Revolution!!!

[Foxfyre]

All too true, UNLESS we replace career politicians with true public servants again. You know, people who love America and want to make it better. And who are there to serve instead of for the sole purpose of increasing their power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth?

When we take away their power to advantage themselves, there is much more incentive to do the best possible job for us. Praise and satisfaction in a job well done can be a powerful incentive too.

 

[saveliberty]

So....we are back to term limits again. Anybody dizzy yet?

 

[Uncensored2008]

What part of lately is giving you troubles Liability? I would guess that in this imaginery revolution we are talking about, conservatives will be organizing themselves. Much of the speeches and information of the first one was at a church. Not a big leap to expect something similiar the second time.

Do you make a distinction between revolution and civil war?

Also, isn't most of the organization to redefine society, particularly from a cultural point of view, done in the universities and pushed down to the lower levels of academia? Aren't most modern speeches advocating the dismemberment of American society done in the classroom?

 

[Foxfyre]

Re term limits, not at all. We all know private sector people who provide service to others for long periods purely because they enjoy providing the service. The appreciation and admiration of their fellows is all the reward they need to enjoy doing what they do. Think Sgt Ollie in his position as commander of his local American Legion. Does he do that for personal reward? Not at all. How long do you think his fellows will allow him that position if he does not voluntarily step down at some point? And will his 20th year be any less exemplary than his first?

America used to have public servants in Washington of that caliber. And I believe we can have that again if we fix the system which is the whole idea of "revolution". Some will choose to term limit themselves; some will be replaced by the voters; and some will stay on which would not be a bad thing as there is something to say for experience and not to have all people who are training on the job.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Only if government is allowed to pick winners and losers. In such a system you can send a whole battalian of auditors to Washington to see who is using the money for what and never get a handle on it.

But if you restrict what government can use the money for rather than try restrict who is allowed to have it, you pretty well fix the problem. When they can't use our money for their own benefit, the incentive to try to get more and more of our money is removed.

{To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. ] - Thomas Jefferson

 

[Foxfyre]

What part of lately is giving you troubles Liability? I would guess that in this imaginery revolution we are talking about, conservatives will be organizing themselves. Much of the speeches and information of the first one was at a church. Not a big leap to expect something similiar the second time.

Do you make a distinction between revolution and civil war?

Also, isn't most of the organization to redefine society, particularly from a cultural point of view, done in the universities and pushed down to the lower levels of academia? Aren't most modern speeches advocating the dismemberment of American society done in the classroom?

Oddly enough I think a 'revolution' that would fix the broken system in Washington would eventually have an effect on academia and the mainstream media who mostly seem to feed on concepts of leftist government.

Currently academia and the mainstream media are totally in bed with leftist government. But return the government to Constitutional intent and there is no way to use government for leftist purposes. So what would the professors teach? I think the next generation of Academia would have a much more realistic point of view.

 

[saveliberty]

What part of lately is giving you troubles Liability? I would guess that in this imaginery revolution we are talking about, conservatives will be organizing themselves. Much of the speeches and information of the first one was at a church. Not a big leap to expect something similiar the second time.

Do you make a distinction between revolution and civil war?

Also, isn't most of the organization to redefine society, particularly from a cultural point of view, done in the universities and pushed down to the lower levels of academia? Aren't most modern speeches advocating the dismemberment of American society done in the classroom?

You expect a revolution from acedemics that would most certainly reduce their funding? Yes, I make a distinction between civil war and a revolution.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oddly enough I think a 'revolution' that would fix the broken system in Washington would eventually have an effect on academia and the mainstream media who mostly seem to feed on concepts of leftist government.

Perhaps. But I question the concept of "revolution." I see the country lurching toward civil war, with the divide increasing by the day. This isn't the same as revolution, though. Even Obama hasn't openly advocated the dissolution of constitutional government in favor of another form.

I believe that the powers behind Obama would welcome violence as a means of consolidating power and further reducing civil liberties. But this isn't a revolution, rather the prodding of the public in hope of fomenting a response.

Currently academia and the mainstream media are totally in bed with leftist government. But return the government to Constitutional intent and there is no way to use government for leftist purposes. So what would the professors teach? I think the next generation of Academia would have a much more realistic point of view.

I agree, and also wish to point out that the model of education we currently have is collapsing. Traditional universities are unable to provide the educational skills Americans need. As a result, more specialized, private institutions are emerging. 20 years ago I tended to look down my nose at schools like DeVry, yet today they graduate people in the IT world that are FAR more qualified than those from more traditional venues. Just as the Internet has supplanted newspapers, and email has supplanted snail mail, specialized higher education is supplanting the old ivory towers of the left.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You expect a revolution from acedemics that would most certainly reduce their funding? Yes, I make a distinction between civil war and a revolution.

