this point.
As far as the Time Travel Theory of Revolution goes, arguing about WHEN it would best to have had a revolution is nonsense. You can't change the past. You can only change the present.
posted on July 18, 2001 09:28:33 AM"I'd be a poor choice as a leader of a revolution, I don't even see the crisis."
I think that's been obvious for quite some time from these discussions, uaru. Nothing new there and most everybody is aware of it. You constantly chide posters for being alarmist, when appearently you don't care much about anything. I say that, because if you cared about something besides your own, you'd be unhappy with the rest of us. It is unfortunate that by the time that the problem hits home with you, it'll be far, far too late for you to do anything about it.
posted on July 18, 2001 09:40:56 AMShow me where I've called for a revolution.Put up or don't misquote me.
They think that if we rise up in armed or even unarmed revolution, they will do to us what the Chinese did to the protesters there. They expect our beloved military to come out and to crush us with tanks to protect them from our banners. After all, didn't General MacArthur murder hundreds of veterans who were peacefully protesting right in front of the White House on Presidential orders? You bet'cha he did! And they would do the same thing to us as well.But no revolution succeeds without the military. Russia reclaimed its democracy only because the military was unwilling to go back to communism and turned the tanks around to protect the newly-formed democratic government. You see, a successful revolution takes more than just a bunch of angry citizens carrying signs in front of the White House -- it takes blood, gore, and death - the military and the media to make it happen (see item (c) above).Well, all we can do is to piss off enough people to support a popular uprising. I do not advocate violence, just get the military on our side is all I ask before we go tromping off to overthrow our corrupt government!
I don't know, sounds like you mentioned revolution, or uprising somewhere in there?
posted on July 18, 2001 10:04:58 AM"So in this revolution, you don't want a monarchy, but the in place politicians to listen.
First, let me say, welcome back from vacation!
That being said, I wanted to remark that a Monarchy is what the corporate owners want and I've said so before. They fanaticize that since they have all this money that they are really somebody special. In fact, they are so special, they think that everyone ought to bow down to them as they walk past or to suck-up to them as they are spoken to because they are so elite. Not all rich people feel this way, I know that from experience. But too many really do believe it and want a hereditary title of political power in this country -- the one thing that their money can't buy them. Yet.
" and through our military to use in this revolution"
I know you were addressing chococake, but where did he or I say that? Or, are you now making some kind of offer that we should all know about?
" Borillar compared the former USSRs overthrow, using the military. They wanted democracy in their country, and yeah they got it, but do you know what a mess it is right now? How long will it take until they settle down in Russia?"
NearTheSea, all I can say about this paragraph you wrote is that either you are very ignorant about Russia and it's history and your comments are a real non-sequitur, or you do have a good grasp of Russian history and current events there and know what a loaded and misleading statement that was.
" And as someone else mentioned third world contries, they do this all the time.... you ever wonder why they are third world countries?"
Really? Gee - that takes all the guesswork out of wondering why third world countries are third world countries. I guess poverty, lack of resources, lack of education, lack of medicine, and so forth that are generally recognized as the leading causes of being a third world nation are untrue. Thank you for enlightening us all to the reality that it's because they have constant revolutions. Which reminds me of that old joke - "El Presidente', the people are revolting!" and the reply "Yes, they need to take more baths."
" Israel is right there in the middle of all that, and they prospered, that tiny country, the land is now fertile, while all around them is desolation and desert. And they have to keep guard at all times, and built one of the best armies in this entire world, that tiny country, while these huge countries around them, still can't penetrate their boundries, why? These huge countries want Israel, sure they do, for religious reasons, but also they want the great resources that country has worked so hard for this past half century."
The real reason is that we, America, has sent BILLIONS UPON BILLION OF DOLLARS to Isreal for their defense and development. We send several billions of dollars per year into Israel's coffers and we are what keeps them afloat. Actually, it's the strong Jewish lobby that keeps it going. I'm not going to get into this, NearTheSea, but I see that you really do not understand the Israeli situation.
" So you want to tear down what this country has done for itself over all these years? Start new? And for what? Because you feel the President we have was selected, fine. We still are a Republic, even with a selected President."
Once again, I think that you simply do not understand things. It is much more than just a puppet-presidency of an illegitimate nature, it is that our republic is no longer a democracy, but is instead a corporate government. Our government no longer represents us - we, the people, but instead represent the interests of corporations who have bought out our politicians lock, stock, and barrel. What we're complaining about is that IT WASN'T FOR SALE in the first place! That's right -- the politicians who sold us out had no right to do so. This government did not belong to the politicians, it belongs to ALL OF US! And we don't want to replace our government with some other, unknown form of government -- we simply want to take the Corporate out of our government.
"Does anyone remember history …"
Funny you should mention that …
" And because of this, you want a bloodied, maiming war on our own soil. Tear down the corporations, pit brother against brother, sister against sister, parents against children? For what? Just so you can get George Bush out of his office, is what it all seems to boil down to."
A fine example of someone who can't see the forest because the trees are in the way! George Bush is just a twelve-year-minded puppet who has to be kept on a short leash. Who's mad at him?
