|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2011 14:47:39 GMT -5
I'm not going to be able to pull out a 25 point plan of how we get everyone on board out of thin air.
We don't start the violence. Never should we be the aggressor like that.
If they open fire on us or use action to take us down then we may take tougher actions on them.
We civilly disobey. Break laws if we have to but never use violence first.
|
|
Revvie®
Main Eventer
Somewhere between Reality, and the Absurd
Joined on: Jun 29, 2005 1:04:26 GMT -5
Posts: 4,327
|
Post by Revvie® on Apr 18, 2011 14:50:40 GMT -5
I'm not going to be able to pull out a 25 point plan of how we get everyone on board out of thin air. We don't start the violence. Never should we be the aggressor like that. If they open fire on us or use action to take us down then we may take tougher actions on them. We civilly disobey. Break laws if we have to but never use violence first. i dont think any revolution has to start with viloence but your asking a well oiled gov. structure to bow to your ideas without resistance and hope they just conceded eventually. and that will change things?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2011 14:54:11 GMT -5
Of course there will be resistance from them. Change is never easy.
|
|
Revvie®
Main Eventer
Somewhere between Reality, and the Absurd
Joined on: Jun 29, 2005 1:04:26 GMT -5
Posts: 4,327
|
Post by Revvie® on Apr 18, 2011 14:57:49 GMT -5
Of course there will be resistance from them. Change is never easy. Do you seeing the whole things ending peaceful with no amount of violence from either side? honestly speaking here.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2011 15:00:03 GMT -5
Of course there will be resistance from them. Change is never easy. Do you seeing the whole things ending peaceful with no amount of violence from either side? honestly speaking here. No. But that would be on them starting the violence. Launching/firing on us.
|
|
Revvie®
Main Eventer
Somewhere between Reality, and the Absurd
Joined on: Jun 29, 2005 1:04:26 GMT -5
Posts: 4,327
|
Post by Revvie® on Apr 18, 2011 15:01:18 GMT -5
Do you seeing the whole things ending peaceful with no amount of violence from either side? honestly speaking here. No. But that would be on them starting the violence. Launching/firing on us. so in turn we would have to use violence to make a real change?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2011 15:04:08 GMT -5
No. But that would be on them starting the violence. Launching/firing on us. so in turn we would have to use violence to make a real change? We can have real change without violence but that is up to them. We will be peaceful but if they do something violent then people aren't going to just stand by and allow it to continue. We aren't initiating the violence. I know what you are trying to get at but we don't plan on making this violent.
|
|
Revvie®
Main Eventer
Somewhere between Reality, and the Absurd
Joined on: Jun 29, 2005 1:04:26 GMT -5
Posts: 4,327
|
Post by Revvie® on Apr 18, 2011 15:07:38 GMT -5
so in turn we would have to use violence to make a real change? We can have real change without violence but that is up to them. We will be peaceful but if they do something violent then people aren't going to just stand by and allow it to continue. My concern isnt "who started it" but it "how many lives will it take" to finish it...and to what avail....since societies will always cycle their ideas again and again. I love the IDEA of a revolution....but if it means deaths that may be in vain in th future, then at what point did we sacrifice for any real purpose?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2011 15:43:25 GMT -5
It's going to happen anyways.
Once they implement stricter and stricter laws, they'll face resistance.
|
|
|
Post by Rule 30 on Apr 18, 2011 15:56:08 GMT -5
I would write in "Ron Paul, you ing idiots."
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Apr 18, 2011 16:14:30 GMT -5
explain to me how you would go about a "non-violent" revolution that would Permanently change things. You don't need violence to have revolution. It's a revolution of the minds of people that will change things. When people stop saying, "Oh, he's a Democrat" or "Oh, he's a Republican," we will begin to see these individuals for who they are. You don't need force to do what is right. Ron Paul's campaign in 2008 did a marvelous job of enlightening many Americans. They may not have voted for him in the end (because of the old theory that has been drilled into our heads that we can't vote for someone if they're not going to win), but people WERE awakened to the reality that there are politicians that don't want to you over. If this revolution can continue and MORE people can become at least aware of the concepts of personal liberty, we can do this all through the democratic process. It's not going to happen over night, and even putting Ron Paul in the White House wouldn't do it... But it'd send a message.
|
|
Revvie®
Main Eventer
Somewhere between Reality, and the Absurd
Joined on: Jun 29, 2005 1:04:26 GMT -5
Posts: 4,327
|
Post by Revvie® on Apr 18, 2011 16:37:26 GMT -5
Yes because Americans are prone to listen and love being made AWARE....so your telling me that the plausibility of rousing a nation that takes more interest in reality tv then politics is the same nation your going to rally with knowledge?
