A little discussion about Revolution and the Declaration of Independance

reply to post by Polynomial C


I know what you are saying, but you are missing the part of the constitution that makes it perfect. It states that the people have the right to change the government to make it better. That is about as close to perfect as you can get in this world, as far a declaration is concerned. How to go about changing it is another story. But I feel that whatever the government changes into, that statement should always be there.

reply to post by crichton13


lol. Remain a British colony paying tribute to them. lol. I for one am glad that our Founding Fathers had enough balls to stand up for this country, unlike other countries...cough cough. Becoming terrorists? Some may see it as that, and I have had those thoughts as well, but make no doubt that when the great people of this country decide, as a whole, that it is time for a change this country will return as the greatest nation on earth. A country cannot be great on its own. It is the people who make a country great. Our Founding Fathers knew this.

reply to post by whatukno

Now its time to destroy every point you TRIED to make.

This will be the last time I engage anymore off topic posts.

Those that are advocating a revolution in this country do so only for the purpose of murdering other people.

Do you even hear yourself? For your info, people have been very restrained when being told they do not exist. I guess when the first townhalls happened and the two headed snakes just did not want to listen, they got a little loud. Oh, they must of hurt some feelings, eh? Then to be told by the propaganda minister that they do not exist and that the king did not even know there were 1.5 million people protesting government corruption and narcissism.

Sure, they have their own grievances with the government, and of course they are entitled to these grievances. But instead of pulling together as a political party, instead of pooling resources to enact change in a constructive way and change the government in the Constitutionally mandated and structured way, they want to usurp this government by violent means in order to enact their own version of what a government of the people, by the people and for the people means. No instead of fixing this government through the channels set up by our founding fathers, they want to destroy all that has been created in the last 234 years of history to enact what they see as right. Damn to whoever thinks differently from them, because they wish to do so violently.

Boy you really like your usurpation of powers rhetoric. Do you really want to talk about usurping powers, I thought not.

Let us see, a recent election had a 3rd party candidate on the verge of victory, what happened? The RINO dropped out and endorsed the Dem. How is that two headed snake working out for you?

Do you understand that senators were originally appointed by the legislatures of the States? Must have missed that one in the old history lessons, eh?

Progress is not always good in government, progression of any governmental body has always been rife with corruption and decadence over time. Ever hear of a law repealed here in the US? Thought not. I am sure you can think of a couple quotes I could post here.

Blah Blah Blah, kill, murder Blah, kill, murder, Blah Blah Blah

For every ones info, I have certain ideas, I am sure even whatuNO has one or two small ones. One thing I do know, we cannot continue down this road of corruption and outright tyranny over the American People and OVER THE REST OF THE WORLD!

Returning to the Natural Law or Common Law or Constitutional Law is the only way to move forward.

If you would have read the thread, you may have come across the conversation where a member and I talked about a country that has recently gone through a recent upheavel.

But I am sure the INTELLECTUAL ELITISTS do not need to discuss anything rationally. I guess the saying must be correct, the one that first attacks in a debate, by using fallacious arguments, have no basis for victory.

Thanks for playing.

[edit on 1/16/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by whatukno


Whatyouknow, youknowwhat? I have seen these types of threads go from a reckless and even mindless call for bloody revolution to a thoughtful and very considered treatise on revolutionary strategies, and no matter how hard those who try to entreat other members to join in this consideration, to carefully plan a revolution that could be implemented through peaceful means, you continue...nay insist on framing revolution as change brought about by violence. This is not how the word is defined, however, and I know full well you are smart enough to know better.

So, when you preface your post with words that all ready accuse those you oppose as impulsively labeling you a troll, I can't help but wonder that if in your heart, this is how you feel about yourself. Why do you continually insist on defining revolution as a violent overthrow of government?

Why do you willingly misrepresent facts, such as lumping the Salem witch trials in with the history of the United States? Should I and other members believe that you actually believe that atrocity took place after 1776, or is your own knowledge of that historical time frame gleaned from histrionic plays such as Arthur Miller's The Crucible? Are your politics so left leaning that since the HUAC hearings have been inextricably linked to the Salem witch trials you now assume those witch trials are also a part of U.S. history?

You castigate these advocates of revolution for not pulling together and forming a political party apparently ignoring the fact that many of these advocates are fed up with political parties. You lecture them for not wanting to affect change through Constitutional means and allow for a system to work peacefully, ignoring the fact that no where in that Constitution are political parties mandated and speaking to these parties as if they are somehow wholly necessary to the political process.