At any rate, I hope that you will continue to post and to learn. The healthy political attitude that you left us with before you went on vacation is now showing signs of strain. Just hang on for a bit and we'll get you turned in the right direction -- don';t you worry about that!
posted on July 18, 2001 10:20:26 AM
NearTheSea, you have failed to show where I've endorsed starting a revoltuion. Your effort to take my statements out of context has failed -- there is hope for you yet.
Lesee ... I pointed out that I felt that the government was leaving us no choice, but to start a rebellion. That is not adovcating a revolution. In fact, according to what you quoted, I advocated just the oppostite -- no violence.
Pissing off enough people to start a popular uprising is hardly classed as a rebellion or a revolution, NearTheSea. I never said that we should have a rebellion or a revolution and no one here will ever find such a statement from me -- I know better. To advocate a revolution and the overthrow of our governement is to violate the CG's because it would be doing something illegal -- inciting people to violence, inciting people to riot, treasonous conduct, etc you name it. Nope. I know better, which is why you and the other have misquoted me and I demand an apology!
posted on July 18, 2001 10:22:39 AMNearTheSea, all I can say about this paragraph you wrote is that either you are very ignorant about Russia and it's history and your comments are a real non-sequitur, or you do have a good grasp of Russian history and current events there and know what a loaded and misleading statement that was
Really Borillar, you've been there? What MY business is, is importing from Eastern Europe. My partner is in Poland now, they have gone into Russia, but now they will not. The country is in chaos right now, as 'mobsters' (sorry there is not a better word) have control in the cities, not the police. You may see the President on TV or whatever, but the real Russia isn't doing well at all.
I think I have a pretty good grasp of what is going on in Eastern Europe, they go 3 x a year, and next want to take me, which I really do not have an interest in going, but may.
posted on July 18, 2001 10:28:58 AM
Borillar - I'm female, not that it really makes any difference.
NearTheSea - yes, the president was selected, you get that part! What we have to question, and get answers to, is how did that happen. What can be done so that it doesn't happen again? I agree with what Borillar said that we have a corporate government not a peoples government.
posted on July 18, 2001 10:29:24 AM"I read your first post with Netscape 4.70 it seemed to indicate that because of the failure to pass a campaign finance reform you saw no other option"
I can't explain your inability to follow the posts in this thread, except you skipped quite a few of them. No one seemed interested in talking about Campaig Finance Reform or how the media does a "blackout" to cover up important events in Congress (or that Congress simply takes advantage of a media blackout). Instead, I was talking to chococake and then everyone else began to jump in. I'm all for keeping a thread going, but don't misquote me to do so.
I am also glad to hear that you actually care about something besides your own. Your position is to not be an 'alarmist'. That nothing is solved by being alarmed and that everybody should remain calm and cool-headed. Am I right? Well, that's just what the politicians and the corporations want - cool heads where everyone sits there and takes it -- an inch at a time. Sorry, but I don't like it and I won't tolerate it and I'll complain to as many people as I can to get it to stop. If I have raise the temperature on issues a bit to wake people up that they do not have to calmly sit there and take the shafting, then that's what I intend on doing.
posted on July 18, 2001 10:39:48 AM"Have you been to Russia lately?"
"A picture is worth a thousand words"
True. But just looking at Russia's current political situation and trying to derive some conclusions from it is a serious mistake. If anything, I love Russian history and have read many a dry text and historical accounts of their history. I keep up a best as anyone can with current events in Russia. I do get some of our goods from Poland as well and I am great friedns with the family representative here in America who does the distribution. My point is that Russia is going through a transition period accompanied by lawlessness and until the country can throughly stablize itself politically, all they can hope to do is to remain calm and within a generation or two it will work itself out.
My statement that you quoted still stands -- and where is my apology for misquoting me?
posted on July 18, 2001 10:42:54 AM
"I do not advocate violence, just get the military on our side is all I ask before we go tromping off to overthrow our corrupt government!" - borillar
If you didn't mean to advocate revolution...you blew it. You'll have to be a little more clever about it...
posted on July 18, 2001 10:47:06 AM
Good morning, chococake! I was surprized at first by your admission that you are of the female gender because of your willingness to fight back. But then, I remembered that in the old days, women were not allowed to fight because they seldom ever gave quarter in battle and the men were too afraid of them.
But, honestly -- like I've tried to point out - I'm a lightning rod and anybody standing too close to me is going to get a share of it. You and I do share some common thoughts and patriotism, but if you hang around me too closely, you'll become a target too! Besides, I can easily defend myself against these ... these ... detractors.
posted on July 18, 2001 10:54:12 AM
Good Morning, Helen!
"Your anger and frustration are shared by many Americans and I believe that it will be made perfectly clear in the next presidential election!!!"
That would comfort me if the Democrat politicians weren't every bit as sold out as the Republican politicians are.
As far as people remembering the anger that they felt, recall that the Republican politicians always like to quote to themselves about how stupid their voters are because they [the voters] can't remember a damned thing six months down the road [Trent Lott, Bob Barr, Jesse Helms, Newt Gingrich, etc.]
If more people remembered how mad they were at having Clinton impeached in a witch trial and the six years of hounding that he took, then more voters would have turned out and Al Gore would have been president without question.
posted on July 18, 2001 10:57:11 AM"f you didn't mean to advocate revolution...you blew it. You'll have to be a little more clever about it"
No Toke, you blew it! That statement does not have me advocating a revolution, only that if you are going to have a revolution, you'd better have the military on your side.
