The Rich The Media The Upcoming Revolution

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ketsuko

They romanticize Che and other revolutionaries and never think about the blood, the loss, the hatred that follows.

The south seemed to get over it and fall back in line but then again they were the rebels. Still holding on to that hate to this day too but still hold their hand out for them federal dollars. "Thank ya boss"

a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

Oh.

Well then by all means, shred the Constitution.

My bad.

originally posted by: CrapAsUsual
a reply to: ttobban

Every media outlet has lists of names and addresses of the elite, they use them for interviews, many news producers have access to these lists, if these lists fall in the open the thing can start because we´ll occupy their houses and they´ll push the police on us and that will be the spark to ignite the revolution.

I think I am about to be sick.

# 682

a reply to: DBCowboy

I don't get your meaning, care to elaborate?

Are you saying that we shouldn't revolt because...constitution???

originally posted by: RainbowPhoenix

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ketsuko

They romanticize Che and other revolutionaries and never think about the blood, the loss, the hatred that follows.

The south seemed to get over it and fall back in line but then again they were the rebels. Still holding on to that hate to this day too but still hold their hand out for them federal dollars. "Thank ya boss"

The South wasn't a revolution though. They simply wanted to leave and go their own way. That's why we call it a Civil War and not the Second American Revolution. For it to have been a Revolution, the South would have had to try to conquer the entire country and replace the government of Lincoln with one of their own.

Instead, they seceded and tried to create their own government and nation, leaving Lincoln's government in place with the states the chose to remain.

a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

I'm saying I'm on the side of the Constitution.

Those that aren't, and want to see it gone, are the enemy.

originally posted by: CrapAsUsual
a reply to: ketsuko

You have no idea of what you´re talking about. These people cannot live enough to spend all the money the have accumulated. In the other side there is us who work every day just to survive.

The´re greedy and makes no sense a society wher so few can hoard so much and where so many have to live with so little.

They will be killed and I´m perfectly fine with it.

You do give the poor a bad name. And there are a lot of them.
But they aren't 'poor' like you imagine them as being.
You want to bankrupt everybody to your level.
Morally. That is heavy.

You will kill for money, given the right push, Hell yes, genocide based on, I dunno,
what you consider precious? I see. So it's just a matter of time. You just need the media to cough up that list.

You do realize you are marked? Oh, on all sides.
Consider today a very good day, for you.

# 683

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: RainbowPhoenix

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ketsuko

They romanticize Che and other revolutionaries and never think about the blood, the loss, the hatred that follows.

The south seemed to get over it and fall back in line but then again they were the rebels. Still holding on to that hate to this day too but still hold their hand out for them federal dollars. "Thank ya boss"

The South wasn't a revolution though. They simply wanted to leave and go their own way. That's why we call it a Civil War and not the Second American Revolution. For it to have been a Revolution, the South would have had to try to conquer the entire country and replace the government of Lincoln with one of their own.

Instead, they seceded and tried to create their own government and nation, leaving Lincoln's government in place with the states the chose to remain.

Semantics, rebellion or revolution very similar either way.

a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

No. There is a real difference. It's why we bother to have the two terms.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

I'm saying I'm on the side of the Constitution.

Those that aren't, and want to see it gone, are the enemy.

I'm all for the constitution however it is no longer protecting us in the way that it was intended too. The system has found a way to circumvent that document and make it nothing more than an antiquated piece of paper that the majority has no intimate familiarity with and the elite have only the most disingenuous concern for.

a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

I swore an oath to defend it.


And defend it, I will.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

No. There is a real difference. It's why we bother to have the two terms.

I said similar not the same.

"A rebellion is a violent uprising of the masses against their leadership, as opposed to "resistance" in general which can be armed or unarmed and for any goal including marginal OR complete change to a system of government. Rebellion may cause revolution, but one does not necessarily indicate the other."

For further clarification I said rebellion and revolution are similar not civil war vs revolution. Yes those are distinctly different however both a civil war and revolution can be a rebellion mutually exclusive of one another.