Continually, through out any given post of yours, you use the word violence or violently or violent in order to characterize too many people who are doing there level best to affect change in the very way you claim they aren't. You claim they are not carefully planning their strategies, and carefully considering the consequences of their actions, but in terms of the O.P. and his several threads of this nature, nothing could be further from the truth. Endisnighe has endeavored to offer ideas, ask for feedback, read that feedback and in many instances changed his own positions based on that feedback, while you remain steadfast in your insistence that those who call for revolution are nothing more than would be murderer's.

You admonish these revolutionaries for refusing to use the channels set up by our Founding Fathers, and then only a few paragraphs later admonish the Founding Fathers for not immediately abolishing slavery and instead setting up channels in which that might happen.

You constantly speak of voting as if it were the only way for people to reign in an out of control government, and indeed, you refer to voting as a right, when such a thing is just not true. Voting is not a right, it is merely a privilege granted by government, as opposed to your natural right to voice your opinions that you so clearly asserted at the beginning of your last post.

You rely upon trump cards such as "white male land owners" to dismiss the very same measures of government you earlier accused revolutionaries as dismissing. You hail voting as the surest way to affect change, ignoring that most change in the U.S. happened not because of voting but because of strong convictions and even fiercer actions.

You attempt to shame revolutionaries by cavalierly throwing out the tired "white male land owners" schtik, while ignoring the profound effect that historical figures such as Frederick Douglass had on this nation. You endeavor to shame these revolutionaries for wanting to return to a time like 1776 relying upon the institution of slavery to shame them with, ignoring your own admonishment of violence and the fact that, in the end, it was violence that finally brought slavery to an end.

You trod out women as victims, declaring them property in a time when their contributions to the Revolution of 1776 were just as profound as those "white males" you hope to shame members with. You willingly ignore the fact that several black males willingly fought in that revolution in order to secure their own freedom and you rely upon the language of deceit and excluded middles in order to place yourself upon a pedestal of moral superiority.

You quote these revolutionaries not with their own words but with ones you've invented based upon your own myopic opinions, only qualifying these devices of invented quotes with phrases such as "or something like that". You claim these modern revolutionaries would arbitrarily change the Bill of Rights, pretending your own arbitrary nature is preferable.

You attempt to hold yourself as erudite and more considered only because you would ask how these revolutionaries would go about developing a currency backed by wealth, insisting it is only those with out gold, commodities or land to back that wealth that want this revolution, but you offer no data to back up such an assumption. You declare that these revolutionaries currency would be useless ignoring that the greenbacks used today are useless.

While I in no way advocate any national centralized bank as a method to handle the U.S. currency, it is bemusing that you castigate those who do, by declaring these central for profit banks as not being authorized by the Constitution, ignoring or ignorant to the fact that the First National Bank of the United States, The Second National Bank of the United States and indeed the Federal Reserve, are all central for profit banks, also not authorized by the Constitution.

You hold up socialist ideals such as minimum wage laws and administrative agencies such as OSHA as government good, ignoring the damage these programs have done. I will not call you a troll and will step in and defend you vigorously against any member who would capriciously label you so, but I will not remain silent and pretend that your sanctimonious preaching offers any sound solutions.

You can scream vote, vote, rock the vote, all you want, in the end, voting has its place, but is not the most effective way to affect change, and while I stand with you as I have, to advocate a more peaceful method of revolution, I will not cower from the word revolution just because you have labeled such a word as advocacy of violence.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Yeah, what he said!

Like I said before Jean Paul, go teach em some manners.

reply to post by endisnighe


I must admit that I have been intrigued for quite a while to Whatyouknow's words and politics and how that seemingly contrasts with his avatar. That avatar is the same one used for the cover of Tom Robbins novel Still Life with Woodpecker. It has been many years since I read that book, but what I do recall is that one of the central characters in it was an anarchist who proudly declared himself an outlaw and blew up buildings to make his point. I'm just saying, that's all.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


What is also weird, I have gone into his past posts and the majority of them are not like this. That character did not happen to have a split personality/schizophrenic disorder by chance.

Wheh, that was like reading a rant by I have no frelling idea.

I may get really angry easy, I have looked at the possibility of bi-polar but I cannot even get that diagnoses to get on the federal dole, Damn. I do have OCD though, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, everything has to be just so. Helps me out with my work, when I have it.

You may be right with poly c but I just get a weird vibe when I read the forms of the sentence. It just seems too slick. And I do not care who reads what I am writing. Others are right, you do not need to post or comment in the way these people do. It is condescending, elitist, intellectual drivel.

I attempt to communicate, these people cannot even discuss anything without going off the deep end.

