NationStates Jolt Archive

First off, I want to keep this as an American thread only, it is not that I do not respect the opinions of non-Americans, nor am I trying to flamebait, I just want to know when you think is alright for American citizens to rebel.

Obviously my first answer would have to be when your tea costs too much money and tastes funny...:tongue:

Joking aside, to me it comes when I feel that the government has willingly violated my property rights.

When the Government decides that we can't own guns. Or when communists try and take over.

When you feel like it/think you can win/don't care if you lose.

According to Thomas Jefferson, a little rebellion every few years is necessary.

I think we're overdue.

Well, it depends on what your definition of revolution is, does the Revolution of 1800 count? How about the Reagen Revolution? or the possible next step, the Obama Revolution

when you win.

Joking aside, to me it comes when I feel that the government has willingly violated my property rights.

Totally agree with property rights, I say trading liberty for security (see patriot act). I think if the act goes any further, and people pull their heads out of their asses, we'll see shit hit the fan pretty soon...

Rebel how?

When the revolution comes, I'll be there marching with my rifle.

I'd have to say when the government infringes on the rights of the people. When citizens are no longer entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

When America continually degrades and the Communist movement grows in strength.

Borrowing the logic of a social contract from Locke and Rousseau, I'd broadly say that it's when the government commits crimes against its citizens.

The only time I would rebel would be if a president proclaimed himself dictator. Even when a right is revoked, its important to give it time to work itself out--try to imagine if the country rebelled because of the Prohibition!

When America continually degrades and the Communist movement grows in strength.

I'll be right there with ya brother.

I'd have to say when the government infringes on the rights of the people. When citizens are no longer entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

So many laws governing consensual "vices", the FCC, The USA PATRIOT Act...are we there yet?

Rebellion is okay when fighting a giant space station.

According to Thomas Jefferson, a little rebellion every few years is necessary.

I think we're overdue.
Indeed, although I don't think he said every few years.

In response to the OP, rebellion is fine as soon as the government takes too much control. In other words, we should've rebelled when the PATRIOT act was introduced. Of course, there was probably an event before that that we should've started at, but I'm keeping this within my lifetime.:tongue:

For Americans Only: When is Rebellion Okay?

When you win. If you lose, it wasn't okay. *nod*

Currently in stages of civil disobedience. Armed revolt comes when they shoot first or seek to enforce their illegal regulations. Peaceful resolutions are preferable - after all, the founding fathers tried to resolve their comp-laints about the Crown's abuses for at least a decade before the scuffle at Lexington & Concord the year before the Declaration of Indepenence. I am concerned that the next president will continue the encroachments on our freedoms no matter which party gains the presidency and whether the congressional majority is D or R. A fight is coming unless there is a change from the current fascist policies of the government.

*edit* when they tax breathing (carbon tax. I exhale carbon. You ain't taxing my breathing!) and water (The UN apparently doesn't think water is a right) I will DEFINITELY start the shooting.

When the Government decides that we can't own guns. Or when communists try and take over.

True dat

Indeed, although I don't think he said every few years.

In response to the OP, rebellion is fine as soon as the government takes too much control. In other words, we should've rebelled when the PATRIOT act was introduced. Of course, there was probably an event before that that we should've started at, but I'm keeping this within my lifetime.:tongue:

If it gets renewed, you and me can start a rev, I was to little to know what was going on before.

When you win. If you lose, it wasn't okay. *nod*

true dat

When you win. If you lose, it wasn't okay. *nod*

Even if you're Jean Betrand Aristide?

I agree with the general sentiments here. When people feel more threatened by what their Government is doing through 'official' means than what it can do to them directly, they will fight.

This is especially true if the national military appears unwilling to support Government actions. Since the USA has an all volunteer army, I would expect the bulk of it to side with the citizenry in the event of an armed rebellion, which means it would probably be relatively quick.

Even if you're Jean Betrand Aristide?

Well, Aristide certainly gets points for trying.

Since the USA has an all volunteer army

An all-volunteer army would, in all probability, be less likely to side with the public than draftees, who would both be more representative of the general population and less inclined toward loyalty.

First off, I want to keep this as an American thread only, it is not that I do not respect the opinions of non-Americans, nor am I trying to flamebait, I just want to know when you think is alright for American citizens to rebel.

That's absurd. This is an international forum. Discuss US issues if you want, but what difference does it make if non-US citizens participate?

Joking aside, to me it comes when I feel that the government has willingly violated my property rights.

What does that constitute?

An all-volunteer army would, in all probability, be less likely to side with the public than draftees, who would both be more representative of the general population and less inclined toward loyalty.

I disagree. Since a volunteer requires less indoctrination and are generally allowed greater flexibility they tend to keep stronger ties with home and community. The military becomes more a job or career, often used to gain skills, experience, college money.

This is a good thing, mind you.

And people who sign up for that sort of thing aren't in it to be shooting at their own countrymen.

What does that constitute?

Taking my property away from me, coming onto my property without my permission or a warrant from a authority that we both agree is a veritable authority.

Infringing on my right to own property, or my right to do with it what I wish.

When the government ceases to respond to the needs of the people and the nation, instead inflicting upon the American people suffering and hardship in order to further personal and partisan agendas.

Or when abortion is legal while not wearing a seatbelt isn't.

As rarely as is possible, given that violence, under all circumstances, ought to be considered a last resort.

But, should the time come when the government is entirely non-responsive, even to massive majority movements, that's when a little revolution would be a-okay. As it stands, we're likely to see a government shift within the next year, towards a President and Congress more reflective of our national attitudes. They'll still be hemmed into the center (as they should be), but they'll be there.

When the revolution comes, I'll be there marching with my rifle.
In which direction?

Or when communists try and take over.

*Cue theme from Miami Vice* Not the movie!

In which direction?

As for me, I'd likely spring for my trump card: Swiss Ancestry. Forest Cantons, here I come!

Taking my property away from me,

Do you count taxation? What about eminent domain?

Are you suggesting that we should overthrow the present government?

coming onto my property without my permission or a warrant from a authority that we both agree is a veritable authority.

"We both agree"? So if I deny the legitimacy of the court system for whatever reason, does it follow that I should rebel?

Infringing on my right to own property,

Slaves? Nuclear weaponry?

or my right to do with it what I wish.

So you think a government that regulates the economy should be overthrown?

Well, Aristide certainly gets points for trying.

Yeah. Just making my point -- he won the revolution, and yet it wasn't good. I think Robert Mugabe fits into that category too.

Taking my property away from me, coming onto my property without my permission or a warrant from a authority that we both agree is a veritable authority.

Infringing on my right to own property, or my right to do with it what I wish.

Try not paying your property taxes. You've never owned your property. It, and this whole country, was bought and paid for a long time ago.

If they violate my property rights, take away my guns, or if they raise the income tax to much higher.

I personally think that we should fire everyone currently in gov't, dems and reps. Abolish about half the laws and taxes currently in place (there are too many to name them in the short time I have), and basically eliminate about two thirds of the government.

Abolish about half the laws and taxes currently in place (there are too many to name them in the short time I have), and basically eliminate about two thirds of the government.
Oooh, can we do that randomly? That would be fun!!

When America continually degrades and the Communist movement grows in strength.

What, you mean when there are enough communists to hold bake sale? That'd probably be about 10 times their current strength. Sorry to break it to you but the whole "oh noes! teh ebil communists!" thing went out of style years ago.

First off, I want to keep this as an American thread only, it is not that I do not respect the opinions of non-Americans, nor am I trying to flamebait, I just want to know when you think is alright for American citizens to rebel.

Obviously my first answer would have to be when your tea costs too much money and tastes funny...:tongue:

Joking aside, to me it comes when I feel that the government has willingly violated my property rights.

No one here will rebel, under any of the circumstances they claim they will. It's big talk. The worst the government have to expect from the average NSer is maybe a leaflet drop, or a whist-drive.

Joking aside, to me it comes when I feel that the government has willingly violated my property rights.

I do not get this property holiness ideology. There is no intrinsic right to own part of nature's resources. Politics is a game, and as a society we are able to play it any way we find appropriate. Why would we support a system where property owners (a.k.a. the rich) get to oppress the poor by getting more power, instead of trying to optimise from a utilitarian point of view? I do not say that we need to distribute resources evenly, but surely there are more efficient ways of distributing resources than letting the laws of the jungle rule, nourishing some people into excessive wealth while others are left without options in life. Both nature and people would be better off.

From a utilitarian point of view, civil rights seems to be a much more important social institution to fight for.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Liberals are communists.

when you consider the price of your life and the life of your family members to be worth paying to gain the victory.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Liberals are communists.

Sweet.

Does that mean I can send you to a gulag.

*beats Clecklestan* 'Bad Clecklestan, mine faster.'

when you consider the price of your life and the life of your family members to be worth paying to gain the victory.

At what point would you consider things bad enough that you'd make that decision on behalf of your family?

As far as i can tell in most of the post, you all should have signed up for a rebelling a LONG time ago. With the induction of the patriot act.. and its son PA2 (http://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/patriot-act-II-analysis.php) You all (as Americans) have no rights as given to you in the bill of rights.

As far as the volunteer military I can tell you that the ones who joined willing would not join in a rebelling since they ENJOY the government telling them what to do. (due to brainwashing or just stupidity who knows)

Me personally (being an American) agree that A. The current government needs to be trimmed (about 50-70% would do), many laws national, state, and local should be removed from the books. (20-30%). And most importantly, that americans should wake the hell up.

There is no more "government" or "democracy" its replaced with "cooperations" and "pick and choose".

I will end this little rant suddenly and with a paraphrase from George Carlin. "I believe the people have either no rights, or unlimited rights. Me, I think more towrds unlimited rights. I have the right to not like what you say, tell you to f*** yourself. As do you have the right to shoot me."

when is Rebellion ok?

when it succeeds.

Man, if I had the weaponry and manpower, I'd overthrow the current government and institute a truly libertarian state.

DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER!!!

At what point would you consider things bad enough that you'd make that decision on behalf of your family?
for me that would require that my family was in serious danger of being killed by the government anyway. so that revolution gives them, if not a better chance of survival, at least the dignity of fighting for freedom instead of dying like dogs.

Man, if I had the weaponry and manpower, I'd overthrow the current government and institute a truly libertarian state.

I hear ya. They crossed the line a long time ago.

for me that would require that my family was in serious danger of being killed by the government anyway. so that revolution gives them, if not a better chance of survival, at least the dignity of fighting for freedom instead of dying like dogs.

thats pretty sad, so they could make you and everyone you know a slave, and you wouldn't do anything about it?

personally, I think most people would wait until about that point. Although I think the government is corrupt I know I wouldn't do shit, unless there was a large movement going already or the gov't went batshit crazy.

No one here will rebel, under any of the circumstances they claim they will.

How do you know?

thats pretty sad, so they could make you and everyone you know a slave, and you wouldn't do anything about it?
nope.

although "slavery" tends to be a dangerous business.

nope.

although "slavery" tends to be a dangerous business.
Slavery doesn't have to be dangerous to the slaves, its just incredibly sucky as far as choices go.

How do you know?

cause they're not rebelling yet :P

I kinda wish I did rebel, unfortunately stuff like that just makes you look crazy. The only likely way a rebellion would start is for there to be an organized resistance, which would have to come from the top imo. Like an influential politician.

