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 19, 2011 8:55:48 GMT -5
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. We've had other revolutions in this country than the American Revolution. For example, the Civil Rights Movement. But regardless, again, this isn't a revolution in that sense. It's not a certain, small population of people who are trying to gain freedom. It is the heavy majority of people whose personal liberties are being taken every day. What do you mean, "base your reasoning?" I'm not saying that a revolution WILL happen. I'm saying that it's something that I'd like to see happen. But for it to happen, action needs to be taken across a wide variety of avenues, not limited to the federal government. Yes, I am hopeful that people will begin to want freedom and start voting for people who will support that mentality... But I'm certainly not looking at it blindly and saying, "Yep, it's going to happen." Every year, a new puppet is put up for office by the establishment in the two party system. Ron Paul has been BLATANTLY targeted by both parties as a threat and someone who they need to avoid creating press about due to the fact that he is simply not willing to play their games. When the Republicans were trying to put us into the War in Iraq, it was Ron Paul who stood on the House floor and repeatedly said that this is not the right thing to do... When the Democrats pushed Obamacare through, it was Ron Paul who again spoke up against the concept... And when both sides over the past 12 years have racked up TRILLIONS of dollars in new debt, it has been Ron Paul who has put together bills that would both open the books of and even end the Federal Reserve Bank that is helping to put us in this financial crisis. He doesn't vote along party lines, he doesn't take money from special interest groups, he doesn't play the games that every other candidate for President does. This is someone who can get Americans to believe that there are people in government who are working for them again. This is change. There are people who are becoming increasingly comfortable with it, but even judging simply on threads posted on WF, there were also a lot of people who were tired of being sexually assaulted when they wanted to get on an airplane. There IS a market for freedom. It's just that no one has tried to tap that market because the Democrats and Republicans are trying to push their party agenda of big government, less freedom, and more spending. Ron Paul is for the exact opposite of every one of those things. When you tell them what? That your parents lost their jobs? I'm not understanding where you're going with this paragraph at all. Yes, there are people that live in poverty. But that number will only grow if we continue down the path we are on. We are spending a COMPLETELY unsustainable amount of money and that needs to change. All that we can do is inform people of reality. There isn't any politician who can step in and turn this country around in four or even eight years. It's a matter of a long term solution as opposed to these patches that we are currently trying to put on things in the forms of government bailouts, increased borrowing, and unimaginable spending. If we present people with the truth that, in order for things to get better, we have to have a fundamental shift in what we believe the role of government should be; we will be successful. 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 I don't see how it's a fairy tale at all. We're seeing a lot of it happening already all over the country in local elections, even Federal elections. Just not at the Presidential level yet. In 8 years as you have said, if things are completely different...I will concede to this to you..until then I am basing my ideas off humanitys ability to comprehend and their loss of compassion. I didnt want to further discuss, only to agree that you are right in your hopes and ideas as I feel I am right on how humans react and act in such situations. The civil rights movement is not a whole country and a whole system that has been in place for several years...im talking an EPIC transition, and as are you two...again I want this for this country...I just dont believe it to not end bloody if this country really decides to want it back. Like I said...even if not here...I will concede to it in 8 years if we have a new system and a new way the government runs...as you had send 12 kliq and 4 of them have come to pass...im willing to do that Most of my studies are in philosophy and religion with a generalized knowledge of politics. I base my ideas mostly off how we react as humans to situations on such an epic scale...im sorry if that is flawed in this discussion.
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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 15:31:43 GMT -5
Never get tan...i just go from pale-ish to lobster back to pale-ish....lol
|
|
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?
|
|
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?
|
|
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.
|
|
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?