I don't know, they don't bother me much anymore. I imagine them being overweight, gap toothed, robe wearing, $10/hour government paid ,iguanas.

You know, the old imagine everyone wearing underwear trick from public speaking class.

I actually pity them. To not have the knowledge or critical thinking skills in this day and age must me tough.





[edit on 1/16/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by endisnighe


So .. anybody who doesn't agree with you is a troll .. ??

reply to post by endisnighe


It is sad indeed that intellectualism was hi-jacked by the left some years ago, and now if one doesn't buy into Hegelian dialectical discourse and Marxist emotionalism they are mired with labels of uneducated and stupid. As if intellectualism were measured by the ideology of those who were clearly influenced by Kantian critiques of pure reason.

Reasonable people dismissed as too reasonable, clear headed thinkers dismissed as being too "black and white" as if viewing the world in a murky gray fog is preferable. As if gray were a color not mixed by black and white.

Anger is an emotion that gets the best of us all, and there is much wisdom to be found in the old adage: Take a deep breath and count to ten. Count to twenty, to thirty to 100 or a 1,000 if you need to, do not allow the filtered wisdom of emotions such as anger to derail your own intellectual acumen. Easier said than done, I realize this, more than I would care to admit, but anger is not a productive emotion unless we are nothing more than rank and file intended to function as cannon fodder for cooler heads.

Stay the course, my friend, and stay calm. Our brother Wuk is on our side, I am certain of this, and cherishes freedom every bit as much as we.

reply to post by Polynomial C


Alright, I will give you one more chance.

Tell me if you can understand this reasoning and layout of our system.

Sovereign Individual

State

Federal

Now the Federal Government was meant to have the most restrictions upon it. The State fewer restrictions. The Individual the least restrictions.

Now in my system or the lawful one that is in effect now. The Fed has no authority to enforce such things as Nationalized Health care. In this system a State if it want to have a health care system, that is fine. The purpose being, I have 49 other choices. Also with it being a smaller group of people if bad legislation is passed, you can change it.

In your system, I have no choice. I have no where else to go, and I would need to get the majority in the congress to get rid of the damn law.


Now, in this same system of yours, which exists now unlawfully (unconstitutional-unless of course they passed some damn amendment I am not aware of, you have heard of amendments?) I might add. If the government takes away my rights that are not theirs to take, what can I do?

Can you see what I am getting at? You heard about Ireland and the EU right. It only took them 3 attempts to get their socialist grip on that country. Do you think they will EVER have the chance to leave, question anything mandated by the EU, have any real voice in their own governance.

Now if you do not understand my concerns about tyrannical government, you should read a little history.

Or is none of this my choice, because REMEMBER, I have the most power in my country. The government cannot lawfully take any of my rights that are laid out in my Constitution but are not given by it.

Do you understand this?

If you give me any more off topic, this is the last time I reply to you.

Endisnighe:

I do not always agree with you, but your
general idea I do. I do admit I have no
real concept of what the Federal Reserve
does. I know that both Thomas Jefferson
and Andrew Jackson were both against a
national bank due to the power they would
have. I am assuming that is part of the
issue now.

I cannot however believe that you really
think the 9/12 movement actually was
looking out for yours or anyone elses best
interests. They were run by big business
and Dick Armey, the biggest crook in
congressional history, other than James
Trafficant.

Also the self named Teabag movement is
so splintered now over religion and other
things I cannot take that seriously either.

The US is already too big to be governed by 1 body nevermind 1 world government.

Power needs to be returned to the states...Unfortunately power has been removed for so long that I fear many states may not know what to do with it

The revolution has started. So far, it is peaceful.
The first stage is mass awareness or awakening. That has happened.
The second is preparation for the worst case scenario. That has largely happened, and is continuing.
The third is efforts on many fronts to achieve a peaceful solution!
That is where we are now.

Reach, teach, and inspire. This is the message of the Oathkeepers.org. RTR actnet (Restore the Republic) is educating people and coordinating activities nationwide. WeareChange takes it to the street and in their face. CampaignForLiberty...we all know Ron Paul kicks butt. Alex Jones may have the dumbest anarchists posting on Infowars, but he is having an effect. FreedomForceInternational is spreading the word.
There are tons of others.

I think we should do more to influence what the schools are teaching. Get the communist indoctrination OUT.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

Originally posted by endisnighe

I believe they have already fired the first shot.


I believe our first step, here in the US, is to attempt to take away the power of the TWO PARTY SNAKE, that has wrapped us in it's tyranny.

That's all well and good, but what, exactly, do you propose to do about it. These threads are cute and all, but it generally seems like they end up being a whole lot of fluffing of the "constitutionalists" while "smiting" the dirty socialists.