Slavery doesn't have to be dangerous to the slaves, its just incredibly sucky as far as choices go.



wellll when you can show me a true slave situation in the modern world that doesnt involve serious risk of death, we can discuss it.

true slavery is economically risky at best. treating slaves well tends to ruin profits.

I do not get this property holiness ideology. There is no intrinsic right to own part of nature's resources.

According to the great philosopher John Locke, we have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and PROPERTY.

cPolitics is a game, and as a society we are able to play it any way we find appropriate. Why would we support a system where property owners (a.k.a. the rich) get to oppress the poor [/quote]

Andaras? Is that you.

Because it is fair. In a free capitalist society the only thing holding you back is your own merit. Your own choices dictate how you succeed or fail in life.

I do not say that we need to distribute resources evenly, but surely there are more efficient ways of distributing resources than letting the laws of the jungle rule, nourishing some people into excessive wealth while others are left without options in life.

One has yet to present itself, no?

From a utilitarian point of view, civil rights seems to be a much more important social institution to fight for.

Explain how property rights are not a civil right.

when you consider the price of your life and the life of your family members to be worth paying to gain the victory.

threadpwn

One has yet to present itself, no?

It has, we take money from rich people and we invest it in educating poor people. This goes a long way towards levelling the playing field.

It has, we take money from rich people and we invest it in educating poor people. This goes a long way towards levelling the playing field.

Vouchers?

Or graduated taxation?

Vouchers?

Or graduated taxation?

Graduated taxation.

wellll when you can show me a true slave situation in the modern world that doesnt involve serious risk of death, we can discuss it.

true slavery is economically risky at best. treating slaves well tends to ruin profits.

I guess you'd have to define "serious risk of death"- life has a serious risk of death, and so I'm sure alot of slaves end up dying, as all people do.

I don't see why it would ruin profits, you're assuming the gov't would put us to work in salt mines, but I see no reason they wouldn't make engineers keep on engineering and so forth. Considering the quality of life well educated people generally have, there's no reason for them to take a loss if they feed you and give you a bed.

No one here will rebel, under any of the circumstances they claim they will. It's big talk. The worst the government have to expect from the average NSer is maybe a leaflet drop, or a whist-drive.

Spot on, sir. Also, I'm told by the Council for Condescending Corrections that the correct term is Whist-a-thon.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Liberals are communists.

Right. That's why they drive Volvos and have coffeehouse-every-day money. Come on.

when it succeeds.

I think I've already theorized that this is not entirely true. Haiti and Zimbabwe being examples.

According to the great philosopher John Locke, we have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and PROPERTY.

Who cares who said it? It's still an opinion.

Andaras? Is that you.

Because it is fair. In a free capitalist society the only thing holding you back is your own merit. Your own choices dictate how you succeed or fail in life.

Please. The white trust-fund child has equal footing in life as the orphaned minority? Please tell me how making money by merely having money and living off the interest is meritorious at all. When wealth is that self-sustaining, merit is an option. The sitting President is ample proof of that.

Graduated taxation.

See, I support graduated taxation to a point, from experience I have learned that it is next to impossible for a family of four to live off 10,000 dollars a month while I am sure you could scrape by on a million a month despite a higher tax rate.

But other than those below or just barely above to poverty line, it makes no sense to force them to pay more as they head up the income ladder. Should they be punished for their own prosperity? No, they should not.

According to the great philosopher John Locke, we have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and PROPERTY.

And he was wrong. Life and liberty, yes. Property, no. Control over external resources is inherently competitive in a way life and liberty are not--nothing clearly makes one thing "mine" and another thing "yours." We have to come up with social rules to get to that point.

Because it is fair. In a free capitalist society the only thing holding you back is your own merit.

So there are no other factors? Really?

Your own choices dictate how you succeed or fail in life.

Thus, a person born in desperate poverty and a person born in extreme wealth have an equal chance of economic success.

Oh, wait... that pesky "reality" thing....

One has yet to present itself, no?

There are plenty of socialist proposals, the objections to which largely fail to be compelling.

Explain how property rights are not a civil right.

Certainly they are not political rights (right to vote, right to petition for grievances), which are most fundamental (as part of liberty), and neither are they inherent in the social contract logic that founds legitimate governance (the way a restriction on arbitrary imprisonment might be.)

Thus, there's no good reason we can't restrict them, or redefine them, as we as a society see fit.

See, I support graduated taxation to a point, from experience I have learned that it is next to impossible for a family of four to live off 10,000 dollars a month while I am sure you could scrape by on a million a month despite a higher tax rate.

But other than those below or just barely above to poverty line, it makes no sense to force them to pay more as they head up the income ladder. Should they be punished for their own prosperity? No, they should not.

Are you fucking kidding me?

I really hope you meant "a year".

See, I support graduated taxation to a point, from experience I have learned that it is next to impossible for a family of four to live off 10,000 dollars a month while I am sure you could scrape by on a million a month despite a higher tax rate.

But other than those below or just barely above to poverty line, it makes no sense to force them to pay more as they head up the income ladder. Should they be punished for their own prosperity? No, they should not.

They aren't being punished for their prosperity. They're being given the opportunity to help others in the same way they were helped.

Who cares who said it? It's still an opinion.

Yes, but his opinion has quite a bit of ethos to it, no?

Please. The white trust-fund child has equal footing in life as the orphaned minority? Please tell me how making money by merely having money and living off the interest is meritorious at all. When wealth is that self-sustaining, merit is an option. The sitting President is ample proof of that.

If it all had to do with birthright, Obama would not be poised to become president (he is, as much as it pains me to admit it), and Gates would not be the richest man in the world.

They aren't being punished for their prosperity. They're being given the opportunity to help others in the same way they were helped.

Shouldn't they have the right to decide if and how they wish to help others.

Also, since when has taxation been a legitimate way to dictate a social agenda, wasn't it originally put down in order to pay the bills for the government (a job it is not doing that well at).

When the government no longer respects or even pays attention to the people.

(And yes I live in the Americas.)

Are you fucking kidding me?

I really hope you meant "a year".

whoops, thanks for the catch.

Shouldn't they have the right to decide if and how they wish to help others.

Also, since when has taxation been a legitimate way to dictate a social agenda, wasn't it originally put down in order to pay the bills for the government (a job it is not doing that well at).

the new deal

If it all had to do with birthright, Obama would not be poised to become president (he is, as much as it pains me to admit it), and Gates would not be the richest man in the world.

Who said "all"?

But it requires a willful blindness to deny that those factors are of high importance.

Shouldn't they have the right to decide if and how they wish to help others.

Yes. And they do. With their after-tax money, which is the only money they can rightfully claim as "theirs."

Yes, but his opinion has quite a bit of ethos to it, no?

If it all had to do with birthright, Obama would not be poised to become president (he is, as much as it pains me to admit it), and Gates would not be the richest man in the world.

I've never had two responses to my posts do so much to not actually address them.

I'm not sure what you mean by Locke's opinion having "ethos to it", when the definition I know of that word is "the characteristic spirit of a culture, era or community as manifested in its beliefs and aspirations." Seems to me that a statement almost can't avoid having an ethos to it. Try again.

As for birthright, those are two fairly shaky examples -- you're going to have to explain to me how they make your point.

Shouldn't they have the right to decide if and how they wish to help others.

Also, since when has taxation been a legitimate way to dictate a social agenda, wasn't it originally put down in order to pay the bills for the government (a job it is not doing that well at).

Hey, I'm all for a system where by if you don't want to pay tax then you don't have to. Just leave the country.

According to the great philosopher John Locke, we have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and PROPERTY.


If you are going to try to use British philosophers who lived half of their life in France to back up your argument then you have no right to say that you only respect the opinions of Americans.

However - Locke did not argue that we have inalienable right to property, just an inalienable right to the benefits of our labour. If you cleared the land yourself, built the property yourself, then you have a right to the results of that work. If you just took the money that someone else earned (parents, grandparents etc) and used that to obtain something, you have no justifiable or ethical claim top that property.

(Try reading Locke)

the new deal

And what did that help us with? Nothing, other than a large debt. The Great Depression was ended by WWII, not some artificial device by FDR.

Who said "all"?

But it requires a willful blindness to deny that those factors are of high importance.

They matter less than merit. Notice the plethora of trust fund children who now live on the streets after squandering their fortunes.

Yes. And they do. With their after-tax money, which is the only money they can rightfully claim as "theirs."

How so, they worked for it, all the government did was take it away.

whoops, thanks for the catch.

*whew*

Okay, then, I apologize for the lash. Caught me way off guard.

Are you fucking kidding me?

I really hope you meant "a year".

No, he is not kidding, you frugal blackguard!

Have you ever tried to live on $10 grand a year?

Let's do a quick schedule, so dust off your math skills:

Per month

Mortgage: $3,500
Mexican Gardner: $250
Guatemalen Maid: $450
Guatemalan Maid that does Greek: $465
White Trash Pool Guy: $250
Lexus Lease: $750
Lexus Insurance: $250
Lexus Detailing: $90
Pay off to that homeless guy you hit with your lexus (amortized): $23
Food, family of four: $4,200 (includes Omaha Steaks and cereal in boxes, not bags. We're not fucking Portuguese, for christ's sake).
Cable TV: $198
Cable On Demand Porn Charges not Included in above: $1,544
Student Loans: $645
Cell Phones for 5: $332
Rent on Girlfriend's Apartment: $776
Girlfriend's Abortions (amortized): $143
Girlfriend: $2,300
Time Share in Rosalito, Mexico: $1,400
Maintenance Fees, Time Share: $230
Maintenace Fees, Wife's Leaky Tits: $75
Needless Spending, Clothes: $800
Conspicuous Spending, Clothese: $920
Girlfriends Clothes (non-lingerie): $556
Girlfriends Lingerie: $5560

Do the fucking math for once, Intangelon.

On $10,000 a month, you'd have to live like a black person.

When America continually degrades and the Communist movement grows in strength.

A right wing theocratic or corporate dictatorship would just as surely be a violation of the principles on which America was founded, and is far more likely. But if your paranoia about Communism is anything to go by, your probably one of those right-wing nuts who think a corporate or Christian dictatorship would be excellent, ie, the real threat.

As for the question above, if McCain wins by fraud or Obama is assassinated, I will probably consider it time for large scale civil disobediance to force the Government to stand down. I would only consider supporting a violent revolt if it was a question of genocide or a comparable atrocity by the government.

Aside from moral reasons though, there are two reasons why as a liberal I would prefer a peaceful solution to America's problems.

1. Revolutionaries often turn into people very much like the ones they overthrew.

2. The Republicans have the guns, the religious fanatics, and (probably) far more people in the armed forces. Guess who'd probably win.

If America suffers a revolution(and the fact that its discussed on a fairly mainstream forum shows its a real fear in many people's minds), it will likely be by the Bible Belt nuts and anti-immigrant crowd to establish a racist, semi-theocratic state on the shredded remains of our Constitution(all while praising the Founding Fathers, of course). To paraphrase, I suspect it was from one of John Stewart's recent guests, gun sales are up in Texas in case "the wrong people" win the election. On another forum, I read an account of how West Virginia preachers were telling congregations that Obama was the Anti-Christ. His campaign received at least one bomb threat during the important Indiana Primary. The party of legalized torture, blatant contempt of Congress, and probable electoral fraud is not going to leave just because the law says they have to. If they can't win fairly, they will try fraud. If that somehow fails, more than a few will consider turning to violence. When you crave power and believe God's on your side, the law means rather little.