"

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

I swore an oath to defend it.


And defend it, I will.

whats your point? The constitution does not say "thou shalt not revolt" in fact the very intelligent men who wrote it all seem to say the exact opposite of that. If revolt is necessary then so be it it must be done.

a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

Could you show me in the US Constitution where is says to ignore/destroy the US Constitution because communism?

I must have missed that part.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

Could you show me in the US Constitution where is says to ignore/destroy the US Constitution because communism?

I must have missed that part.

Ok bud your going in a whole other direction and quite frankly I'm not sure we're on the same page or what specific point of mine your trying to contest. I thought I was pretty clear but hey I'm drunk so goodnight.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I dunno DB... I don't buy the revolution must equal communism, nor that it must mean the end to and destruction of the constitution.

In fact in many scenarios a revolution can be necessary to both protect, preserve and restore the constitution when it's become corrupted, circumvented and polluted by a corrupt Oligarchy with too much power and influence. Our forefathers seemed well aware of the dangers of corruption, many warnings were given about such dangers, and much of the constitution which has been pissed all over by these corrupt individuals was built to stop and halt them. Sadly as the forefathers warned, time corrupts all things. Washington is too corrupt, our constitution is being slowly destroyed like a frog being killed in slow heating water being brought to a boil. You want to protect the constitution, you can't do that by ignoring the heat rising in the water that the constitution depends on. In some ways, in your attempt to "defend" the constitution by protecting the people slowly eroding it to nothing, it can actually be you that's destroying it.

Now that being said, I'm hoping revolution is not necessary yet, but if we wait too long to stop the erosion of the constitution you love so dear, you make wake up one day to find that where once there was a frog, there's now frog legs with a side dish of WTF.

There's more than one way to destroy the constitution, not all require outright violence. Are you truly so certain the constitution hasn't been getting torn asunder while you sit defending the very people doing it?

a reply to: Puppylove

The scope of this discussion is about taking what is someone else's and redistributing it.

Basically redistributing wealth.

I can't remember that aspect in the Constitution.

Though redistributing wealth seems awfully popular with communism, socialism. Which is definitely not in the Constitution.

I think I would have remembered a communism clause in the Constitution.

originally posted by: Puppylove
You want to protect the constitution, you can't do that by ignoring the heat rising in the water that the constitution depends on. In some ways, in your attempt to "defend" the constitution by protecting the people slowly eroding it to nothing, it can actually be you that's destroying it.

Nice way of making me and those that think like me as the enemy.

It'll make you sleep better offing those of us who do uphold and defend the Constitution.

You'll be able to sleep at night.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Depends on how you define someone elses, much of that determination is arbitrary. Really no one "OWNS" anything. It's all one big social contract. Civility is maintained so long as an acceptable balance is preserved that maintains that civility. Ownership is ultimately an illusion of agreed upon circumstances. All that wealth that one earns, they earn because society exists in such a way that allows it. Everything you possess you possess because you exist in a society and have found a way to within that society to acquire it. Society is, however, fluid, it is never set in stone. There is a balance. If one wishes to risk dancing on the knife's edge, they do so at their own peril.

Honestly maintaining social lethargy and compliance is really effing easy. That we're even to a point that an actual revolution is talked about as much as it is, is completely ludicrous. It takes a lot to get enough people this pissed off. Greed has consequences if taken too far. What these people need to learn is a bit more enlightened self interest. You need to keep the majority at a certain comfort level with a reasonable sense of security. Not a lot, just enough they're to fat and lazy to consider revolution. You don't need to keep everyone in this state, just the majority. The death of the middle class will result in revolution plain and simple. It means too many people struggling to live.

Too much of anything is a bad thing, even water. The wealthy are consuming more than allows for society to stay healthy and content. The ball is in their court, they have all the power to stop this.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: DBCowboy

Depends on how you define someone elses, much of that determination is arbitrary. Really no one "OWNS" anything.

That's where we fundamentally disagree.

It's easy to say that no one really owns anything, especially when you're trying to take what they own.