OWS Echoes The French Revolution.

[Katzndogz]

There won't be a revolution unless conservatives get tired of the government's drift left. There might be civil war since the people are more divided than the government! The left likes to think it enjoys the support of the majority but it doesn't. This is the fatal mistake of the left. They will not be permitted to impose marxist ideals on the majority.

Then there is the underlying cowardice of the "revolutionaries". They can make of themselves victims, manufactured to whine and complain about police brutality. Mere children paddled by adults. In reality they lacked the courage to face down soccer moms intent on a Wal Mart bargain.

 

[Dragon]

There won't be a revolution unless conservatives get tired of the government's drift left.

Going by issue polls, conservatives constitute no more than 30% of the electorate, and that's using a loose definition; Tea Party "conservatives" constitute no more than 20%.

Again going by issue polls, something like 80% of the people believe in getting the money out of politics and restoring democracy. That's a potential revolution if no reform comes along.

 

[Wicked Jester]

When the government does not represent the people (which is the core problem here), there is a sequence of steps that can be undertaken to remedy the problem. Revolution is only the last and most extreme step. It will not happen if any of the other steps along the way works.

First, the movement may try to bring about reform through the standard political process. That's what this movement did in 2006 and 2008: it worked successfully to elect Democrats instead of Republicans, on the theory that the Republican Party was the problem and that the Democratic Party was not also corrupt. Although this effort met with electoral success, it did not solve the problem of a government not representing the people because the theory was flawed; the Democrats are part of the problem -- they are not the solution.

Second, the movement may resort to direct action of various kinds short of revolution: protests, strikes, petitioning the government, etc. That's where we're at now. The idea is to provoke government action that just voting cannot bring about. In specific, the idea is to push the Democrats to a more populist stance and persuade them to break their big-business ties.

Third, in the United States at least the movement may attempt to make use of the Constitutional provision that allows amendment of the document through a constitutional convention called by the states. The beginning of that effort is already under way, but it will take several years to bear fruit.

Fourth, if all else fails and the government remains in thrall to corporations, revolution is an option.

This is not the first time in our nation's history that something like this has occurred. In the past, the government has always implemented reforms rather than be overthrown. Based on that precedent, we have reason to believe that the same will occur this time around and we will not have an actual revolution. The one major factor that is different this time is the presence of the Internet and social media. It's conceivable that this will accelerate things to the point where the government cannot get its act together and implement reform before the sequence of events reaches stage four. But that's not proven. We will have to wait and see.

Nothing is occuring......Nodbody cares about those slovenly, dirty lil' bastards, hence, once they started with their rudeness, destruction, stepping on the rights of their felow citizens, and abject violence, their support has dropped like a rock.

What those slobs are, is a collection of whiney lil' bastards who were dumb enough to get liberal arts type degrees that will never pay anything......It's their own stupidity that got them where they are in life.....Stupid lil' fucks should have thought twice before going through with getting those crap degrees. They should have known that they would have to pay back those student loans that those slobs WILLINGLY took out. Nobody twisted their weak lil' arms.

Funny how each and every one of those unbathed lil' sissies is cackling about paying ANYTHING that is their personal responsibility.....They want their healthcare paid for, They want their further education paid for. They think they automatically deserve a living wage. That employers should be forced to pay them what they are nowhere near worth.

Basically, they are a bunch of damn cowards who have no clue as to what personal responsibility is all about.....They come from the liberal mantra of, "every child gets a trophy, gimme gimme gimme". Where losers are coddled and the successful are demonized.

Fact of the matter is, those slovenly losers are responsible for your their own damn lives....Nobody owes them a god damn thing.....Not the government, not the taxpayers, not the successful, NOBODY!

If those whiney lil' slobs want to piss and moan about their own miserable lot in life, they need to go piss and moan to the shitbags who raised them to be such whiney, sniveling lil' slobs in the first plce.

 

[SAT2]

They want Wall Street professionals to operate in a legal, transparent manner.

Why don't you?

 

[Dragon]

Nothing is occuring....

LOL

 

[Wicked Jester]

They want Wall Street professionals to operate in a legal, transparent manner.

Why don't you?

Bullshit!