If you are going to try to use British philosophers who lived half of their life in France to back up your argument then you have no right to say that you only respect the opinions of Americans.


I did not say that I only respect the opinions of Americans, I was trying to get a grasp of what a particular geographical thought on the subject of revolution, since the history of America has been a lot more stable than almost any other nation on the planet.

And what did that help us with? Nothing, other than a large debt. The Great Depression was ended by WWII, not some artificial device by FDR.

Source? AKA "sez who?" The BPA and TVA alone slaked the nation's need for electricity in the regions where they were commissioned. Most of the industry in the Pacific Northwest wouldn't exist without Grand Coulee Dam and the rest of the BPA's projects. The New Deal helped make the industrialization of the US WWII economy possible.

They matter less than merit. Notice the plethora of trust fund children who now live on the streets after squandering their fortunes.

Plethora? Source. Also, burn your Word-a-Day calendar. It's not working.

How so, they worked for it, all the government did was take it away.

Not even close. The government made it possible for the the fortune to be amassed in the first place. Unless they built their own bridges, rail lines, roads, armies/police for defense and patrols, and so on.

*whew*

Okay, then, I apologize for the lash. Caught me way off guard.

Its cool, happens.


No, he is not kidding, you frugal blackguard!

Have you ever tried to live on $10 grand a year?

Let's do a quick schedule, so dust off your math skills:

Per month

Mortgage: $3,500
Mexican Gardner: $250
Guatemalen Maid: $450
Guatemalan Maid that does Greek: $465
White Trash Pool Guy: $250
Lexus Lease: $750
Lexus Insurance: $250
Lexus Detailing: $90
Pay off to that homeless guy you hit with your lexus (amortized): $23
Food, family of four: $4,200 (includes Omaha Steaks and cereal in boxes, not bags. We're not fucking Portuguese, for christ's sake).
Cable TV: $198
Cable On Demand Porn Charges not Included in above: $1,544
Student Loans: $645
Cell Phones for 5: $332
Rent on Girlfriend's Apartment: $776
Girlfriend's Abortions (amortized): $143
Girlfriend: $2,300
Time Share in Rosalito, Mexico: $1,400
Maintenance Fees, Time Share: $230
Maintenace Fees, Wife's Leaky Tits: $75
Needless Spending, Clothes: $800
Conspicuous Spending, Clothese: $920
Girlfriends Clothes (non-lingerie): $556
Girlfriends Lingerie: $5560

Do the fucking math for once, Intangelon.

On $10,000 a month, you'd have to live like a black person.

Dude, you are a racist bastard, get the fuck off of my thread.

I did not say that I only respect the opinions of Americans, I was trying to get a grasp of what a particular geographical thought on the subject of revolution, since the history of America has been a lot more stable than almost any other nation on the planet.

"Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death."

-Samuel "Always a good choice" Adams, after being caught balls deep in Jefferson's mulattress.

No, he is not kidding, you frugal blackguard!

Have you ever tried to live on $10 grand a year?

Let's do a quick schedule, so dust off your math skills:

Per month

Mortgage: $3,500
Mexican Gardner: $250
Guatemalen Maid: $450
Guatemalan Maid that does Greek: $465
White Trash Pool Guy: $250
Lexus Lease: $750
Lexus Insurance: $250
Lexus Detailing: $90
Pay off to that homeless guy you hit with your lexus (amortized): $23
Food, family of four: $4,200 (includes Omaha Steaks and cereal in boxes, not bags. We're not fucking Portuguese, for christ's sake).
Cable TV: $198
Cable On Demand Porn Charges not Included in above: $1,544
Student Loans: $645
Cell Phones for 5: $332
Rent on Girlfriend's Apartment: $776
Girlfriend's Abortions (amortized): $143
Girlfriend: $2,300
Time Share in Rosalito, Mexico: $1,400
Maintenance Fees, Time Share: $230
Maintenace Fees, Wife's Leaky Tits: $75
Needless Spending, Clothes: $800
Conspicuous Spending, Clothese: $920
Girlfriends Clothes (non-lingerie): $556
Girlfriends Lingerie: $5560

Do the fucking math for once, Intangelon.

On $10,000 a month, you'd have to live like a black person.

Uh...you DID see that Crimea goofed and meant to say year instead of month, just like YOU goofed and said year instead of month, right? ;)

Also?

Damned hilarious. *hugs Ammu*

I did not say that I only respect the opinions of Americans, I was trying to get a grasp of what a particular geographical thought on the subject of revolution, since the history of America has been a lot more stable than almost any other nation on the planet.

Sorry - Misread the OP. (Missed a not)

The claim that America - more specifically the USA - has been a lot more stable than almost any other nation is a long way from being true.

Very few European nations have had revolutions since the USA had its civil war, The same applies to Asia and even to South America. What is your basis for this claim?
OK some parts of Africa, Eastern Europe and the Middle East have not exactly been stable over that last 200 years. But that is not the majority of the world by a long stretch.

Dude, you are a racist bastard, get the fuck off of my thread.

Here's a tip that will make NSG a better place for you: If someone says something as monumentally silly as what he said, assume they're joking. 99% of the time you'll be right and that 1% of the time you'll have successfully protected your sanity.

The Great Depression was ended by WWII, not some artificial device by FDR.

By a massive influx of government money and employment, you mean?

They matter less than merit.

So why does poverty persist cross-generationally? Why is it so racialized?

How so, they worked for it,

No, they didn't. They worked for what they would receive after tax. Unless they were foolish and pretended taxation didn't exist.

Dude, you are a racist bastard, get the fuck off of my thread.

Racist idealogies are not prohibited on nationstates, and I refrained from taboo slurs, so tough.

Source? AKA "sez who?" The BPA and TVA alone slaked the nation's need for electricity in the regions where they were commissioned. Most of the industry in the Pacific Northwest wouldn't exist without Grand Coulee Dam and the rest of the BPA's projects. The New Deal helped make the industrialization of the US WWII economy possible.

The United States economy shrunk during the '30s even during the FDR years, but began to grow as the economy shifted to a wartime footing. In 1942, there was an major increase in both guns and butter (military and civilian products), despite the war footing of the economy.

The reasons for this were many. With no money in the economy (the amount put in by the PWA was minimal in the greater scheme) there was no reason for the factories to work, since there was no one to by the products they made. Naturally, they laid off workers. When WWII came around, the government gave them a REAL demand for goods, so they could hire more workers to meet that demand. These workers had a little extra green in their pockets, so they did what any person would do, they demanded some more consumer goods, so the production of consumer goods jumped to.

The war, not the new deal, helped the country get back to its production potential.



Plethora? Source.

Boulder, Colorado, see city of

Racist idealogies are not prohibited on nationstates, and I refrained from taboo slurs, so tough.

On behalf of the rest of the posters on this thread

KABLAM!

(That was an ignore cannon)

Go stick to something that more suits your brainpower, like chewing and spitting tabacco, oh, wait, that might be to hard for you.

And what did that help us with? Nothing, other than a large debt. The Great Depression was ended by WWII, not some artificial device by FDR.

Personally I think FDR was a bastard. So we'd agree here.

So why does poverty persist cross-generationally? Why is it so racialized?


Because the freemen never got their forty acres and their mule.

Sorry - Misread the OP. (Missed a not)

The claim that America - more specifically the USA - has been a lot more stable than almost any other nation is a long way from being true.

Very few European nations have had revolutions since the USA had its civil war, The same applies to Asia and even to South America. What is your basis for this claim?
OK some parts of Africa, Eastern Europe and the Middle East have not exactly been stable over that last 200 years. But that is not the majority of the world by a long stretch.

or asia, or you know germany forming, having parts taken away, spain having a civil war, england not being a monarchy anymore, however many republics france has been through, ireland. Yup completely stable. Except for... wait who in the past 200 yrs in europe hasn't had some turmoil?

How do you know?

I'll rebel when...

And yet they haven't. They'll bounce some nebulous goal-line, at which they'll suddenly leap into action, but they're not even muttering in corners while habeus corpus is suspended, or a 'state of emergency' is declared, or a bipartisan report finally surfaces that says the current 'war' was based on a policy of deliberate information.. or any of the myriad other little things.

It's talk, and it's cheap.

Dude, you are a racist bastard, get the fuck off of my thread.

Wow. Another sign that the nation has lost its sense of humor.

CR, did you read the itemization? That post was so clearly satire that I can't imagine you read it all and just looked at the last line. :headbang:

Uh...you DID see that Crimea goofed and meant to say year instead of month, just like YOU goofed and said year instead of month, right? ;)

Also?

Damned hilarious. *hugs Ammu*

Hah! That was a trick! I DELIBERATELY put that error there, to see if you would catch, thus revealing yourself as a JEW!

Only a Hebrew would have such precise acumen for budgets and similar financial matters!

Why don't you go do Jew things, Jew, like circumcising your child to symbolize your covenant with God, or refraining from eating the sciatic nerve of large animals, or making bread out of the bones of Christian babies, or put some smoked salmon with some capers on a nice chewy toasted bagel, maybe some all-beef hot dogs...

Man I'm hungry.

On-topic: The nature and character of rebellion is subject to the nature of the insitution it seeks to polemicize...guerilla warfare and pipe bombs may not be as effective as information destabilization against more economically and technologically elaborate governments.

Before rebellion in the classic sense, (Shay's 2: Electric Boogaloo) it may be wise to first attempt and exhaust less overtly violent but potentially more potent means of resistence.

Except against Jews. There is no way to fight them.

Wow. Another sign that the nation has lost its sense of humor.

CR, did you read the itemization? That post was so clearly satire that I can't imagine you read it all and just looked at the last line. :headbang:

well, not everyone knows hammurab is just for laughs. I saw in on the thread tracker and was hoping for something brilliant.

Because the freemen never got their forty acres and their mule.

So you agree that people need a leg up and success isn't based solely on merit?

or asia, or you know germany forming, having parts taken away, spain having a civil war, england not being a monarchy anymore, howvere many republics france has been through. Yup completely stable.

Germany and Italy formed, I'll grant you that. The US added Alaska and Hawaii. Things mutate - I never claimed that Europe was unchanged - I simply questioned why Crimean Republic is claiming that the USA has been more stable over recent history. Probably the most stable country in recent history is Iceland, or perhaps Ethiopia, then again it could be Japan etc.


Stop press - England is still a monarchy (it stopped being a monarchy for around 40 years in the 1600s, rather before the US civil war). What

And what did that help us with? Nothing, other than a large debt. The Great Depression was ended by WWII, not some artificial device by FDR.

The war provided a politically acceptable excuse to go into massive debt. The New Deal's error was in its conservatism. It didn't go nearly as far as it should have gone to change expectations.

Because the freemen never got their forty acres and their mule.

I checked, and they no longer want that.

Now they want 36 months subsidized rent in a good school district, and a late model Lancer EVO.

Yes, I know you've ignored me; the fact that you think you speak for the rest of the posters on this thread made this all worth it.

I've always suspected the more libertarian idealogies have disproportionate representation among the simplistic who perhaps have less feel for nuance, subtlety, or even starkly obvious satire. One data point in favor of that.

