Am I the only one that believes America needs a second revolution?

Originally posted by PreownedMind
Capitalist market, healthcare robbing, stock stealing, retirement fund stealing, and bailout takers "The 1%" represent America and participate in embezzlement also they foreclose homes and evict tenants if ever this where ever put in mainstream media which is owned by six corporations and is highly unlikely they would put their funds in corrupt continents and if ever caught they would destroy the documents that prove such crimes. They believe the world is a business. Our politicians have views that have been paid for by "The 1%" and a few of them are in that wealth range. "The 1%" own the World bank and "Federal" Reserve therefore they have control of the inflation levels and interest rates. No invention that would help the world would be used in public until a "reasonable profit margin" could be introduced an example would be the cure for aids United States Patent #5676977 until "The 1%" is removed from power.

edit on 10-4-2012 by PreownedMind because: Grammatical error.

You need to educate yourself on the distinct difference between capitalism and crony egalitarianistic capitalism. Capitalism died in 1913, and the corrupt elitists have led you and many others into believing that what we see today is capitalism. Nothing could be further from the truth.

So....
Those who want a revolution what makes you think you will not be a part of the first few million killed? Hehe, everyone thinks the bad stuff will happen to someone else.

Originally posted by CottonwoodStormy

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by CottonwoodStormy

 

Thats ok I'm just putting it out there, even if a small part of it has truth, I;m just really owrried about justice, and liberty going out the door very soon, and if we don't do something now, we are going to have a bleak future completely controlled, with no money, and mere existence if that.

I hear ya but I don't even worry about that anymore, justice and liberty have already gone out the door but they'll keep pushing more of our buttons until someone finally reacts, even if they have to hire their own reactionaries (as in false flagging us). They need a reason to declare martial law and once they get it there's a good chance existence won't hold all that much charm beyond that point for most of us.

I honestly don't know what it would take to motivate people to press for change. Most are too fat and lazy and struggling day to day to be bothered.

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


I find what you have stated to be irrelevant, it's still wrong. Starting an argument serves no purpose.

(Hand rises to face, forehead falls into hand... eyes downcast, head shakes with a deep sigh...)

I think the answer to the question of, "Am I the only one that believes America needs a second revolution?" is self explanatory. More-so, I fall into the "Yes, I hope so!" as the reply.

The question drips with Double-Think. It is false positive, oxymoronic, and impossible. The question points to a greater answer, for those willing to hear it.

1. America. It's usually not hard to understand this. It's a continental area (north or south), and colloquially used in slang terms for the US of A... although,

2. Revolution. This is a process of cycling (as in 3000 Rpm), and when used in combination with a formal state, it means the process of replacing the governing authority while retaining the same formal state.

-double think strikes! - America is not a formal state, and therefore in the context of "revolution" these two may elude to some cyclical ice age, season, etc... but it is absolutely impossible to combine "America" with a political "Revolution" (at least thus far).

Revolution is a specific process, and if indicating the political one, then the intrinsic character - the state - must be party to the process.

3. "2nd..." I don't convict the OP for the understanding of history thus far obtained... although, doesn't it say something in its screaming silence? Doesn't the whole question make you want to pull out your hair and cry?

Here we are, talking about a fictional entity and our opinions of whether or not it goes through some unknown cycle.

"Does anyone else think that Superman should have a 3rd "S" printed on his magic suit?"

If one was to overhear some alien race talking thus, what would this imply? And here it is, we've found the answer to what may have been the intended question all along, "Does anyone else think that a(nother) revolution is warranted to overthrow the US government?"

(Of course, doing more than perhaps just asking that question may raise an eyebrow of "Sedition Seekers" ;-)

So if that was the true intent, yet the discussion is limited to emotional responses to grievances (un)petitioned... and centered on a fictional entity which has absolutely no standing in law (and only in imagination), then really, do you think the group of aliens sitting 'round will ever find the courage to even define their thoughts to make the case? Will the question move from faith/belief to articles of evidence? The fiction/imagination to actual justice?

I have a suggestion, if I may... Rather than fighting to overthrow the US government, why not just turn your back on it?

Why not just Amend your state's Constitution to omit the federal supremacy?

Who in the world would want sloppy seconds with the US government after all the lobbyists in DC have done such unmentionable things to her?!

So, to answer your (what I may have redefined) question- "Yes sir, I certainly hope so."

Violence is always the 'solution' for Americans.

Originally posted by DrNotforhire
Why do you want war in America??? Have you ever been in a war? I know first hand its not pretty... Nor would I wish that on my worst enemy... Sure we have problems but a war is a little scary to think about

This video will give people a glimpse of what war is like...a tribute to the troops.



Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.

I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps:
His day is marching on.

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His day is marching on.

I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
"As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel,
Since God is marching on."

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Since God is marching on.

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat:
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on.

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Our God is marching on.

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
While God is marching on.

He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave,
He is Wisdom to the mighty, He is Succour to the brave,
So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of Time His slave,
Our God is marching on.