It's nothing but a front to give the facade of a legitimate "movement".....Well, they've already let the cat out of the bag as to what those slovenly lil' pigs are really after...Christ, the majority of those whiney slobs have no clue as to what Wall Street is all about, or how it works.

It is far and away one of the dumbest collection of liberal slobs ever assembled, ANYWHERE....All you have to do is listen when any of those slovenly losers are questioned.

Funniest thing coming from those lil' liberal pigs, is that they CLAIM to be for the 99%, all while their ridiculous "movement" is causing those who actually pay their taxes, to fork out big bucks to clean up after, and police the slovenly lil' morons....AP reports it's up to 20million dollars nationwide, and climbing....Many of those 99% actually pay taxes, so, the hypocrisy of those lil' slob losers is laughable.

 

[Dragon]

Someone, it would seem, thinks that a mouth-frothing rant fueled by personal invective and bile is a good substitute for logic. Fits right into this board, I must say.

 

[Cecilie1200]

She wasn't "clueless", either. Her one and only "fault" was to have been married to a guy whose country was falling to the mob right at that moment. That's it, that's all.

And I don't believe anyone requires definitions of conservatism from arrogant leftist ignoramuses today, thanks so much. It's like listening to a trout define what it is to fly.

She was indeed clueless, and so was her husband. So were Nicholas and Alexandria. You are so reflexively defensive of power that you don't just defend the monarchy in principle, you defend even the most incompetent of monarchs. This is the essence of conservatism. Whatever else you pretend to defend, or how you define yourself, in the end, what you stand for is the preservation of existing power, even if that power is corrupt, incompetent, or both.

No, the problem here is that you like to think half-assed urban legends constitute real history, especially if they paint everyone in cartoonish shades of black and white, to save on any need for thought or judgement on your part.

The only thing "clueless" about the King of France was that he believed it was possible to reason with a mob. Marie Antoinette had no say in the matter, so it's impossible to say if she was clueless in that regard or not. By all REAL historical accounts, though, she was an intelligent young lady who comported herself with great grace and dignity . . . certainly a hell of a lot more than the filthy rabble you want to idolize.

 

[Political Junky]

She wasn't "clueless", either. Her one and only "fault" was to have been married to a guy whose country was falling to the mob right at that moment. That's it, that's all.

And I don't believe anyone requires definitions of conservatism from arrogant leftist ignoramuses today, thanks so much. It's like listening to a trout define what it is to fly.

She was indeed clueless, and so was her husband. So were Nicholas and Alexandria. You are so reflexively defensive of power that you don't just defend the monarchy in principle, you defend even the most incompetent of monarchs. This is the essence of conservatism. Whatever else you pretend to defend, or how you define yourself, in the end, what you stand for is the preservation of existing power, even if that power is corrupt, incompetent, or both.

No, the problem here is that you like to think half-assed urban legends constitute real history, especially if they paint everyone in cartoonish shades of black and white, to save on any need for thought or judgement on your part.

The only thing "clueless" about the King of France was that he believed it was possible to reason with a mob. Marie Antoinette had no say in the matter, so it's impossible to say if she was clueless in that regard or not. By all REAL historical accounts, though, she was an intelligent young lady who comported herself with great grace and dignity . . . certainly a hell of a lot more than the filthy rabble you want to idolize.

You express the views of many conservatives, thanks.

 

[Cecilie1200]

She was indeed clueless, and so was her husband. So were Nicholas and Alexandria. You are so reflexively defensive of power that you don't just defend the monarchy in principle, you defend even the most incompetent of monarchs. This is the essence of conservatism. Whatever else you pretend to defend, or how you define yourself, in the end, what you stand for is the preservation of existing power, even if that power is corrupt, incompetent, or both.

No, the problem here is that you like to think half-assed urban legends constitute real history, especially if they paint everyone in cartoonish shades of black and white, to save on any need for thought or judgement on your part.

The only thing "clueless" about the King of France was that he believed it was possible to reason with a mob. Marie Antoinette had no say in the matter, so it's impossible to say if she was clueless in that regard or not. By all REAL historical accounts, though, she was an intelligent young lady who comported herself with great grace and dignity . . . certainly a hell of a lot more than the filthy rabble you want to idolize.