Sorry - Misread the OP. (Missed a not)

The claim that America - more specifically the USA - has been a lot more stable than almost any other nation is a long way from being true.

Very few European nations have had revolutions since the USA had its civil war, The same applies to Asia and even to South America. What is your basis for this claim?

Europe: Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Vichy France, Bismark's unification of germany, Revolutions of 1848 (before the Civil War, but deserves note), the Decemberists, the Bolsheviks, Paris Commune, Irish Revolution, the Republics of France... do I need to go on there?

Latin America (As a whole): Noriega and the Sadinistas, Che in Bolivia, various Communist Revolutions, Cuban Revolution...

Asia: Opium Wars, Japan's Militarist phases, Vietnam, Koreas, Chinese Revolution, the Pakistan-India wars, Tamilese civil war in Sri Lanka...

Germany and Italy formed, I'll grant you that. The US added Alaska and Hawaii. Things mutate - I never claimed that Europe was unchanged - I simply questioned why Crimean Republic is claiming that the USA has been more stable over recent history. Probably the most stable country in recent history is Iceland, or perhaps Ethiopia, then again it could be Japan etc.


Stop press - England is still a monarchy (it stopped being a monarchy for around 40 years in the 1600s, rather before the US civil war). What

well i'd say the character of the "monarchy" has changed a bit. Having no power now and all. Though I think the choices you suggested were quite a bit... limited as far as poster here on NS. I haven't noticed anyone from Japan (not an immigrant) on here or any Ethiopians. besides, I don't know that having your country overthrown by the US counts as stable (japan). I don't really know enough about ethiopia to say one way or another about it tho.

EDIT: Ethiopia, not so stable, from wiki: "Haile Selassie's reign came to an end in 1974, when a Soviet backed Marxist-Leninist military junta, the "Derg" led by Mengistu Haile Mariam, deposed him, and established a one-party communist state."

And what did that help us with? Nothing, other than a large debt. The Great Depression was ended by WWII, not some artificial device by FDR.


The Great Depression wasn't what the New Deal was 'for'.

The fact that it got people working, gave industry something to do to get it bumping along, and gave us a platform from which we COULD launch a war, is just a pleasant side-effect.

The United States economy shrunk during the '30s even during the FDR years, but began to grow as the economy shifted to a wartime footing. In 1942, there was an major increase in both guns and butter (military and civilian products), despite the war footing of the economy.

The reasons for this were many. With no money in the economy (the amount put in by the PWA was minimal in the greater scheme) there was no reason for the factories to work, since there was no one to by the products they made. Naturally, they laid off workers. When WWII came around, the government gave them a REAL demand for goods, so they could hire more workers to meet that demand. These workers had a little extra green in their pockets, so they did what any person would do, they demanded some more consumer goods, so the production of consumer goods jumped to.

The war, not the new deal, helped the country get back to its production potential.

I can't argue with crazy.

Boulder, Colorado, see city of

Uh...you're going to have to do better for a source than naming a city. You made the claim. You need to show me what support your claim has. I see none, so I'm going to assume the claim is opinion and baseless at that.

On behalf of the rest of the posters on this thread

KABLAM!

(That was an ignore cannon)

Go stick to something that more suits your brainpower, like chewing and spitting tabacco, oh, wait, that might be to hard for you.

Firstly: Don't you ever, EVER even PRETEND to speak on my behalf. Especially when you can't tell a racist from a humorist and your level of discourse has yet to rise above high school sophomore. I would sooner have a dozen starving, crazed weasels fight for scraps in my boxers than have you or anyone like you speak for me.

Secondly: Seriously? After I told him the post was funny and two others have told you it was humor, and the poster himself quoted NS policy to you, you're going to be this childish? Also, threats of ignore or gloating over adding someone to your list are also against NSG policy. Just thought I'd point that out.

well, not everyone knows hammurab is just for laughs. I saw in on the thread tracker and was hoping for something brilliant.

Speaking as a racially aware white man, on a thread about insurgency against the US Govjewment, brilliance is not my goal.

We white supremacists were actually planning a rising back in the sixties, but then we found out the Jews are better soldiers then us.

We thought they all wore glasses and cried when dodgeball was announced. Turns out a lot of them a more Zohan then we were prepared for. Have you ever seen a racially aware white man? We don't even have chins, for Christ sake.

Europe: Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Vichy France, Bismark's unification of germany, Revolutions of 1848 (before the Civil War, but deserves note), the Decemberists, the Bolsheviks, Paris Commune, Irish Revolution, the Republics of France... do I need to go on there?

Latin America (As a whole): Noriega and the Sadinistas, Che in Bolivia, various Communist Revolutions, Cuban Revolution...

Asia: Opium Wars, Japan's Militarist phases, Vietnam, Koreas, Chinese Revolution, the Pakistan-India wars, Tamilese civil war in Sri Lanka...

And the US had a full blown civil war as well during the time scale you are using. As well as participating in many other wars, including with Mexico, the two world wars, the problems with prohibition, the black panthers, etc. etc.

What communist revolutions in Latin America? (Funny how Cuba expands to fill all points south of the USA.)

I am not wanting to get into a 'we're better than you' discussion. I was simply questioning whether you had critically examined the claimed stability in the USA.

I'll rebel when...

And yet they haven't. They'll bounce some nebulous goal-line, at which they'll suddenly leap into action, but they're not even muttering in corners while habeus corpus is suspended, or a 'state of emergency' is declared, or a bipartisan report finally surfaces that says the current 'war' was based on a policy of deliberate information.. or any of the myriad other little things.

It's talk, and it's cheap.

The rebellion needs a leader. *puts on cape*

Don't worry, REBELLION MAN is here!

Taxes? There shall be none in rebellion world! We'll just take 100% of the income of the top 1% of the nation! I see no problems with that!

Corporations got you down? Hah! They're government controlled. By government, I mean Rebellion Man. And by controlled, I mean ruled with an iron fist and slave labor.

Gas prices a problem? We'll invade the Middle East properly! With nukes everywhere except oil wells! Free oil for everybody!

Global warming? Hah! No more! Rebellion Man will embark on a project to move the earth 1 million miles further out into space, thus cooling us adequately. Hummers for everybody! (both types ;))

Crime scaring you? No more crime! With a policeman on every corner, an informer in every office, and a camera in every bedroom, no citizen will ever be accosted again! (accosted by another citizen, that is.) All feeds from Anne Hathaway's bedroom go straight to Rebellion Man's television, just for that personal security touch.

Black/Hispanic/White/Jewish/Guido/Pink polo wearing/poor people scaring you? Don't worry! Everyone will be divided up into enclaves based on their race/creed/lifestyle. The pink polo-wearing enclave will be irradiated, to ensure sterility.

The Great Depression wasn't what the New Deal was 'for'.

The fact that it got people working, gave industry something to do to get it bumping along, and gave us a platform from which we COULD launch a war, is just a pleasant side-effect.

GnI, I am so utterly exhausted by your Zionist shit.

First of all, the New Deal was simply a way to get Kabbalist methods instituted as the doctrine for preserving national parks.

Second, what does this have to do with rebellion? Please learn to stay on topic, like my posts.

Jew.

I can't argue with crazy.

So I am crazy?

well i'd say the character of the "monarchy" has changed a bit. Having no power now and all. Though I think the choices you suggested were quite a bit... limited as far as poster here on NS. I haven't noticed anyone from Japan (not an immigrant) on here or any Ethiopians. besides, I don't know that having your country overthrown by the US counts as stable (japan). I don't really know enough about ethiopia to say one way or another about it tho.

OK, whatever.

If you want to be self deluded, then you will be.

What does it matter if there are posters from those countries here? The point was simply that the US is not exceptionally stable. It is not exceptionally unstable either.

Speaking as a racially aware white man, on a thread about insurgency against the US Govjewment, brilliance is not my goal.

We white supremacists were actually planning a rising back in the sixties, but then we found out the Jews are better soldiers then us.

We thought they all wore glasses and cried when dodgeball was announced. Turns out a lot of them a more Zohan then we were prepared for. Have you ever seen a racially aware white man? We don't even have chins, for Christ sake.

You're right, if you were actually superior you wouldn't have fallen for my Jew tactics and responded to my post. So very predictable, like banking.

OK, whatever.

If you want to be self deluded, then you will be.

What does it matter if there are posters from those countries here? The point was simply that the US is not exceptionally stable. It is not exceptionally unstable either.

lol, idk how facts make me self deluded, although Britain may be a poor example of instability, aside from the whole Ireland thing, and the rest of their colonies breaking away.

The fact that there are no posters from there matters if you're asking for someone's opinion from there, if no1 form there is around, you're not going to get an answer. The fact that you forgot why it mattered, just illustrates how far off topic we are...

And the US had a full blown civil war as well during the time scale you are using. As well as participating in many other wars, including with Mexico, the two world wars, the problems with prohibition, the black panthers, etc. etc.

What communist revolutions in Latin America? (Funny how Cuba expands to fill all points south of the USA.)

I am not wanting to get into a 'we're better than you' discussion. I was simply questioning whether you had critically examined the claimed stability in the USA.

Please, examine and revise your own logic.

As you yourself admitted, we fought a CIVIL war. Civil, get it? As in polite, reasonable, constrained. Firing a .58 caliber miniball and point blank range into a dude quivering on the ground because a cannon sheared off his shin, in record numbers on a scale of carnage largely unprecedented at the time, is a sure sign of stability.

You want REAL domestic unrest? Go look at one of those Canadian slap fights when two guys want to buy the same engine block warmer at whatever Canadians have for that's equivalent to a Wal-Mart. Probably Wal-Mart.

Jew.

GnI, I am so utterly exhausted by your Zionist shit.

First of all, the New Deal was simply a way to get Kabbalist methods instituted as the doctrine for preserving national parks.

Second, what does this have to do with rebellion? Please learn to stay on topic, like my posts.

Jew.

It's not my fault Jewgirls are sexy. Prole.

It's a long established fact that the New Deal mainly served to cover an awkward silence of policy - and not the sort of 'awkward silence' you get when you find out that chick that was rimming you last night is actually your birth-mother, or the sort where you realise that the wetdream you just woke-up from, may have been lovely and relaxing for you, but your roomie is looking at you with fearful eyes and wet pajamas, and wondering when you got into his bed instead of your own...

no, the sort of awkward silence you get when a government lets everything drop down the toilet and then refuses to pick it up... or when a nurse walks in with an enema tube, some grease, and a pineapple.

Maybe - 'painful silence' would be a better description.

Hah! That was a trick! I DELIBERATELY put that error there, to see if you would catch, thus revealing yourself as a JEW!

Only a Hebrew would have such precise acumen for budgets and similar financial matters!

Why don't you go do Jew things, Jew, like circumcising your child to symbolize your covenant with God, or refraining from eating the sciatic nerve of large animals, or making bread out of the bones of Christian babies, or put some smoked salmon with some capers on a nice chewy toasted bagel, maybe some all-beef hot dogs...

Man I'm hungry.

Still laughing...hold on...

*gets up to get Kleenex to daub my eyes -- sees yarmulke on head*

Holy shit; I AM a Jew!

How'd he do that?

On-topic: The nature and character of rebellion is subject to the nature of the insitution it seeks to polemicize...guerilla warfare and pipe bombs may not be as effective as information destabilization against more economically and technologically elaborate governments.