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Our God is marching on.

reply to post by sakokrap


I have a suggestion, if I may... Rather than fighting to overthrow the US government, why not just turn your back on it?

Why not just Amend your state's Constitution to omit the federal supremacy?

It wasn't necessary to insult anyone's intelligence to make that very good suggestion.

It has been tried:

www.sweetliberty.org...

(edit to add url)

reply to post by abeverage


"will no longer have a Democracy"

LMAO!!!

2nd LMAO..!

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by sakokrap

 

I have a suggestion, if I may... Rather than fighting to overthrow the US government, why not just turn your back on it?

Why not just Amend your state's Constitution to omit the federal supremacy?

It wasn't necessary to insult anyone's intelligence to make that very good suggestion.

Well if you were a historian you would know that the only change that has ever happened has been through revolution.

Or a military coup.

Simply because humans are very tolerant and unless they are facing immediate danger, they do not want to kill each other. For the most part. So they take almost anything you throw at them and they do nothing.
To a point. Then they explode like berserkers and storm the Bastille.

If at some point the military was to decide that things have gone far enough, I would support them even if it meant a temporary dictatorship like Washington.
And its not the politicians who are to blame because they are merely puppets. The real perps are well insulated and often don't even live in America, they just pull the strings.
This racial business lately has been to try to boost Obama's campaign. Well thats politics.

I would rather see Canada and the US and Mexico form a new union, and the only way that could ever happen is if the military did it.
Is it fair that 1% of the population owns everything while people are homeless and living in poverty and the country crumbles?
Well who is going to stop them?
Occupy? Thats a joke.

reply to post by frazzle


It has. In 1860 South Carolina unanimously. In the past, it was met with war... but there are ways of disenfranchisement without the pulling of the trigger.

They listed their cause, just as the Declaration did, and seceded from the union.

The "Revolutionary War" wasn't revolutionary at all. It was disenfranchisement. It was Secession!

Replaying the lawful grounds of secession today does not mean the same outcome. It's a different world now. There's no way the federalists could justify the Youtube videos of them going in and bashing the heads of men and women in Vermont or Texas... just wouldn't happen.

Who's to say it hasn't already started?

reply to post by JohnCreed777


The second American Revolution is coming, and sooner than you might think.

Without having read the rest of the posts in here quite yet, I have but one question for you -

Would you be fighting in it, or standing by and watching?

Originally posted by Sablicious
Violence is always the 'solution' for Americans.

"when all avenues of discourse have been levied the only course remaining is the path of action" Unknown quote

Sometimes you have no other option than to beat sense into someone.

I walk the bloody path of ashura to the demise of all who stand before me. Let those that seek to stop us die by the sword and bleed out their hatred upon the cold ground until it be as mud of which we use as the mortar of a new nation.-Quote Yuppa, 4-10-2012

The whole western world needs a revolution. The powers that control america are the same people that control most of Europe and Israel. Real change cannot take place unless we start from scratch.

reply to post by sageofmonticello


I agree, and I was referring to "American Capitalism," because this is primarily a thread about America. Fair capitalism has, in essence, never existed. Even in the 1950s workers were exploited and the rich did little to amass their wealth. Behind every rich man (except the guys who first created Ben & Jerry ice cream) there seems to be a trend of oppressed and exploited workers. If Adam Smith capitalism were to be a successful system you'd think that some countries would have implemented it by now.

Still, this does not account for the replacement of manual labor with machine labor. Machine labor requires neither a salary, nor health insurance, nor a break. Machines don't get sick or tired. As long as the job of a factory worker can be done more efficiently by a machine, you can bet that it will be. This cripples the economy because it puts many, many people out of jobs.

Within a service economy one only needs so many services.

I don't know what system can competently serve a nation with a population of over 310 million people; it's just too many people. Of course, you could counter this argument by arguing that little competition creates hyperinflation, but the problem remains that 300 million is too many. Perhaps if we kept capitalism limited to each state we could create better distribution of wealth and put more people. What I mean by this is got rid of super chains such as Walmart (the death of small businesses) and Target, allowed only statewide businesses to do business within their restricted state and perhaps a few neighboring states. Corporate giants destroy entrepreneurship by making it impossible for small businesses to compete with them.

Aside from this, I propose a scaling tax, (1% for the very poor, up to 50% for the very rich) which would go towards social services and welfare to help round out the economy. The fact is that nobody needs over a few hundred thousand dollars a year to live a life of luxury. Why does someone who makes 5 million a year NEED all of that wealth? One can live more than comfortably on a fraction of 5 million dollars.

I don't propose full on socialism, but a combination of capitalism and socialism which creates safety nets for the poor. Why? Because, while some chronically poor people remain that way due to poor saving habits, there are many cases in which economic hardship is thrust upon people regardless of spending habits simply due to bad, or rather "brute," luck. I know that if I were to find myself in a position of economic hardship one day due to factors out of my control, my country would not neglect me. The incentive to make money, however, must remain, just not copious, ridiculous amounts of money.