You express the views of many conservatives, thanks.

If you have nothing to say, you don't have to waste space letting us know. We guessed that, anyway.

 

[R.C. Christian]

I'm pretty sure they cut off heads in the french revolution. So far, all these people do is sit in drum circles and have pepper spray hosed down their faces. Revolution my ass.

 

[SAT2]

They want Wall Street professionals to operate in a legal, transparent manner.

Why don't you?

Bullshit!

It's nothing but a front to give the facade of a legitimate "movement".....Well, they've already let the cat out of the bag as to what those slovenly lil' pigs are really after...Christ, the majority of those whiney slobs have no clue as to what Wall Street is all about, or how it works.

It is far and away one of the dumbest collection of liberal slobs ever assembled, ANYWHERE....All you have to do is listen when any of those slovenly losers are questioned.

Funniest thing coming from those lil' liberal pigs, is that they CLAIM to be for the 99%, all while their ridiculous "movement" is causing those who actually pay their taxes, to fork out big bucks to clean up after, and police the slovenly lil' morons....AP reports it's up to 20million dollars nationwide, and climbing....Many of those 99% actually pay taxes, so, the hypocrisy of those lil' slob losers is laughable.

No, it's the essence of the movement. This is why they occupied Wall Street, and not some other street. Like the Tea Party, you can find some folks who can and others who cannot articulate the goals of the movement well to someone with a microphone.

Your comment about "many of those 99% pay taxes" is not clear....of course many of them pay taxes...what are you talking about?

20 million is not jack shit compared to what Wall Street did.

No, the problem here is that you like to think half-assed urban legends constitute real history, especially if they paint everyone in cartoonish shades of black and white, to save on any need for thought or judgement on your part.

Like you just did?

I'm not going by urban legend. I'm going by history.

The only thing "clueless" about the King of France was that he believed it was possible to reason with a mob. Marie Antoinette had no say in the matter, so it's impossible to say if she was clueless in that regard or not. By all REAL historical accounts, though, she was an intelligent young lady who comported herself with great grace and dignity . . . certainly a hell of a lot more than the filthy rabble you want to idolize.

I'm not idolizing anyone. She and her husband were not well-equipped to be in leadership roles. Yes, while imprisoned, she comported herself with great dignity, and as I said before [and you ignored because if you acknowledged it, you'd have no reason to go on one of your crazy rants], she did not deserve what happened to her. But she was still clueless.

 

[kowalskil]

1. The OWS movement reflects several aspects of the French Revolution.
Had they an actual education, we would have seen cardboard signs with
"Liberté, égalité, fraternité." ...

It reminds me Russia in 1917. Leaders of revolution also promised a lot of "liberté, égalité, fraternité." But among themselves they were discussing "proletarian dictatorship." That is what they imposed on the country, after the revolution. Yes, I am thinking about Bolsheviks, such as Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, etc.
.

 

[Dragon]

I'm pretty sure they cut off heads in the french revolution. So far, all these people do is sit in drum circles and have pepper spray hosed down their faces. Revolution my ass.

The head-cutting occurred AFTER the revolution. A revolution does not have to be violent. Governments derive their powers, just or unjust, from the consent of the governed. When that support is withdrawn, the government falls.

See: Philippines, 1986; Soviet Union, 1991; Egypt, 2011.

 

[Katzndogz]

That's what obama is facing now, the collapse of his government and instituting a new government. Revolution by other means. Now if there is a counter revolutionary movement of brigandry, we will have to deal with that as it deserves.

 

[Dragon]

That's what obama is facing now, the collapse of his government and instituting a new government. Revolution by other means.

LOL hardly. Obama is not the government, the Constitution is. A revolution cannot emerge from a national election.

I'm not saying one will emerge from Occupy either necessarily, but that's theoretically possible if reform doesn't pre-empt it. Reform, not revolution, has been the result of movements like this in the past every time in this country, so that's probably the way to bet. But if the rich and their puppet government are sufficiently, stupidly stubborn . . .

Actually Obama losing next year's election would make revolution more likely. But only in reaction to what his successor would do.

 

[Katzndogz]

At its foundation OWS is a movement of theft. It will not be successful. I am hoping it will end with a whole lot of bloodshed which will firmly end it and the ideology of entitlements with it.