Before rebellion in the classic sense, (Shay's 2: Electric Boogaloo) it may be wise to first attempt and exhaust less overtly violent but potentially more potent means of resistence.

Except against Jews. There is no way to fight them.

Brilliantly put.

well, not everyone knows hammurab is just for laughs. I saw in on the thread tracker and was hoping for something brilliant.

And your hopes were rewarded...I'm still wiping tears away from laughing so hard.

I checked, and they no longer want that.

Now they want 36 months subsidized rent in a good school district, and a late model Lancer EVO.

I thought it was late 70s/early 80s Monte Carlos with speakers and rims worth more than the car itself and subwoofers that make the car's body panels rattle, thus destroying the whole point of large speakers by introducing noise not part of the music. Shows ya what I know.

Yes, I know you've ignored me; the fact that you think you speak for the rest of the posters on this thread made this all worth it.

I've always suspected the more libertarian idealogies have disproportionate representation among the simplistic who perhaps have less feel for nuance, subtlety, or even starkly obvious satire. One data point in favor of that.

Game, set and match: Ammu.

*polite applause*

Europe: Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Vichy France, Bismark's unification of germany, Revolutions of 1848 (before the Civil War, but deserves note), the Decemberists, the Bolsheviks, Paris Commune, Irish Revolution, the Republics of France... do I need to go on there?

Yes. Iceland, Norway, Sweden, England, Switzerland, Greece, Portugal, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands...remember, we're talking rebellions, not invasions.

Latin America (As a whole): Noriega and the Sadinistas, Che in Bolivia, various Communist Revolutions, Cuban Revolution...

Belize, Costa Rica.

Asia: Opium Wars, Japan's Militarist phases, Vietnam, Koreas, Chinese Revolution, the Pakistan-India wars, Tamilese civil war in Sri Lanka...

Thailand, Malaysia, Oceania, Australia, New Zealand.

The Great Depression wasn't what the New Deal was 'for'.

The fact that it got people working, gave industry something to do to get it bumping along, and gave us a platform from which we COULD launch a war, is just a pleasant side-effect.

*massive applause*

Outstanding. You said what I did (New Deal made the industrialization for WWII possible), but much more concisely.

You're right, if you were actually superior you wouldn't have fallen for my Jew tactics and responded to my post. So very predictable, like banking.

See? What did I tell you. Jews are strategic masters. S'why they control the world, and don't lose wars even when outnumbered 6 to 1.

And the only reason your projective financial models are so accurate is that all global economic activity, down to the dollar, deutchmark, shekel, peso, rubel, and different kind of peso, is controlled from ONE computer.

Its on the desk of Morty Abramowitz in a nice 2 story walk up in the west village of New York.

Only reason we're having a housing credit crisis is because Morty was installing "World of Warcraft Expansion 3: Jew Gnomes Gone Wild" and it installed DirectX and it crashed his system.

Fucking Jews.

It's not my fault Jewgirls are sexy. Prole.

It's a long established fact that the New Deal mainly served to cover an awkward silence of policy - and not the sort of 'awkward silence' you get when you find out that chick that was rimming you last night is actually your birth-mother, or the sort where you realise that the wetdream you just woke-up from, may have been lovely and relaxing for you, but your roomie is looking at you with fearful eyes and wet pajamas, and wondering when you got into his bed instead of your own...

no, the sort of awkward silence you get when a government lets everything drop down the toilet and then refuses to pick it up... or when a nurse walks in with an enema tube, some grease, and a pineapple.

Maybe - 'painful silence' would be a better description.

That was my prom theme.

I'm stealing all of that for use on Stormfront, btw.

What communist revolutions in Latin America? (Funny how Cuba expands to fill all points south of the USA.)

Che and his shindig in Bolivia, FARC in Columbia, Noriega and the Sadinistas in Nicaragua.

Funny how you claim I am ignorant.

I thought it was late 70s/early 80s Monte Carlos with speakers and rims worth more than the car itself and subwoofers that make the car's body panels rattle, thus destroying the whole point of large speakers by introducing noise not part of the music. Shows ya what I know.

I rarely admit this, but what you said sounds better.



Outstanding. You said what I did (New Deal made the industrialization for WWII possible), but much more concisely.

Jews plan economies. Jews plan wars. Thus, no foresight is required, just Microsoft Outlook Calendar, Kike Edition.

I'm stealing a bunch of your shit too, and I'm using it uncredited.

So I am crazy?

Well, I was going to say that you could interpret that statement however you wished. Now that I see you've responded only to that statement and nothing else...nah...I'll still let you draw your own conclusion. Go get your crayons.

S'why they control the world, and don't lose wars even when outnumbered 6 to 1.



I thought it was because they controlled the media by a ratio of 6 to 1.


See, I can make a joke too! A really crappy and stereotypical one, but give me some cookies for trying!

Che and his shindig in Bolivia, FARC in Columbia, Noriega and the Sadinistas in Nicaragua.

And the Shining Path in Peru, perhaps the most deadly and destructive of them all, but for some reason often overlooked.

That was my prom theme.

I'm stealing all of that for use on Stormfront, btw.

You post on Stromfront?

I might amble over there, see whether I can spot you among the crazies.

And the Shining Path in Peru, perhaps the most deadly and destructive of them all, but for some reason often overlooked.

Thanks, I forgot that one.

I rarely admit this, but what you said sounds better.

*faints*

Jews plan economies. Jews plan wars. Thus, no foresight is required, just Microsoft Outlook Calendar, Kike Edition.

I'm stealing a bunch of your shit too, and I'm using it uncredited.

I'm a Jew musician (Jewsician?), I'm used to that.

Well, I was going to say that you could interpret that statement however you wished. Now that I see you've responded only to that statement and nothing else...nah...I'll still let you draw your own conclusion. Go get your crayons.

Typically of some yamahakka sporting mud person like yourself Intangelon.

How DARE you insult Crimeans ability to thoroughly examine and grasp material he is exposed to?

From whence do you draw such an inferrence, from your schvitz hole?

Why, he's demonstrated, on this very thread, that he can fully and rigorously analyze posts, and then disagree with them lucidly and in a way that indisputably reflects a penetrating insight into what they actually posit.

Your Jewish insults will leave you first against the wall, Schlomo.

I thought it was because they controlled the media by a ratio of 6 to 1.


See, I can make a joke too! A really crappy and stereotypical one, but give me some cookies for trying!

I thought you ignored him. :rolleyes:

Typically of some yamahakka sporting mud person like yourself Intangelon.

How DARE you insult Crimeans ability to thoroughly examine and grasp material he is exposed to?

From whence do you draw such an inferrence, from your schvitz hole?

Why, he's demonstrated, on this very thread, that he can fully and rigorously analyze posts, and then disagree with them lucidly and in a way that indisputably reflects a penetrating insight into what they actually posit.

Your Jewish insults will leave you first against the wall, Schlomo.

It's Moishe, you pig-touching pig-eater. Pig, pig, piggity-pig, scallop, crawfish, lobster, clam, mussel muncher.

You post on Stromfront?

I might amble over there, see whether I can spot you among the crazies.

So, I got banned for a week, and I needed to find a new haunt rather than work or learn, so I went to Stormfront.

Was great, man. I spent a few days teaching algebra to some of the slower ones...get this: they only got it when I expressed it as "You have a unit of 100 Waffen SS, 2% of which are snipers. If 50 of the non-snipers are killed, what is the new percentage of snipers in the unit?"

So you agree that people need a leg up and success isn't based solely on merit?

Success is not solely based on merit...

wow I never though that I would make a concession to a guy with the name fart in his nation name. :p

It's Moishe, you pig-touching pig-eater.

"Porkupine."

It's Moishe, you pig-touching pig-eater. Pig, pig, piggity-pig, scallop, crawfish, lobster, clam, mussel muncher.

As a racially aware white man, I touch SHEEP, not pigs.

Why don't you go attach a box of scripture to your head and arms with leather straps, you Yid.

Okay, I admit it. I fucked a pig, once, in college. I wish I could say I was drunk. And that it was a female pig. I guess I could say that....


Okay, seriously, on topic, rebellion, because of the requisite scales, is problematic. I mean, one pasty dipshit in his basement with 29 stamped-receiver kalashnikovs and a copy of "The Turner Diaries", shit, even 1,000 of these goobers...they're dangerous, but they aren't going to effect regime change.

I'm leaning towards what GnI says...unless circumstances changes such that a far more sizable portion of the population had unbearable lives (and I mean in a pragmatic and logistic sense, not that they are audibly disgusted by goverment, but like, they can't get food or clean water), it just isn't going to happen.

Jews.

"Porkupine."

Soheran, please stay on topic.

Indeed, although I don't think he said every few years.

In response to the OP, rebellion is fine as soon as the government takes too much control. In other words, we should've rebelled when the PATRIOT act was introduced. Of course, there was probably an event before that that we should've started at, but I'm keeping this within my lifetime.:tongue:

I was paraphrasing. You're right, although I don't think it alters the meaning significantly. I personally think we were overdue well before the Patriot Act.


Here's the exact quote: "A little revolution now and then is a good thing; the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." (1787) Letter to William Stephens Smith, 13 November 1787

It's Moishe, you pig-touching pig-eater. Pig, pig, piggity-pig, scallop, crawfish, lobster, clam, mussel muncher.

Too good to resist. Go-go-Gadget-Thread-of-sigs.

I was paraphrasing. You're right, although I don't think it alters the meaning significantly. I personally think we were overdue well before the Patriot Act.


Here's the exact quote: "A little revolution now and then is a good thing; the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." (1787) Letter to William Stephens Smith, 13 November 1787

Tyrants you say? *Takes out George Cheney* Howzat?

I guess you'd have to define "serious risk of death"- life has a serious risk of death, and so I'm sure alot of slaves end up dying, as all people do.

I don't see why it would ruin profits, you're assuming the gov't would put us to work in salt mines, but I see no reason they wouldn't make engineers keep on engineering and so forth. Considering the quality of life well educated people generally have, there's no reason for them to take a loss if they feed you and give you a bed.
slaves are not efficient workers. they dont work hard, work smart, innovate, take on extra responsibilities, etc. they do the minimum they have to do to not attract extra punishements.

serious risk of death is not being fed enough to deal with the hard labor you are being forced to do, doing dangerous jobs without reasonable saftey procedures, being kept in filth, being given tainted food and water, not being protected from the weather, being put in circumstances where death from common (uncommon today) diseases is likely. that sort of thing.

slaves are not efficient workers. they dont work hard, work smart, innovate, take on extra responsibilities, etc. they do the minimum they have to do to not attract extra punishements.

serious risk of death is not being fed enough to deal with the hard labor you are being forced to do, doing dangerous jobs without reasonable saftey procedures, being kept in filth, being given tainted food and water, not being protected from the weather, being put in circumstances where death from common (uncommon today) diseases is likely. that sort of thing.

You know who makes good slaves? Jews.

Proof: "Prince of Egypt".

Think about it: You can whip 'em, kill their first born, and instead of unionizing, they just appeal to their God to do a "Age of Mythology" style meteor strike on your ass.

Plus, lot of them have engineering degrees.

Wait, am I thinking of Asians?

You know who makes good slaves? Jews.

Proof: "Prince of Egypt".

Think about it: You can whip 'em, kill their first born, and instead of unionizing, they just appeal to their God to do a "Age of Mythology" style meteor strike on your ass.