|
|
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 14:42:20 GMT -5
Ok, those are all great things BUT HOW are you proposing we do that...it sounds so easy but HOW do we get from now to then? what are the steps that your going to put in place...how will it function...what will it be made of? We can't force people to listen to us. Do you think every single person in Egypt or Libya was/is out there? Of course not. Only a fraction of them are and they are getting things done. They didn't resort to violence at all. It was the regimes that killed and maimed. We have to educate. When something happens we tell them the truth. We expose what is going on. Do you know how evil the Federal Reserve is? Im with you BUT HOW would you get the US from point A to point B with no violence and in enough time to actually do any good. Again I am all for hopeful ideals but the idea that its as easy as 123 without violence or anything seems ludicrous to me...thats why I am asking you to make me a believer in a non violent way to change the 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 14:35:20 GMT -5
explain to me how you would go about a "non-violent" revolution that would Permanently change things. Destroy the Federal Reserve. Get our money stable. Eliminate our debt and make sure we don't ever go into so much debt again. Education is key. We can inform people. Wake them up. We don't need violence. They may need violence but we certainly don't need it to change things. A politician would have to lead in Congress but that doesn't mean they'd have to be the one leading it outside of Congress. Ok, those are all great things BUT HOW are you proposing we do that...it sounds so easy but HOW do we get from now to then? what are the steps that your going to put in place...how will it function...what will it be made of?
|
|
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 14:20:39 GMT -5
Then its not a revolution, its just a hopeful idealism backed by a party candidate who will eventually fall in line like the rest....its just not as easy to make things diff. in a government like ours...not the way people and politicians try to make it sound atleast Non-violent revolution. I didn't post anything about a candidate from either party. We do need a revolution but I doubt any politician would be the one to lead it. explain to me how you would go about a "non-violent" revolution that would Permanently change things.
|
|
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 14:14:15 GMT -5
So your promoting bloodshed and death for a hope of 30 years of an ok government just for it to resink its teeth back in. The world works in cycles and as do most societies. No need for bloodshed. And the only death should be the Federal Reserve. Then its not a revolution, its just a hopeful idealism backed by a party candidate who will eventually fall in line like the rest....its just not as easy to make things diff. in a government like ours...not the way people and politicians try to make it sound atleast
|
|
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 13:12:54 GMT -5
Every politician is part of the machine, maybe you view it differently but to me its politics and its the devils games and has been as long as it has existed in the world. Look past the "R" next to his name and look at what he stands for. This is a man who is not part of the machine. He has a PERFECT voting record in regards to his stances on limited government, individual freedom, and less spending. I was never against troops being deployed, I was only against being lied to about where and the reasoning behind it. For instance if it had been us deploying then to LITTERALLY look for Bin Laden I would have be ok. OR if he would have openly said that he felt like Saddam was allowed to much freedom to do as he pleased as a violent dictator and wanted to rid the world of him, again I might have been hesitant but he would have been more likely to have gained my support. This country has been known for its efforts to rid the world of people and idealism that most people just take a blind eye to and honestly I dont mind that...its the intent and what is being used as the vehicle for the machine that I worry on NOT the machine itself. It would take a revolution to refound a government more to the liking of most citizens...so all we need is death, a civil war in some right, and chaos momentarily to CHANGE the MACHINE that is government...just for 30 years to pass and it retake its thrown with new faces and maybe a few new ideas and probably more a socialist mentality(not that socialism is completely displeasing) You're absolutely right. We need the revolution. Now. So your promoting bloodshed and death for a hope of 30 years of an ok government just for it to resink its teeth back in. The world works in cycles and as do most societies.