In that case, I don't see revolution within the realm of possibilities.

 

[catzmeow]

All too true, UNLESS we replace career politicians with true public servants again. You know, people who love America and want to make it better. And who are there to serve instead of for the sole purpose of increasing their power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth?

How do you propose to recruit wholesome pink-cheeked idealists for a job that is by definition like making dirty sausage in a pork processing plant?

 

[saveliberty]

You expect a revolution from acedemics that would most certainly reduce their funding? Yes, I make a distinction between civil war and a revolution.

In that case, I don't see revolution within the realm of possibilities.

I agree. A revolution from academia is not likely. Further, the entitlement crowd is not going to be attending too many college classes. If you don't change that mindset, you probably won't reach enough people to make a change.

 

[Foxfyre]

All too true, UNLESS we replace career politicians with true public servants again. You know, people who love America and want to make it better. And who are there to serve instead of for the sole purpose of increasing their power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth?

How do you propose to recruit wholesome pink-cheeked idealists for a job that is by definition like making dirty sausage in a pork processing plant?

You do it by taking away the federal government's ability, at any level, to use the people's money to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes. See the companion thread to this one: A New Emancipation Proclamation also in the CDZ.

 

[American Horse]

You expect a revolution from acedemics that would most certainly reduce their funding? Yes, I make a distinction between civil war and a revolution.

In that case, I don't see revolution within the realm of possibilities.

I agree. A revolution from academia is not likely. Further, the entitlement crowd is not going to be attending too many college classes. If you don't change that mindset, you probably won't reach enough people to make a change.

Just an observation, but Isn't it a fact, that except for the American Revolution, about all of them begin with intellectuals, or self styled intellectuals who vie for positions of leadership, command, and control? Intellectuals and student aged populations tend to suffer from the impetus of frustration that it takes to motivate others or be motivated to inspire a mass movement, a lot owing to their youth. Even the ancient prophets were disaffected "scribes", according to a theory propounded by Eric Hoffer. Look at the OWS population; it's made up of self styled intellectuals who are predominantly driven by frustration.

 

[Foxfyre]

In that case, I don't see revolution within the realm of possibilities.

I agree. A revolution from academia is not likely. Further, the entitlement crowd is not going to be attending too many college classes. If you don't change that mindset, you probably won't reach enough people to make a change.

Just an observation, but Isn't it a fact, that except for the American Revolution, about all of them begin with intellectuals, or self styled intellectuals who vie for positions of leadership, command, and control? Intellectuals and student aged populations tend to suffer from the impetus of frustration that it takes to motivate others or be motivated to inspire a mass movement, a lot owing to their youth. Even the ancient prophets were disaffected "scribes", according to a theory propounded by Eric Hoffer. Look at the OWS population; it's made up of self styled intellectuals who are predominantly driven by frustration.

I gently disagree with this theory in this case. I believe the mainstream media (who consider themselves intellectuals) and academia are quite content with the more authoritarian and ever trending toward socailism government that we have.

I think the OWS is not drive by intellectual frustrations but is drive by mostly union thugs who oppose individual freedoms and ne-er do wells who have zoned out, drugged, out, dropped out, and who don't have a clue what they are protesting or why. I have watched interview after interview of participants, and not one could articulate a reasoned justification for their protests.

Conversely the Founders were of one mind of why revolution was justified in America and exactly what they were protesting. It took them awhile to come to agreement on how to accomplish what they wanted America to be--we debating now are certainly not yet in agreement on what we want America to be--but they got there once they had the freedom to work to accomplish it.

 

[saveliberty]

My recap of this thread. It would be great if we could find some commonground and put forth some rules and boundaries for our leaders. The problem with this is complex. You need to be somewhat general so as to create a critical mass of supporters. You also need to be sufficiently precise, so as to eliminate political swiggle room. (yes technical term there)

So...it means compromise in order to have a platform.

Can we restate where we are right now and then start to do some compromising?

 

[eots]

REVOLUTION!!!! ​

(Disclaimer: This should not now or ever be construed that I am advocating an overthrow of our government. I would just as soon not have black helicopters hovering over the house and I don't want to wind up on the no fly list.)