Plus, lot of them have engineering degrees.

Wait, am I thinking of Asians?

You're thinking Asians. Jews have degrees in business, medicine and psychiatry.

Be careful though, enslave either of them and they'll end up owning you.

You know who makes good slaves? Jews.

Proof: "Prince of Egypt".

Think about it: You can whip 'em, kill their first born, and instead of unionizing, they just appeal to their God to do a "Age of Mythology" style meteor strike on your ass.

Plus, lot of them have engineering degrees.

Wait, am I thinking of Asians?

Yeah but it's often cheaper to just pay them then take out locust insurance.

Their god can be a bastard and your medical doesn't cover boils.

First off, I want to keep this as an American thread only, it is not that I do not respect the opinions of non-Americans, nor am I trying to flamebait, I just want to know when you think is alright for American citizens to rebel.

Obviously my first answer would have to be when your tea costs too much money and tastes funny...:tongue:

Joking aside, to me it comes when I feel that the government has willingly violated my property rights.

When Bush refuses to by me that pony I've wanted for so long.

I disagree. Since a volunteer requires less indoctrination and are generally allowed greater flexibility they tend to keep stronger ties with home and community. The military becomes more a job or career, often used to gain skills, experience, college money.

This is a good thing, mind you.

And people who sign up for that sort of thing aren't in it to be shooting at their own countrymen.

Wasn't there a study that proved that the military would in fact shoot their own countrymen?

Wow. Another sign that the nation has lost its sense of humor.

CR, did you read the itemization? That post was so clearly satire that I can't imagine you read it all and just looked at the last line. :headbang:

I think it's the month or so that I've not been here but... I honestly couldn't tell for a bit. I think I'm losing it.

Wasn't there a study that proved that the military would in fact shoot their own countrymen?

I'd be interested in seeing that.

A partial list of complaints against the US government:

1. It has refused to enforce the laws of the land in matters of national security but had continually sought to prosecute the people for statutory offences that harm no one.

2. It has usurped the authority of the several States and has assumed powers far beyond those within its legitimate scope.

3. It has attempted to persuade us that we can trade our liberties for security while simultaneously showing that it has no regard for the will of the people.

4. It has sought to destroy the sovereignty of the nation by surrendering powers to organizations that are not elected by or accountable to The People, both within our country and internationally.

5. The present President has tripled the size of the federal Government within his two terms of office and has consented to the creation of a multitude of new offices that serve only to harrass the people

6. The Federal Government, including the majority of representatives from both parties, has created a national debt that threatens to crush the entire economy. Our fiat currency has lost more than half of its value over the course of the current President's two terms. While this is not as noticable internally, it is painfully obvious when international currency rates and trade statistics are examined.

7. We are currently embroiled in an illegal war, and are very likely to enter a war with Iran before another year passes. Iran poses no threat to us, was entirely uninvolved in the events of September 11th, and has no nuclear capacity, yet war is imminent.

8. It has deprived us in many cases of the right to trial by jury.

9. It has altered fundamentally our form of government without the consent of the people

10. It is at this time employing armies of mercenaries to inflict death and destruction abroad and to oppress the Citizens of the united States of America.

11. It has imposed burdensome taxes upon the people, which stifle industry and eviscerate the wealth of the average citizen. This has been justified as 'punishment of the wealthy' but such taxes and the related additional expenses of commerce are always passed to the bottom of the economic ladder and cause the most harm to those least able to pay.

This list is only a partial account of the indignities inflicted upon the People of the united States of America by the federal government, and has avoided a full listing of specific complaints. If you are unfamiliar with the scope of any of these items, please research them for yourself. You will find innumerable documents to expand upon these issues.

The time for armed revolt may be upon us soon. I fervently pray that this is not so, but I stand ready to resist. Who will stand with me and demand a government that is truely BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE. Educate yourself about the principles that guide the true patriots. Begin my following the link in my signature.

A partial list of complaints against the US government:

1. It has refused to enforce the laws of the land in matters of national security but had continually sought to prosecute the people for statutory offences that harm no one.

2. It has usurped the authority of the several States and has assumed powers far beyond those within its legitimate scope.

3. It has attempted to persuade us that we can trade our liberties for security while simultaneously showing that it has no regard for the will of the people.

4. It has sought to destroy the sovereignty of the nation by surrendering powers to organizations that are not elected by or accountable to The People, both within our country and internationally.

5. The present President has tripled the size of the federal Government within his two terms of office and has consented to the creation of a multitude of new offices that serve only to harrass the people

6. The Federal Government, including the majority of representatives from both parties, has created a national debt that threatens to crush the entire economy. Our fiat currency has lost more than half of its value over the course of the current President's two terms. While this is not as noticable internally, it is painfully obvious when international currency rates and trade statistics are examined.

7. We are currently embroiled in an illegal war, and are very likely to enter a war with Iran before another year passes. Iran poses no threat to us, was entirely uninvolved in the events of September 11th, and has no nuclear capacity, yet war is imminent.

8. It has deprived us in many cases of the right to trial by jury.

9. It has altered fundamentally our form of government without the consent of the people

10. It is at this time employing armies of mercenaries to inflict death and destruction abroad and to oppress the Citizens of the united States of America.

11. It has imposed burdensome taxes upon the people, which stifle industry and eviscerate the wealth of the average citizen. This has been justified as 'punishment of the wealthy' but such taxes and the related additional expenses of commerce are always passed to the bottom of the economic ladder and cause the most harm to those least able to pay.

This list is only a partial account of the indignities inflicted upon the People of the united States of America by the federal government, and has avoided a full listing of specific complaints. If you are unfamiliar with the scope of any of these items, please research them for yourself. You will find innumerable documents to expand upon these issues.

The time for armed revolt may be upon us soon. I fervently pray that this is not so, but I stand ready to resist. Who will stand with me and demand a government that is truely BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE. Educate yourself about the principles that guide the true patriots. Begin my following the link in my signature.

Some of these are worth complaining about. The 'states' thing and the supposed 'sovereignty' thing are rubbish, of course.

The taxes thing, on the other hand.... is pure libertarian propaganda. Which means it's rubbish pretending to be something else. In this case, pretending to be 'for The People'.

Errr... In all honesty, the question is irrelevant. When the answer to "Is it possible to have a successful rebellion in the US?" is an overwhelming no, there are other things to worry about before one ponders the ethics of a rebellion.

Think about it this way, there are 300 million people in the US, of these people, quite a few are very young or very old, of no use to such a rebellion. Of those actually capable of supporting a rebellion, many are a) Very content with life as it is and would rather stare at their television than pick up a weapon or b) Need to keep working because they have people supported by their income (including themselves). They don't have time to contemplate a revolution, an new system of governance, they're trying to keep their world afloat.

So we have a problem, who's going to start/lead the rebellion? And who would dare to follow them? And, if something actually happens, how are they going to deal with a heavily entrenched bureaucracy with access to the world's most powerful military as well as powerful mercenary corporations?

Rebellion? I think not.

---------------------------------------------------

Assuming a rebellion were somehow possible though, for me it is only justified when we lose the ability to effectively bring about vital/necessary change through other means (violence should be the last option on the list). When we lose our ability to bring deep and thorough change to the system itself, then it may be justified to force the system to change.

When I agree with its aims. Otherwise, it should be crushed as quickly as possible to prevent threatening social stability and those involved jailed or preferably killed to prevent further agitation.

Errr... In all honesty, the question is irrelevant. When the answer to "Is it possible to have a successful rebellion in the US?" is an overwhelming no, there are other things to worry about before one ponders the ethics of a rebellion.

Think about it this way, there are 300 million people in the US, of these people, quite a few are very young or very old, of no use to such a rebellion. Of those actually capable of supporting a rebellion, many are a) Very content with life as it is and would rather stare at their television than pick up a weapon or b) Need to keep working because they have people supported by their income (including themselves). They don't have time to contemplate a revolution, an new system of governance, they're trying to keep their world afloat.

So we have a problem, who's going to start/lead the rebellion? And who would dare to follow them? And, if something actually happens, how are they going to deal with a heavily entrenched bureaucracy with access to the world's most powerful military as well as powerful mercenary corporations?

Rebellion? I think not.

---------------------------------------------------

Assuming a rebellion were somehow possible though, for me it is only justified when we lose the ability to effectively bring about vital/necessary change through other means (violence should be the last option on the list). When we lose our ability to bring deep and thorough change to the system itself, then it may be justified to force the system to change.
for me its also a question of "if there was a rebellion, what would change?"

i dont see any successfull rebellion against the US government as bringing any changes that i would want to see.

Some of these are worth complaining about. The 'states' thing and the supposed 'sovereignty' thing are rubbish, of course.

The taxes thing, on the other hand.... is pure libertarian propaganda. Which means it's rubbish pretending to be something else. In this case, pretending to be 'for The People'.
Are you unfamiliar with the Declaration of Independence? Lord Tothe's list is merely a modernized version of the complaints of those revolutionaries against the British crown -- i.e. Jefferson's list of the British tyrant's abuses against the colonists. I, for one, find his list quite accurate and spot on, referring both to the abuses of power listed and the tone of the list itself. Up the Revolution, brothers and sisters.

Btw, I haven't read the whole thread yet. Has anyone already posted the list from the Declaration? It pretty much answers the OP's question.

If it was just a segment of the population that rebelled I don't think it would succeed, no matter how large of a segment it was. I think the only way a rebellion could happen and possibly succeed is if a number of states left the Union like in the Civil War. I have read that certain scholars are predicting another civil war in the near future because states keep voting the same way in Presidential elections. If anyone wants a link to that, I apologize for not being able to provide one because I read that on wikipedia and the article has been revised since then.

Okay for? Me? The Government? God?
No idea.

However, the best time to rebel is when the Democrats are in charge of things.
That way we only need to use water guns and no one gets (physically) hurt.

If it was just a segment of the population that rebelled I don't think it would succeed, no matter how large of a segment it was. I think the only way a rebellion could happen and possibly succeed is if a number of states left the Union like in the Civil War. I have read that certain scholars are predicting another civil war in the near future because states keep voting the same way in Presidential elections. If anyone wants a link to that, I apologize for not being able to provide one because I read that on wikipedia and the article has been revised since then.

Or see book: Orson Scott Card - Empire.

1. It has refused to enforce the laws of the land in matters of national security but had continually sought to prosecute the people for statutory offences that harm no one.

I can see the latter, but can you elaborate on the first part?

2. It has usurped the authority of the several States and has assumed powers far beyond those within its legitimate scope.

Such as?


3. It has attempted to persuade us that we can trade our liberties for security while simultaneously showing that it has no regard for the will of the people.

Legitimate.

4. It has sought to destroy the sovereignty of the nation by surrendering powers to organizations that are not elected by or accountable to The People, both within our country and internationally.

Membership in international organizations is voluntary. No powers are surrendered, and they are accountable through the elected representatives

5. The present President has tripled the size of the federal Government within his two terms of office and has consented to the creation of a multitude of new offices that serve only to harrass the people

I'm don't think he tripled the size of the government. Then again I don't know of any universally accepted way to measure the sixe government. Percentage of GDP is a popular. but who has a bigger government, a nation where basic security plus transfer payment equals 50% of GDP but doesn't do anything else or a nation that regulates practically everything but whose government expenditures only equals 5% of GDP?