|
|
Revvie®
Main Eventer
Somewhere between Reality, and the Absurd
Joined on: Jun 29, 2005 1:04:26 GMT -5
Posts: 4,327
|
Post by Revvie® on Apr 18, 2011 16:44:47 GMT -5
It's going to happen anyways. Once they implement stricter and stricter laws, they'll face resistance. I totally am in agreeance, I am just not sniffing the pixie dust of an idea that this will go without any sort of violence or death.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Apr 18, 2011 17:01:21 GMT -5
Yes because Americans are prone to listen and love being made AWARE....so your telling me that the plausibility of rousing a nation that takes more interest in reality tv then politics is the same nation your going to rally with knowledge? 1. People bought into the Obama "change" campaign and legitimately believed he was going turn our country around. Why couldn't a person whose voting record actually lines up his platform be believed? 2. Ron Paul's 2008 campaign was a big success in terms of the number of people who are now open to that idea. 3. Many credit the Tea Party's rise to power as largely stemming from Ron Paul. Ron himself is not a member of the group, but his son is, and many of the theoretical principals stem from Libertarianism. 4. You don't need to energize the entire public to win an election. You only have to energize the people who will vote. 5. You don't even need to win the election to begin the transformation. 6. Small elections in local government are an excellent place to start and many seats were won in the last election by people who were running on platforms of less government, more individual freedom, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle - legendkilla2k9 on Apr 18, 2011 17:09:57 GMT -5
John McCain...
|
|
Revvie®
Main Eventer
Somewhere between Reality, and the Absurd
Joined on: Jun 29, 2005 1:04:26 GMT -5
Posts: 4,327
|
Post by Revvie® on Apr 18, 2011 17:12:21 GMT -5
Yes because Americans are prone to listen and love being made AWARE....so your telling me that the plausibility of rousing a nation that takes more interest in reality tv then politics is the same nation your going to rally with knowledge? 1. People bought into the Obama "change" campaign and legitimately believed he was going turn our country around. Why couldn't a person whose voting record actually lines up his platform be believed? 2. Ron Paul's 2008 campaign was a big success in terms of the number of people who are now open to that idea. 3. Many credit the Tea Party's rise to power as largely stemming from Ron Paul. Ron himself is not a member of the group, but his son is, and many of the theoretical principals stem from Libertarianism. 4. You don't need to energize the entire public to win an election. You only have to energize the people who will vote. 5. You don't even need to win the election to begin the transformation. 6. Small elections in local government are an excellent place to start and many seats were won in the last election by people who were running on platforms of less government, more individual freedom, etc. So your version of CHANGE and REVOLUTION is more like probably a 20 year process then?...again I'm on board I just dont believe Ron Paul is the answer and I dont believe the public does well in a long hall situation....its like the US is ADD....they might adjust for a bit and go along with it but just like with Obama...the sensation fades...and in a process like your talking about you have to keep up the sensation that really only exists when election season for presidential candidates begin. I mean if it works then great...but it still seems so flawed to me. It would be like me yelling at 30 people for 10 minutes...for the first few they will be intrigued, then a bit annoyed, by the end of it there might be 3 left and when its over and the next 10 minutes have come to pass...most of what I will have said will be misunderstood and forgotten..especially if I am speaking on something political or intellectual...the general population doesnt care and doesnt want to hear it all the time and certainly only buys into it when it suits them. BUT if you scream REVOLUTION and put a disclaimer that says "may become violent" there will not only be attention but most will grab a gun in hopes of being some sort of hero for the next several generations. I'm not saying i dont like your ideas...I'm just trying to reason out what is legitimate about them and what is just hopeful wishing.