In addition to this, take into account the jobs which the modern world will never again require; almost all manual labor is redundant now. Why pay an employee when you can purchase a machine, or even outsource the same job to China or India where you can pay little and not worry about worker conditions? With simple jobs slowly evaporating, we must address the grave issue of how to create enough jobs to satisfy a growing population of 310+ million people.

We should approach economic matters from an egalitarian perspective.

The problem with our current economy (aside from banks and corporations systematically working to dismember it) is selfishness and greed; we're unwilling to help each other out in a time of hardship and yet we wonder why things are so bad. This "Me, Me, Me," ideology needs to be replaced by "Us, Us, Us;" how can a fractured nation possibly thrive? We need a united front.

Originally posted by yuppa

Originally posted by Sablicious
Violence is always the 'solution' for Americans.

"when all avenues of discourse have been levied the only course remaining is the path of action" Unknown quote

Sometimes you have no other option than to beat sense into someone.

I walk the bloody path of ashura to the demise of all who stand before me. Let those that seek to stop us die by the sword and bleed out their hatred upon the cold ground until it be as mud of which we use as the mortar of a new nation.-Quote Yuppa, 4-10-2012

Action doesnt always require violence. Enough people not paying there taxes, paying mis given police tickets, peacefully gathering for a positive outcome would change things. Stick a million of us in front of the federal reserve see how fast we get answers. Stick 10 million of us in front of the white house see how fast they respond. Its a numbers game we have many they have few. If we can stop people from being slaves to their material goods and focus on more personal liberties personal freedoms, then we can have a true 'advanced' revolution.

come on......some one start shooting....!!!!

Lets start killing people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy


Thank you for your response and I applaud your willingness to discuss such topics logically and in a matter of fact way. Star from me and well deserving IMO. Likewise, my response to your post is not meant as confrontational but rather as an opinion of a different perspective, whereas you have given me something to ponder and think about with your perspective, I hope to do the same.

There are a few fundamental issues/problems/what have you, that occur to me from reading over your response that I would like to address.

Even in the 1950s workers were exploited and the rich did little to amass their wealth. Behind every rich man (except the guys who first created Ben & Jerry ice cream) there seems to be a trend of oppressed and exploited workers.

I gave the example of the 1950s as an example that large disparity of wealth is not a hard fast rule. Saying the rich do little to amass wealth doesn't seem honest to me. Sure, people have been born into wealth, I will not argue with that but just as many people have been born into poverty or little wealth and worked their way to the top. I know of no other system in the history of human-kind that allows such upward mobility. You gave an example of Ben and Jerry's, thousands more examples exist, far to many to list. Perhaps your definition of worker oppression and exploitation might shed some light on this argument.

While workers can be oppressed and or exploited they are also employed by free will. With a greater amount of freedom in competition there is greater competition among employers to hire the best employees thus creating better working conditions, greater pay and less disparity of wealth between the top earners and the bottom earners.

Still, this does not account for the replacement of manual labor with machine labor. Machine labor requires neither a salary, nor health insurance, nor a break.

There is no right for a person to work the job of their choosing for a lifetime. The workplace is constantly evolving with technology but for every job replaced by a machine, new opportunities are also presented. People have to build these machines, maintain them, install them, produce the raw materials, ship them, provide financing to purchase them, program them, ensure their efficiency, upgrade them, etc... ad infinitum.

The increased productivity from machines lowers cost for the end consumer further lowering wealth disparity and increasing quality of life.

Perhaps the problem is not technology replacing jobs traditionally held by people but rather a persons ability to evolve in skills, the ability for a person to gain those skills and the ability for a society to make training in new skills readily accessible. The world is constantly changing, at a faster pace then ever before. People must also be willing to change at that same pace and not rely on antiquated skills that have no marketability in a modern world.

I don't know what system can competently serve a nation with a population of over 310 million people; it's just too many people... I don't propose full on socialism, but a combination of capitalism and socialism which creates safety nets for the poor.... if I were to find myself in a position of economic hardship...my country would not neglect me...

I would say a system that gives the maximum amount of freedom for an individual to contract in ways they see fit, live their life in a way of their choosing and keep the fruit of their labors. A system that protects one from fraud, violence and from one persons rights over shadowing the rights of another person. A system that does little more than that has no population limit requires no large amount of funding and stops no population of people from exercising whatever political ideology they wish with their free will.

Social policies and safety nets would be detached from government. You could start one yourself and people would be free to contribute or not contribute and be free to receive or not receive the benefits. Detaching such things from a government would create competition, competition would create better social programs with better outcomes.

How can a country neglect you? Imaginary borders on a map owe you nothing other than freedom and protection from violence and force. Simply being born somewhere and living there does not give anybody the right to have others take care of them during hard times. In a free country, people would be able to create and contract into social arrangements that could take care of them during hard times but I owe you nothing and you owe me nothing simply because we live in the same country and were born to similar circumstances.

continued...