6. The Federal Government, including the majority of representatives from both parties, has created a national debt that threatens to crush the entire economy. Our fiat currency has lost more than half of its value over the course of the current President's two terms. While this is not as noticable internally, it is painfully obvious when international currency rates and trade statistics are examined.

The plunge of the dollar has been predicted for decades, largely because of the trade deficit rather than government debt, not that it hasn't played a role. Commodity based currencies deal with trade deficits with deflationary high interest rates. I doubt there is any political will on the People's part for that.


7. We are currently embroiled in an illegal war, and are very likely to enter a war with Iran before another year passes. Iran poses no threat to us, was entirely uninvolved in the events of September 11th, and has no nuclear capacity, yet war is imminent.

I doubt the Supreme Court would call it illegal but it hasn't seemed to benefit the US.

8. It has deprived us in many cases of the right to trial by jury.

True

9. It has altered fundamentally our form of government without the consent of the people

How so?



10. It is at this time employing armies of mercenaries to inflict death and destruction abroad and to oppress the Citizens of the united States of America.

While I don't like using mercenaries, I don't see how they are currently oppressing American citizens.


11. It has imposed burdensome taxes upon the people, which stifle industry and eviscerate the wealth of the average citizen. This has been justified as 'punishment of the wealthy' but such taxes and the related additional expenses of commerce are always passed to the bottom of the economic ladder and cause the most harm to those least able to pay.

Most of the things the burdensome taxation cover are very popular. Others cover investments that have good rates of return. Some is waste, but waste that benefits lamentably powerful industries or other interests.

When the revolution comes, I'll be there marching with my rifle.

The next revolution will be the revolution of the machines. :p

The next revolution will be the revolution of the machines. :p

I hope the sexbots are benevolent masters.

I can see the latter, but can you elaborate on the first part?

Our borders are wide open, illegal immigrants are released as soon as they are arrested rather than deported, citizens are subjected to an ever-growing list of dos and don'ts that restrict freedom without offering any real security

Truth be told, I have no real objection to an open border policy. My complaint is that under the current system we see people entering illegally but not facing consequences and even often gaining benefits I as a citizen do not have access to while at the same time I am seeing increasing restrictions being placed on me by the government.

Such as?

Um, there's this magical piece of paper called the Constitution that says, "Each branch of government can do some very specific things and nothing else." The government has avoided or delegated most of its proper duties and has assumed many unauthorized powers. Read that magical piece of paper and see what I mean.

Membership in international organizations is voluntary. No powers are surrendered, and they are accountable through the elected representatives

Bah. The Supreme Court cites foreign legal decisions. The UN seeks the power to tax and track the globe. NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, the WTO and other systems circumvent the laws of the land. Internally we have a veritable alphabet soup of government organizations that can destroy the lives of Americans under the color of law and cannot be held accountable for their actions.

I'm don't think he tripled the size of the government. Then again I don't know of any universally accepted way to measure the sixe government. Percentage of GDP is a popular. but who has a bigger government, a nation where basic security plus transfer payment equals 50% of GDP but doesn't do anything else or a nation that regulates practically everything but whose government expenditures only equals 5% of GDP?

I may have overestimated that figure, but Federal spending has exploded, numerous new offices were created, and a far greater infrastructure of government has sprung up.

The plunge of the dollar has been predicted for decades, largely because of the trade deficit rather than government debt, not that it hasn't played a role. Commodity based currencies deal with trade deficits with deflationary high interest rates. I doubt there is any political will on the People's part for that.

The federal reserve system is arguably unconstitutional, and their manipulation of interest rates, creation of money, and careless interest rate actions have jeopardized the economy. Government interference seeking to prevent economic turmoil has made the eventual problems pile up like a tidal wave and we may be facing hyperinflation in the near future. Furthermore, the out-of-control spending by Congress has added more stress to the economy through the federal debt. See http://perotcharts.com/home/ for more info.

I doubt the Supreme Court would call it illegal but it hasn't seemed to benefit the US.

Wrong is wrong, whether the Supreme Court agrees or no. There was no declaration of war, Iraq did not attack us, we invaded based on faulty intelligence, and used the feeble excuse of enforcing a UN mandate.

How so?

Read the Constitution, and take a close look at what the gov't does. There have been blatant violations of most of the amendments in the Bill Of Rights, and the various branches almost entirely ignore the specific limitations on their power. Amendments 9 and 10 clearly state that all powers not specifically granted to the gov't cannot belong to the gov't, and the specific mention of certain rights doesn't mean that other rights do not exist. The federal government has changed from servant to bully.


While I don't like using mercenaries, I don't see how they are currently oppressing American citizens.

Two words: New Orleans

Most of the things the burdensome taxation cover are very popular. Others cover investments that have good rates of return. Some is waste, but waste that benefits lamentably powerful industries or other interests.

Popular? Debatable. Investments? Not within the legitimate scope of government. Waste? Definitely. Cronyism? Rampant. Taxes add an exponentially increasing cost to every aspect of the economy, and now the government seeks to tax a naturally-occurring element through the carbon tax. This will harm the poorest the most because the lowest economic bracket ain't gonna be driving 'green' cars nay time soon, and the taxes to drive their clunkers will only delay their purchase of newer cars. I will never pay a ******* tax on the air I exhale.

Our borders are wide open, illegal immigrants are released as soon as they are arrested rather than deported, citizens are subjected to an ever-growing list of dos and don'ts that restrict freedom without offering any real security

Truth be told, I have no real objection to an open border policy. My complaint is that under the current system we see people entering illegally but not facing consequences and even often gaining benefits I as a citizen do not have access to while at the same time I am seeing increasing restrictions being placed on me by the government.

How do illegal immigrants hurt national security?

Um, there's this magical piece of paper called the Constitution that says, "Each branch of government can do some very specific things and nothing else." The government has avoided or delegated most of its proper duties and has assumed many unauthorized powers. Read that magical piece of paper and see what I mean.

And the Supreme Court has generally found to be constitutional. Of course whether or not the Supreme Court was given the power of judicial review by the Constitution is controversial, but how do you enforce something without enforcement mechanisms? There's also the embarrassment of the fact that the founding fathers got rid of the Articles of Confederation without following what

Bah. The Supreme Court cites foreign legal decisions. The UN seeks the power to tax and track the globe. NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, the WTO and other systems circumvent the laws of the land. Internally we have a veritable alphabet soup of government organizations that can destroy the lives of Americans under the color of law and cannot be held accountable for their actions

The SC probably cites foreign legal decisions because they find them sensible decisions. When did the UN seek to tax and track the globe? The WTO, succesor of the GATT, provides a forum for the reciprocal removal of trade barriers and a way to mitigate trade wars. NAFTA is a law of the land.


I may have overestimated that figure, but Federal spending has exploded, numerous new offices were created, and a far greater infrastructure of government has sprung up.

True.

The federal reserve system is arguably unconstitutional, and their manipulation of interest rates, creation of money, and careless interest rate actions have jeopardized the economy. Government interference seeking to prevent economic turmoil has made the eventual problems pile up like a tidal wave and we may be facing hyperinflation in the near future. Furthermore, the out-of-control spending by Congress has added more stress to the economy through the federal debt. See http://perotcharts.com/home/ for more info.

Since when is the Fed unconstitutional? The debt should be partially taken care of when the tax cuts are revoked. This should increase revenue as well as cut back spending since voters now see government services as expensive.

Wrong is wrong, whether the Supreme Court agrees or no. There was no declaration of war, Iraq did not attack us, we invaded based on faulty intelligence, and used the feeble excuse of enforcing a UN mandate.

All true. I was never for the war, but the institution we have to deal with its legality is the SC.

Read the Constitution, and take a close look at what the gov't does. There have been blatant violations of most of the amendments in the Bill Of Rights, and the various branches almost entirely ignore the specific limitations on their power. Amendments 9 and 10 clearly state that all powers not specifically granted to the gov't cannot belong to the gov't, and the specific mention of certain rights doesn't mean that other rights do not exist. The federal government has changed from servant to bully.

Since when has it been without the consent of the people? The Constitution
is supposed to limit the people's power. If you're arguing that the government has violated our rights I would agree, but I'm not sure how the people's consent is invloved.

Two words: New Orleans

I know they were involed in New Orleans but I can't see where they oppressed anyone. Do you have a source?

Popular? Debatable. Investments? Not within the legitimate scope of government. Waste? Definitely. Cronyism? Rampant. Taxes add an exponentially increasing cost to every aspect of the economy, and now the government seeks to tax a naturally-occurring element through the carbon tax. This will harm the poorest the most because the lowest economic bracket ain't gonna be driving 'green' cars nay time soon, and the taxes to drive their clunkers will only delay their purchase of newer cars. I will never pay a ******* tax on the air I exhale.

Its debatable that national defense, Social Security, and Medicare are popular? Since when? Investments increase the size of the economy in the long term. Dealing with externalities is a legitimate scope of government. Also, no one is planning on taxing exhalations. The fact that such taxes are regressive is more a reason to expand programs that help the poor, not to let externalities run amuck.

I'd have to say when the government infringes on the rights of the people. When citizens are no longer entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Actually, none of those three are 'right's in the USA... they were nice touches in the DoC that made our plight more dramatic... but not actually necessarily garaunteed by any US legal document... especially the pursuit of happiness....

Actually, none of those three are 'right's in the USA... they were nice touches in the DoC that made our plight more dramatic... but not actually necessarily garaunteed by any US legal document... especially the pursuit of happiness....

You are wrong.

Life is guaranteed as a right in the US. Last year my grandmother died of a neural edema, and we sued the concept of brain swelling in US District Court. We prevailed, and it is now unlawful for anyone's brain to exert more than 53 kilopascals on the inside of a the skull.

We're now preparing tort action against my cousin Lenny's clinical depression, as it impedes his "pursuit of happiness".

We anticipate early settlement, since we have substantive precedent in the form of Beastie Boys vs. Your Right to Party.

Errr... In all honesty, the question is irrelevant. When the answer to "Is it possible to have a successful rebellion in the US?" is an overwhelming no, there are other things to worry about before one ponders the ethics of a rebellion.

Think about it this way, there are 300 million people in the US, of these people, quite a few are very young or very old, of no use to such a rebellion. Of those actually capable of supporting a rebellion, many are a) Very content with life as it is and would rather stare at their television than pick up a weapon or b) Need to keep working because they have people supported by their income (including themselves). They don't have time to contemplate a revolution, an new system of governance, they're trying to keep their world afloat.

So we have a problem, who's going to start/lead the rebellion? And who would dare to follow them? And, if something actually happens, how are they going to deal with a heavily entrenched bureaucracy with access to the world's most powerful military as well as powerful mercenary corporations?

Rebellion? I think not.

Not to mention the potential (and very probably) militia support that the US would get from it's own citizens. Of which I'd be a part... rebels will have to march over my corpse before they start making America even worse than it is now.

And yeah, not that a civilian militia would stand a chance, they woudl doubtless lack the support they would need to cause attrition enough to actually defeat the US military.

You are wrong.

Life is guaranteed as a right in the US. Last year my grandmother died of a neural edema, and we sued the concept of brain swelling in US District Court. We prevailed, and it is now unlawful for anyone's brain to exert more than 53 kilopascals on the inside of a the skull.