The biggest danger to this country isn't a fight to deprive the rich of their wealth. It's if the rich find this country not worth fighting for. They could follow the many who have already left. The "rich" will become merely the comfortable middle class.

The real assets of the nation isn't dollars, it's the craft and innovation of the people. The rich are those with the ability. OWS creates nothing except mountains of garbage. When those with the ability leave, and take their ideas and abilities to more welcoming shores, this country is finished. Really finished. Leave it to the disease ridden until it becomes feasible to just crush them.

I fully agree with you, when obama loses the election a violent revolution is more likely. Democracy is the very last thing OWS can tolerate. We should welcome such a revolution as a necessary step to ending government thievery. Ultimately what OWS says is "Vote on how much you will give us for nothing." They fully believe the majority supports their indolence. That's the mistake.

 

[Dragon]

At its foundation OWS is a movement of theft. It will not be successful.

Here are some predecessors that you would also consider "movements of theft," in that they were sounding similar themes. All of them were, to one degree or another, successful.

The abolitionist movement wanted to take property from rich land-owners and give it to, well, to those currently enslaved.

The labor movement wanted to increase wages at the expense of corporate profits and the accumulated fortunes of the rich.

The rural populist movement of the late 19th/early 20th century wanted to redistribute wealth from bankers to mortgagees via the monetary system and other measures.

All of these movements were successful. There is no reason to expect Occupy will fail, merely because it is something you would call a "movement of theft." The fact is that at this time, most Americans would call redistributing wealth from the very rich to the rest of us restitution for theft.

I fully agree with you, when obama loses the election a violent revolution is more likely. Democracy is the very last thing OWS can tolerate.

Who said anything about "democracy"? Whether Obama wins or loses, that is NOT what will be on display. What we have is a situation in which the government is a puppet whose strings are held by Wall Street. Neither Obama winning a second term, nor his replacement with a Republican, will change that by itself. Democracy is EXACTLY what Occupy is after.

Also, I said nothing about VIOLENT revolution. If a revolution occurs, it will occur with minimal violence. That seems to be the norm these days.

However, if Obama does win, he will pursue less extreme measures and be more open to reform than his opponent will be, most likely. That will reduce the chance of revolution. But in the end, whether Obama wins or loses, the only thing that will prevent revolution is if reform is actually enacted, not merely promised in rhetoric.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm pretty sure they cut off heads in the french revolution. So far, all these people do is sit in drum circles and have pepper spray hosed down their faces. Revolution my ass.

The head-cutting occurred AFTER the revolution. A revolution does not have to be violent. Governments derive their powers, just or unjust, from the consent of the governed. When that support is withdrawn, the government falls.

See: Philippines, 1986; Soviet Union, 1991; Egypt, 2011.

Don't even try that shit here, you historical pinhead. The French Revolution ran for ten years, from 1789-1799, and the Reign of Terror ran from 1793-1794, during which 18,000 people were guillotined (and that's leaving aside all the OTHER brutality that happened during the Revolution). Do not even TRY pretending that the Revolution was some brief, shining, pure moment, and then all the butchery happened as some unrelated after-point. No one's buying.

French Revolution - New World Encyclopedia

A revolution doesn't have to be violent, but the type of bullshit, mob-riot revolution the French had always is. And if that's your model now, then you're every bit the brutal savage that they were, and history will remember you just the way it remembers them, no matter how many ignoramuses try to rewrite it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's what obama is facing now, the collapse of his government and instituting a new government. Revolution by other means.

LOL hardly. Obama is not the government, the Constitution is. A revolution cannot emerge from a national election.

I'm not saying one will emerge from Occupy either necessarily, but that's theoretically possible if reform doesn't pre-empt it. Reform, not revolution, has been the result of movements like this in the past every time in this country, so that's probably the way to bet. But if the rich and their puppet government are sufficiently, stupidly stubborn . . .

Actually Obama losing next year's election would make revolution more likely. But only in reaction to what his successor would do.

The Constitution is NOT the government. It is the legal framework which sets up the organization of our government, and by which our government is supposed to conduct itself (of course, we can all see how well THAT'S working out).