But for speculation and discussion only:

From time to time in these political conversations, we have one or more members who think we are so completely screwed in this country, the only way out is to scrap the government we have, dust off the Constitution, and start over as it was in the beginning. (Hmmm, that sounds almost Biblical doesn't it?)

Thomas Jefferson is quoted as noting the possibility that such would be necessary from time to time, and the concept is also included in the opening remarks of The Declaration of Independence.:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. . . ."​

What do you think. Deep down where you keep your most heartfelt convictions, fears, and longings, do you harbor such thoughts?

rev·o·lu·tion (rv-lshn)
n.
1.
a. Orbital motion about a point, especially as distinguished from axial rotation: the planetary revolution about the sun.
b. A turning or rotational motion about an axis.
c. A single complete cycle of such orbital or axial motion.
2. The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another.
3. A sudden or momentous change in a situation
4. Geology A time of major crustal deformation, when folds and faults are formed.

A sudden or momentous change in a situation could be in order..

 

[Uncensored2008]

I gently disagree with this theory in this case. I believe the mainstream media (who consider themselves intellectuals) and academia are quite content with the more authoritarian and ever trending toward socailism government that we have.

I completely agree.

This is why I pointed out that while I believe Obama and the ruling left are prodding a civil war, or at least civil disobedience, there is no chance of revolution.

Civil war serves the leftist elite in that it allows for more authoritarian measures. If a contingent arose to challenge the rulers in DC, then was put down, as they surely would be, then our rulers could use this as justifications for a crack down on ideas and organizations that are "dangerous."

I think the OWS is not drive by intellectual frustrations but is drive by mostly union thugs who oppose individual freedoms and ne-er do wells who have zoned out, drugged, out, dropped out, and who don't have a clue what they are protesting or why. I have watched interview after interview of participants, and not one could articulate a reasoned justification for their protests.

I mostly agree. The OWS is an astroturf movement created by the left to promote unions and public employees. It is a reaction to the Tea Party, which was legitimate protest. That most couldn't articulate what they were there for was a by product of being a manufactured movement.

Conversely the Founders were of one mind of why revolution was justified in America and exactly what they were protesting. It took them awhile to come to agreement on how to accomplish what they wanted America to be--we debating now are certainly not yet in agreement on what we want America to be--but they got there once they had the freedom to work to accomplish it.

Compromise is part of any society, and ours is no exception. As the left becomes ever less willing to compromise, on anything, one is left with the conclusion that the goal is to agitate rather than reconcile. Even when compromise is reached in the legislature, the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania opts for dictatorial solutions in defiance of constitutional governance, such as was done with amnesty for illegals.

 

[Foxfyre]

My recap of this thread. It would be great if we could find some commonground and put forth some rules and boundaries for our leaders. The problem with this is complex. You need to be somewhat general so as to create a critical mass of supporters. You also need to be sufficiently precise, so as to eliminate political swiggle room. (yes technical term there)

So...it means compromise in order to have a platform.

Can we restate where we are right now and then start to do some compromising?

I see us as a declining nation giving in to the entitlement mentality that is making competent government impossible, that is eroding our individual liberties drip by drop, and that is pushing us headling into perpetual economic crisis that will ensure that we can never again be the amazing, exceptional nation that we once were.

Maybe others have a different point of view where are are right now.

 

[SayMyName]

I project 50 years of continuing and growing entitlement in the United States, more or less like the Senators throwing bread to the crowds in the arena. The military and security services will continue to be richly rewarded with travel, pension, salary, and medals to always be trusted to see any threat to the status quo as one needing immediate removal.

There is too much food, too much entertainment, too much of everything to keep people satiated for them to be thinking about cutting down their very own milk cow.

I can't see the people of the United States rising up except in the smallest enclaves where people believe they are actually aspiring to the life of the founding fathers. That simply isn't going to come back in this country at this time or in the near future.

Revolution? I can't see it, let alone see it happening in the next 50 years or earlier.

 

[Swagger]

I project 50 years of continuing and growing entitlement in the United States, more or less like the Senators throwing bread to the crowds in the arena. The military and security services will continue to be richly rewarded with travel, pension, salary, and medals to always be trusted to see any threat to the status quo as one needing immediate removal.

There is too much food, too much entertainment, too much of everything to keep people satiated for them to be thinking about cutting down their very own milk cow.

I can't see the people of the United States rising up except in the smallest enclaves where people believe they are actually aspiring to the life of the founding fathers. That simply isn't going to come back in this country at this time or in the near future.

Revolution? I can't see it, let alone see it happening in the next 50 years or earlier.

Nailed it.