|
|
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 12:23:39 GMT -5
Nobody can CHANGE the government...and ALL politicians make promises they cant keep. I would have rather seen hillary and ever voted for her in the primaries but when it came down to the warmongering McCain and 4 more years of a bush mentality on the world and Obama...well my choice was easy then. Yes, politicians do make "promises" that they sometimes can't keep... But things like resigning the Patriot Act, which he vehemently opposed on the campaign trail, shows that Obama is just part of the "machine." Also, Obama has just moved the troops around. I love how people act like he's stopping our offensive military action. And no, I don't think McCain would do any better. I'm just saying... Every politician is part of the machine, maybe you view it differently but to me its politics and its the devils games and has been as long as it has existed in the world. I was never against troops being deployed, I was only against being lied to about where and the reasoning behind it. For instance if it had been us deploying then to LITTERALLY look for Bin Laden I would have be ok. OR if he would have openly said that he felt like Saddam was allowed to much freedom to do as he pleased as a violent dictator and wanted to rid the world of him, again I might have been hesitant but he would have been more likely to have gained my support. This country has been known for its efforts to rid the world of people and idealism that most people just take a blind eye to and honestly I dont mind that...its the intent and what is being used as the vehicle for the machine that I worry on NOT the machine itself. It would take a revolution to refound a government more to the liking of most citizens...so all we need is death, a civil war in some right, and chaos momentarily to CHANGE the MACHINE that is government...just for 30 years to pass and it retake its thrown with new faces and maybe a few new ideas and probably more a socialist mentality(not that socialism is completely displeasing)
|
|
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 11:17:37 GMT -5
Sooo because he is famous he is incapable of lashing out against something that annoys him, simply due to "we heard it all before"...90% of the crap people complain about I have heard before...it doesnt make it less reasonable just because he is a journalist and you feel you have heard it before. In that situation we enter a idealism that we should roll on anything that is overly complained about. Government is constantly complained on...but i have heard it a billion times so we might as well not talk about it. We eliminate the ability to complain by the status of a person and we might as well all just drink the koolaid and ignore the poison sign. I'm not complaining at you in particular(which i think you had taken it that way) but in general at the idea that he is in the wrong for simply having an opinion like most journalist and correspondents do. First, I didn't take your post personally. I just jump at the opportunity for intelligent discussion, which is scarce around here. I'm sure you understand, lol. Second, I totally see your point and actually agree with you when explained that way. Anderson Cooper is one of the few TV journalists that I respect. I guess it just rubbed me the wrong way seeing the guy who gave us this masterpiece of research.. ...step down to take on Snooki of all people. This is true lol What I realized after watching the video again he wasnt actually gunning for snookie like I originally had look at it as. What I see now is he was merely bashing those willing to pay her SOOO much money just to exist, not so much her for existing in the limelight...so I guess that lessens the blow. And I am glad its just intelligent discussion Regardless, he probably got it out of his system and I doubt he will bring it back up again....then again you never know
|
|
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 11:13:38 GMT -5
We have a lot of idiots in America, but hopefully not enough that Trump can become president. There were enough idiots to get Obama elected, so..... Allow me to defend myself before I get blasted for that comment - The 'idiots' are the people who voted Obama in on the basis of his race, and/or because they like the word 'change' used in repetition. The voters who actually took the time to view Obama as a politician, and believed that he could do a better job than Hillary & McCain, good for you, let's agree to disagree. Nobody can CHANGE the government...and ALL politicians make promises they cant keep. I would have rather seen hillary and ever voted for her in the primaries but when it came down to the warmongering McCain and 4 more years of a bush mentality on the world and Obama...well my choice was easy then. And lets all keep in mind that even though I know people will disagree but Clinton did an amazing job and his first two years the people really werent on his side yet because they werent really seeing the fruits of his labor yet. If you dont understand basic politics, then I agree with you, they just shouldnt vote.
|
|
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 8:55:31 GMT -5
still not as cute as the rping duo of kurt and kat...but cute enough....prepare yourself for marriage though...its all not all sparkly as it seems at 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 17, 2011 21:26:33 GMT -5
I love how he points out something that everyone obviously knows....but hes the one catching crap for it...glad we have our priorities in order..... not to say he isnt above this...but i like to think I am above it too but every so often you get a wild hair and you have to step out and say something about it...I rant about stephanie meyer and those idiotic twilight books....BUT I probably shouldnt because it doesnt matter but every so often I speak out. Just amusing that people are more likely to back her existence in fame then his words against her I don't think that I'm backing her existence over his words against her. The problem lies in your first statement. He pointed out things that soooo many people know about and continue to bash her about on a daily basis. What's more popular than Snooki? Snooki bashing. Anderson can say what he wants, and I'm not defending Snooki. But at this point, it's one of those "heard it all before" scenarios. Sooo because he is famous he is incapable of lashing out against something that annoys him, simply due to "we heard it all before"...90% of the crap people complain about I have heard before...it doesnt make it less reasonable just because he is a journalist and you feel you have heard it before. In that situation we enter a idealism that we should roll on anything that is overly complained about. Government is constantly complained on...but i have heard it a billion times so we might as well not talk about it. We eliminate the ability to complain by the status of a person and we might as well all just drink the koolaid and ignore the poison sign. I'm not complaining at you in particular(which i think you had taken it that way) but in general at the idea that he is in the wrong for simply having an opinion like most journalist and correspondents do.
|
|