We're now preparing tort action against my cousin Lenny's clinical depression, as it impedes his "pursuit of happiness".

We anticipate early settlement, since we have substantive precedent in the form of Beastie Boys vs. Your Right to Party.

Right, forgot about BB vs YRP precedent. Guess I ate my own words :p

Right, forgot about BB vs YRP precedent. Guess I ate my own words :p

Don't worry, I didn't know about it either until Neo Art explained it to me. He's my jewtorney.

About five days ago yesterday.

Setting that aside, one of the great unknown American political philosophers, Lysander Spooner, would most likely have said that it's not a question of rebellion as that would have assumed you had previously given your consent. Something that everyone assumes to have done due at birth and in all honesty has never truly done personally (with the exception of those who do take the oath to uphold the Constitution and those who take the oath to become citizens).

Looks like we scared the OP away. Aw.:(

Don't worry, I didn't know about it either until Neo Art explained it to me. He's my jewtorney.

And I'm your Jewsician. Care do dance the Hora? *fires up clarinet*

Are you unfamiliar with the Declaration of Independence? Lord Tothe's list is merely a modernized version of the complaints of those revolutionaries against the British crown -- i.e. Jefferson's list of the British tyrant's abuses against the colonists. I, for one, find his list quite accurate and spot on, referring both to the abuses of power listed and the tone of the list itself. Up the Revolution, brothers and sisters.

Btw, I haven't read the whole thread yet. Has anyone already posted the list from the Declaration? It pretty much answers the OP's question.

I'm aware of the Declaration of Independence. And I find it irrelevent to try to base a civilised nation, centuries after the fact, on a terrorist manifesto.

We're a global power now, not a collection of feudal estates - and it's time we acted like one. Sometimes that means a smaller community has to suck it up and join the big picture... sometimes it means the collective has to accept that we don't always know best... and maybe someone else has something we should listen to.

The burdensome taxes is just pure bullshit. If you want national security, or coordinated emergency responses, or any of the other thousands of things that go on just out of sight, it's not unreasonable to actually cough up some of the cost. The US taxation policy isn't especially punitive, but it seems a growing number of people would prefer a Third World nation to a First World one - but without putting themselves out enough to actually go to one. Instead, they'll ruin something good, for their own ends.

Going back to the original posting.

While we have an all volunteer military, a great majority of them are there to gain a job skill and maybe some college money, do their time and get out.

Some of you have brought the point that our soldiers are brainwashed because we have a volunteer force instead of a conscript army. If they were brainwashed like it has been claimed, why would the military have problems with reenlistments? Also remember, that 2/3 of our military forces are national guard and reserves. That means that two thirds of the military force are our neighbors. If it came to flat out open revolution by the citizenry, the military will loose. The miltary has what, 3 million total active/reserves? The population has about 85 million armed citizens. And before someone brings the fact that they have the firepower, remember Iraq, Viet-Nam etc. Also remember how many German divisions were tied up by the resistance during WWII, rather than being available in the western and eastern front.

Going back to the original posting.

While we have an all volunteer military, a great majority of them are there to gain a job skill and maybe some college money, do their time and get out.

Some of you have brought the point that our soldiers are brainwashed because we have a volunteer force instead of a conscript army. If they were brainwashed like it has been claimed, why would the military have problems with reenlistments? Also remember, that 2/3 of our military forces are national guard and reserves. That means that two thirds of the military force are our neighbors. If it came to flat out open revolution by the citizenry, the military will loose. The miltary has what, 3 million total active/reserves? The population has about 85 million armed citizens. And before someone brings the fact that they have the firepower, remember Iraq, Viet-Nam etc. Also remember how many German divisions were tied up by the resistance during WWII, rather than being available in the western and eastern front.

The difference is, the military is a trained fighting force and - as most reasonably intelligent states have done throughout history - the US has made sure that the average Grunt has a considerable better standard of living than many of those around him. That has an amazingly sobering effect on the soldiery when they feel the call of a popular revolution.

But, if we assume a popular revolt... not every American would join it. In fact - your cited '85 million' armed citizens would actually be partisans fighting one another - to a greater or lesser extent. And they don't have tanks. Or the kind of heavy artillery the armed forces have.

Not to say it's impossible to overcome the army. But it probably won't happen with the massive weapons technology inequity that exists in the US.

The only way a popular uprising in the US has any chance of success, is the same way the army are being fought overseas - indirectly, and asymmetrically.

slaves are not efficient workers. they dont work hard, work smart, innovate, take on extra responsibilities, etc. they do the minimum they have to do to not attract extra punishements.

serious risk of death is not being fed enough to deal with the hard labor you are being forced to do, doing dangerous jobs without reasonable saftey procedures, being kept in filth, being given tainted food and water, not being protected from the weather, being put in circumstances where death from common (uncommon today) diseases is likely. that sort of thing.

right, they'd probably be better off raising taxes like they usually do. But supposing the government started doing things really against what is best for the people, I don't see why it'd be out of the question.

as for the second bit, lets assume they keep you all in decent conditions, keep you up newborns on their immunizations etc.

And I'm your Jewsician. Care do dance the Hora? *fires up clarinet*

I will NOT cavort to your Hebrew harmonies!

Wait...what's happening...why are my hands above my head...why am I snapping?

Stop...STOP THIS!

right, they'd probably be better off raising taxes like they usually do. But supposing the government started doing things really against what is best for the people, I don't see why it'd be out of the question.


taxes is not going to get me to join an armed rebellion. things against the best interest of the people happen all the time so NO.

taxes is not going to get me to join an armed rebellion. things against the best interest of the people happen all the time so NO.

You are a disgusting coward.

We should be willing to rise up, patriotically, and resist unfair taxation, like our white forebears!

And I say this having never been in so much as a fist fight. And I cry at the dentist.

Please don't hit me.

You are a disgusting coward.

We should be willing to rise up, patriotically, and resist unfair taxation, like our white forebears!

And I say this having never been in so much as a fist fight. And I cry at the dentist.

Please don't hit me.
the odd thing being that when i hear people whining about unfair taxes (in the US) i dont find the tax in question to be unfair at all.

When the revolution comes, I'll be there marching with my rifle.

Hell yeah ill bring mine and we can have a party.

the odd thing being that when i hear people whining about unfair taxes (in the US) i dont find the tax in question to be unfair at all.

Not considering our standard of living, certainly. And - I don't necessarily mean who has how much food (which could certainly see some big improvements) - I mean the other stuff, like general physical infrastructure, and the less-obvious non-physical infrastructure (what's it worth to have an emergency response plan that extends from town-to-federal-government pretty much seamlessly, allowing for modular responses in proportion to the emergency... just for example).

When a liberal is elected to the presidency.

Other than that: when the government persecutes either Christians or Communists.

So many laws governing consensual "vices", the FCC, The USA PATRIOT Act...are we there yet?
Oh, fucking please. You people don't know tyranny.

I haven't read all 12 pages, so I'm really just working form the 1st couple of pages.
All this fear of communism and the importance of Property Rights. What bollocks! America needs a revolution now, as there is no democracy. The elections are just which faction of the ruling oligarchy will get a bit richer than the other faction. Those with heaps of wealth and property ignoring the will of the people is the biggest problem in America now.

Anyone who thinks the US is bring run by the people FOR the people is sadly mistaken.

I will NOT cavort to your Hebrew harmonies!

Wait...what's happening...why are my hands above my head...why am I snapping?

Stop...STOP THIS!

Now will you stop complaining about everyone other than you being under the influence of Jewish mind control?

I haven't read all 12 pages, so I'm really just working form the 1st couple of pages.
All this fear of communism and the importance of Property Rights. What bollocks! America needs a revolution now, as there is no democracy. The elections are just which faction of the ruling oligarchy will get a bit richer than the other faction. Those with heaps of wealth and property ignoring the will of the people is the biggest problem in America now.

Anyone who thinks the US is bring run by the people FOR the people is sadly mistaken.

And, of course, a revolution would fix this.

:rolleyes:

OK - most of the Republicans want to ignore the Constitution and thus have ceased to support the concept of a 'republic.' Most Democrats loudly support 'democracy' until the majority votes against their views and then they use the courts to overturn the democratic decision. The parties are a joke at the federal level, and aren't much better at the state level.

OK - most of the Republicans want to ignore the Constitution and thus have ceased to support the concept of a 'republic.' Most Democrats loudly support 'democracy' until the majority votes against their views and then they use the courts to overturn the democratic decision. The parties are a joke at the federal level, and aren't much better at the state level.

/Threadwin

Most Democrats loudly support 'democracy' until the majority votes against their views and then they use the courts to overturn the democratic decision.There's more to democracy than majority voting. Which isn't to say decisions should be fought out in court, however.

Man, if I had the weaponry and manpower, I'd overthrow the current government and institute a truly libertarian state.

DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER!!!

You do realise that I'm actually far more socially permissive than you, and I'm a communist?

Because it is fair. In a free capitalist society the only thing holding you back is your own merit. Your own choices dictate how you succeed or fail in life.


Okay, that's true. Unfortunately, free != unregulated. IF you want to claim freedom, you have to have every person able to start from the same line --- you have to have true equality.

Yes, but his opinion has quite a bit of ethos to it, no?


Ignoring the other problems with this sentence...

It doesn't matter who the hell said it, all that matters is what was said. While someone's experiences in life might make their opinions on those things more valid, I don't care if you're the Queen of Hearts --- what matters is what you're saying. And there, I feel he (Locke) was wrong.

If you are going to try to use British philosophers who lived half of their life in France to back up your argument then you have no right to say that you only respect the opinions of Americans.

However - Locke did not argue that we have inalienable right to property, just an inalienable right to the benefits of our labour. If you cleared the land yourself, built the property yourself, then you have a right to the results of that work. If you just took the money that someone else earned (parents, grandparents etc) and used that to obtain something, you have no justifiable or ethical claim top that property.

(Try reading Locke)

Ooh, pwnage. I like it.


<snip>
1. Revolutionaries often turn into people very much like the ones they overthrew.
<snip>

Well, where do you think the word comes from? After all, doesn't revolution simply mean going around in a circle?

Because it is fair. In a free capitalist society the only thing holding you back is your own merit. Your own choices dictate how you succeed or fail in life.


Not this again. If you have poor parents and somebody else has rich parents then clearly "your own merit" is not the only factor.

Not this again. If you have poor parents and somebody else has rich parents then clearly "your own merit" is not the only factor.

Yeah, the whole 'capitalism is fair' schtick is full of shit. 'Fair' was never the point - only the ability to advance (in the right circumstances). Unfortunately, that seems to be a difficult concept for some.

OK - most of the Republicans want to ignore the Constitution and thus have ceased to support the concept of a 'republic.'

What do you mean by the word republic?

Most Democrats loudly support 'democracy' until the majority votes against their views and then they use the courts to overturn the democratic decision.

Many people think that real or substantive democracy necessarily protects the basic rights of individuals.

First off, I want to keep this as an American thread only, it is not that I do not respect the opinions of non-Americans, nor am I trying to flamebait, I just want to know when you think is alright for American citizens to rebel.

Obviously my first answer would have to be when your tea costs too much money and tastes funny...:tongue:

Joking aside, to me it comes when I feel that the government has willingly violated my property rights.


*takes a good, long look at the world*
...I'd say,...howza 'bout eight years ago, or so?