The first shot is never what they do to you, it the type one of us give to them, and I don't see a lot of folks lining up to be the first to murder an elected official or storm the gates.

I am libertarian, but I am also not stupid.

Vote for the third party irrespective of whether you believe in them or not. Step 1 is to break the 2 party system. Once this has been done the system will have to change in order to return a governable system.

NB the "third party" will be different constituency to constituency. There are 2 problems

1. Convincing a majority to vote like this.
2. Hope that the majority are clever enough to recognise each local 3rd party!!!!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


The novel continuously addresses the question of how to make love stay.

I certainly don't identify with the character Bernard Mickey Wrangle, but I used to smoke Camels, and I do have a thing for redheads. But the Woodpecker I am not.

If you're honest, you sooner or later have to confront your values. Then you're forced to separate what is right from what is merely legal. This puts you metaphysically on the run. America is full of metaphysical outlaws.

Still Life With Woodpecker - Tom Robbins

On the subject of revolution, while it's easy to quote the entirety of the Declaration of Independence as justification for a revolution, one must seriously be deluded to think that such a revolution has a peaceful goal. After all, was our own revolution peaceful?

I think that endisnighe's ideals of revolution has more in common with the southern secessionist movement than the American Revolution.

www.sagehistory.net...

Those of you who believe that the current state of affairs will be remedied by a 3rd party are, I'm afraid, out of luck. First, the elites and corporate powers will never allow it. Just as they intimidated and threatened Perot in 92, they will be even more intense now, when they are so close to their victory. If a "real" 3rd party did arise it would have no impact until 2012. By then America as we have known it will be long gone.

As for armed revolution, I think it's clear that they are attempting to provoke such a reaction, but to the credit of most patriotic Americans, restraint has been observed...so far. That said, I think they want an armed confrontation between the "new" American fascist ideology and those of us who love Freedom, Liberty, and the Constitution. I believe they want to settle the matter once and for all so that they can proceed without interference. I think they will get their wish.

reply to post by whatukno


Bernard! That's his name. I was going to call him Max, but I think that was another character and I couldn't remember. I do remember however, the books musings on the longevity of love. Thanks for clearing that up.

As to your assertions that only deluded people believe in peaceful revolutions, I once again remind you of the Velvet Revolution of Prague in 1989, as well as the several other "gentle" revolutions of that time frame in the Eastern bloc of Europe. There are, of course, also those revolutions such as the industrial and sexual revolutions that were less political in nature and more cultural, but were revolutions just the same. Delusional? Perhaps not.

reply to post by mrbarber


If by the very actions of members here on ATS are concerned your observation seems to be true. I do believe in that endeavor, they will fail.

As the goading and ridicule by whatuNO, so be the attitude of the government today.

To steal by mandates or legislation, is by far the way of tyranny. It is quite funny in many aspects of this peaceful revolution that is sweeping the country, that they, not the revolutionaries foment discourse.

So in parting I will quote again the one of two documents that make our country great-Neither of which is 2700 pages of blather and control

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.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

As to your assertions that only deluded people believe in peaceful revolutions, I once again remind you of the Velvet Revolution of Prague in 1989, as well as the several other "gentle" revolutions of that time frame in the Eastern bloc of Europe. There are, of course, also those revolutions such as the industrial and sexual revolutions that were less political in nature and more cultural, but were revolutions just the same. Delusional? Perhaps not.

Of course we can also check out the revolution in Libya...

The October Revolution in Russia...

Or others



endisnighe...

I still believe that your idea of revolution is more akin to the Southern Secessionist movement than the American Revolution. We all of course know how you feel about the 13th Amendment. So if you can't be honest with us about what you want I hope you can at least be honest with yourself.





[edit on 1/16/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno


Yes now that the ad hominem use of the revolutionaries as a device have fallen on deaf ears and has been destroyed by logic and snarky repose, the whatuNO decides a different approach.

Use of post hoc ero propter hoc (believing that happenstance implies causal relation) is used to associate me with slave states. Also this reasoning (if it could be said as reasoning) seems to also include the use of straw man tactics (informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position) plus a little fallacy of composition (property of constituent parts, to the conclusion that the composite item has that property) with appeal to probability (something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen).

In further investigation to whatuNO's stance and rhetoric, a resemblance to argumentum ad nauseum (repeat it enough times it will become true) with equal measures of appeal to ridicule (presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous) and guilty by association fallacy (this needing no explanation).

First a dirty revolutary now a dirty slaver, come on whatuNO, you can do better.

Can't you?


[edit on 1/16/2010 by endisnighe]