|
|
|
Post by MondayRaw on Apr 18, 2011 21:56:40 GMT -5
with just the small amount of "campaigning" ive heard from Trump, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2011 22:08:57 GMT -5
with just the small amount of "campaigning" ive heard from Trump, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat All he's done so far is say Obama wasn't born here and that the way to lower gas prices is to tell the oil companies to lower prices. He wouldn't do anything about it but tell them to and they are supposed to listen to him saying it.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Apr 18, 2011 22:22:03 GMT -5
So your version of CHANGE and REVOLUTION is more like probably a 20 year process then?...again I'm on board I just dont believe Ron Paul is the answer and I dont believe the public does well in a long hall situation....its like the US is ADD....they might adjust for a bit and go along with it but just like with Obama...the sensation fades...and in a process like your talking about you have to keep up the sensation that really only exists when election season for presidential candidates begin. Not 20 years... More like 12. And 3-4 of them have already happened. I mean if it works then great...but it still seems so flawed to me. It would be like me yelling at 30 people for 10 minutes...for the first few they will be intrigued, then a bit annoyed, by the end of it there might be 3 left and when its over and the next 10 minutes have come to pass...most of what I will have said will be misunderstood and forgotten..especially if I am speaking on something political or intellectual...the general population doesnt care and doesnt want to hear it all the time and certainly only buys into it when it suits them. There's no yelling involved. I'm not telling people, "You need to feel this way." I'm simply saying that there is an option. There are politicians who: - Don't want to raise your taxes
- Don't want the government to run your life
- Don't want the TSA to finger- you at the airports
- Want you to have the freedom to choose what to do with yourself AND your body
- Haven't said they "stood for" something and then voted for something completely the opposite
- Believe Americans have the right to own registered firearms
- Will not take money from special interest
- Did not vote for the War in Iraq
- Did not vote for the Patriot Act
I don't know many people who want a candidate who is the opposite of the things I listed. You HAVE an option. You don't HAVE TO vote for a candidate who doesn't agree with your moral principals. BUT if you scream REVOLUTION and put a disclaimer that says "may become violent" Why does there have to be violence? You haven't made one logical point as to why there would need to be violence. In fact, this "revolution" is predicated on the stance that there is NOT violence... there will not only be attention but most will grab a gun in hopes of being some sort of hero for the next several generations. Killing people does not help anything.
|
|
Revvie®
Main Eventer
Somewhere between Reality, and the Absurd
Joined on: Jun 29, 2005 1:04:26 GMT -5
Posts: 4,327
|
Post by Revvie® on Apr 18, 2011 23:15:05 GMT -5
So your version of CHANGE and REVOLUTION is more like probably a 20 year process then?...again I'm on board I just dont believe Ron Paul is the answer and I dont believe the public does well in a long hall situation....its like the US is ADD....they might adjust for a bit and go along with it but just like with Obama...the sensation fades...and in a process like your talking about you have to keep up the sensation that really only exists when election season for presidential candidates begin. Not 20 years... More like 12. And 3-4 of them have already happened. There's no yelling involved. I'm not telling people, "You need to feel this way." I'm simply saying that there is an option. There are politicians who: - Don't want to raise your taxes
- Don't want the government to run your life
- Don't want the TSA to finger- you at the airports
- Want you to have the freedom to choose what to do with yourself AND your body
- Haven't said they "stood for" something and then voted for something completely the opposite
- Believe Americans have the right to own registered firearms
- Will not take money from special interest
- Did not vote for the War in Iraq
- Did not vote for the Patriot Act
I don't know many people who want a candidate who is the opposite of the things I listed. You HAVE an option. You don't HAVE TO vote for a candidate who doesn't agree with your moral principals. Why does there have to be violence? You haven't made one logical point as to why there would need to be violence. In fact, this "revolution" is predicated on the stance that there is NOT violence... there will not only be attention but most will grab a gun in hopes of being some sort of hero for the next several generations. Killing people does not help anything. Again....I will have to just agree to disagree...not about your standpoints or ideals but about this notion that there will be some real change in a country that hasnt really seen anything as such since the original(and quite violent) revolution that took place to found it. I think your hopeful and I am happy for that. I just dont base my reasoning on just hope itself. Maybe i am a pessimist in that sense but I look at things realistically. People have hated the government since, well forever, and every 4 years we hear the same sort of words of hope and change and every 4 years we are met with just what the government has always been. You say there has been changing in the last 4 years when what I have seen is people just getting use to the idea that invasion of privacy is ok and going along with it because it is turning into the norm. I dont want violence but I feel that any sort of change in such an established system will not be consistent with a non-violent revolution. Maybe I just dont see all the bright and shiny filling that you speak of because i live at poverty level and while everything has been stripped of me due to a failed system, that has screwed both my parents out of jobs and forced me into a home of friends just to try to pick myself back up and then when I look at people and tell them I am met with ideals of laziness and disregard for human compassion and more now then 4 years ago. People in this country our now starting to have to just try to survive and if your telling me that these same people are willing to wait another 8 years for a job that can support them and their families and that they wont lose hope then I would say you are living in a fantasy world. I'm sorry, violence is never the answer but a non-violent revolution in this country is a fairy tale notion. I am just going to agree to disagree but appreciate you informing me on your viewpoints and entertaining me with a good discussion
|
|