West Coast Revolution?

call me crazy, but if you consider the amount of money the west coast has, wouldnt it at all be possible to detract a massive amount of economic equilibriam from the US govt, so as to prevent any more diabolical dibauchery? to horde profits, and deny revenue would be awsome! enough is enough and the war machine must be stopped because it appears to only becoming worse, it goes against my moral integrety to provide them with means to commit these world wide atrocities! there is absolutley not a damn thing they could do if every one simply denied there wicked system. also the west coast has several very vunerable economic choke points that would substantially hinder american hemegeonical progression imo

Ok, you're crazy.

The west coast gets both it's water and it's power from the rest of our wicked system. The economic choke points go a different direction than you think.

As if the West Coast is some pure place brought down by the rest of us inner-contenent dwellers. Screw that. You have Hollywood and LA-LA land on the west coast. You have Michael Jackson,OJ Simpson, and Barbara Boxer. Your pretentions and declarations of moral superiority are laughable.

You just keep churning out the movies and the music videos and when your land falls off into the ocean or one of those volcanos starts spitting on you, we may let you move inland.

retards aside we have a lot of very lucrative economic procurement *ahem* silicon valley.

The west coast gets both it's water and it's power from the rest of our wicked system. The economic choke points go a different direction than you think.

thats the big if it does happen these would be the first things to take control of, dont think we are that completely helpless with out them, thats what they want you to think. the money is gone, they will fall...

[edit on 19-1-2005 by sturod84]

The West Coast isn't as liberal as you think, with the exceptions of LA, San Francisco, and San Diego. There would not be enough support from the citizenry and there would be even less support from the military. Do you think troops are going to take your side to help abandon their brothers in Iraq?
How will you sieze vital assetts with a small and poorly armed faction of the population against military, police, and most citizens?
How will you defend it once you've got it under those conditions?
How will you operate it when many citizens wouldn't work for you?
How will you sell your wares in the face of an embargo and blockade from the government?

Anyway, you might want to add a quick retraction before homeland security knocks on your door .

I'll finish this by quoting Marine legend Smedley Butler, who was asked to lead a coup against FDR and refused. "If you manage to raise your half million men... I'll raise another half million and lick the hell out of you!"

Hmmm. Why does this sound familiar? Oh, that's right. There was a thread just like this about western Canada last week. Only difference was that western Canadians wanted to leave because they were the conservative ones.

Vagabond, you make a good point. Liberals are mostly confined to a very narrow strip of land along the Pacific Coast.

i dont know vega bond this is merely a proposition, to an insesent moral obligation that our government is useing are means to the absolute benificiary of mankind. its a really difficult delemna. this would take lots of planning and coordination on the part of the citizenry, im just throwing it out their to let you all know that we in fact not as helpless and vunerable as they have led us to believe. we are in fact, the strongest nation in the world and have more of a voice and more control then we think. waking up and unifying dissent is the first step. the rest is easy. cmon you really think those homeland security fools scare me?

Originally posted by sturod84
its a really difficult delemna. this would take lots of planning and coordination on the part of the citizenry

You're missing a major problem here. The citizenry isn't on your side. About 49% of the national population, roughly 60 of the Californian population agrees with your general idea, but of those only a fraction can/will fight. On top of that, the people most likely to fight are concentrated in a few urban areas. That's not a revolution- that's just rioting. Likely revolutionaries aren't spread throughout the state in sufficient numbers to gain control of enough infrastructure to make a serious stand.

im just throwing it out their to let you all know that we in fact not as helpless and vunerable as they have led us to believe. we are in fact, the strongest nation in the world and have more of a voice and more control then we think.

So what exactly would we be revolting against? Against a crooked politial system? What will we impose in its place? Granted there are changes to be made but open revolution is not the answer. We'd ruin everything we have going for us and just emplace another equally corrupt government, if not worse. There are a million other options ranging from political, civil disobedience, and even lesser forms of violence. We can't just spill blood in the streets every time political tensions and moral debates come to a high boil. We did this once before and we are -VERY- lucky that it didn't cost us our sovreignity at the hands of the French.

waking up and unifying dissent is the first step. the rest is easy. cmon you really think those homeland security fools scare me?

But there isn't unified dissent. I for one would be trying to kill as many revolutionaries as humanly possible if there were an attempt such as you are describing. For that matter, if there were so much as a riot here in my home town I'd probably take it upon myself to go out and shoot a few of the trouble makers if the police couldn't contain them.

Again quoting General Butler, this time from when he addressed disgruntled veterans who had assembled in Washington DC for protest, "You'll be all right, as long as you keep your sense of humor".

i can see you are in the palm of the hand. i said nothing about causing trouble either. i only propose taking back our country. which does not involve violence. that is until the neo-cons start lauching their scuds.

Originally posted by sturod84
i can see you are in the palm of the hand.

Not at all. I have no irrevokable loyalty to this government. I have grave issues with some of what has been allowed by the current administration and even more with some of the ideology expressed by the far right. I simply am not willing to commit to open revolution and the destruction of this nation while any other possible resolution remains possible.

i said nothing about causing trouble either.

So, just to set the record straight, you didn't suggest that California should foresake its legal obligations to the Federal Government, nor did you suggest that dissidents should seize control of major economic assetts in order to choke the rest of the country out of the war?

i only propose taking back our country. which does not involve violence. that is until the neo-cons start lauching their scuds.

Suppose I had a room mate, and he stops paying his rent because I'm in favor of the Iraq war. Not only that, but then he takes something that is part mine and refuses to give me access to it until i renounce the war. Now I call the police and they attempt to intervene in a perfectly legal way, but he wont cooperate. The police are going to subdue him, but would you say that the police started that fight?


You seem to be failing to understand something very important. When you talk about "taking our country back" you aren't talking about a big collective "we" versus a tiny oppressive "them". You're talking about a handfull of leftwing extremists going at it with a handfull of rightwing extremists while 80% of the country is screaming at them to knock it off before they ruin us.

You are talking about overthrowing somebody who was approved of by half the nation just 2 months ago. This is not going to be one of those big happy everyone agrees sort of revolutions. It's gonna be the kind where tempers flare, things escalate, and we get WAY more harm than good.

For chrissakes... work within the democratic process.

well said my friend, some would say that our demecratic process is about as prevalent as dinosaurs. i just really hate to think that our entire nation has achieved its fullest potential, and that the alternative resolutions that would be aplicable are falling under complete control of the powers that be while we all twiddle our thumbs. trouble for some would be nirvana for others.

It's gonna be the kind where tempers flare, things escalate, and we get WAY more harm than good.

here is the underlining problem. unification my good man! find a common ground and work to acheive, come out of your frekin huts and make something of this nation. we are letting them make it for us because our collective understanding has become so solemn and stale that breaking the complacent routine is to be from another world. any incite of revolution will garnish

I for one would be trying to kill as many revolutionaries as humanly possible...

so you keep on barking at congress while i start constructing my bomb shelter!

the more i think about it the more i realize this is not the place to be discussing this



ok see yall later

Your main problem with a west coast secession from the U.S. is that most of the people that would be in favor of it are peace-mongers and too afraid of guns to even contemplate owning one.

Not so for the west coast people that would oppose this move.

I think this would be over before it hit the news.

Originally posted by sturod84
call me crazy, but if you consider the amount of money the west coast has, wouldnt it at all be possible to detract a massive amount of economic equilibriam from the US govt, so as to prevent any more diabolical dibauchery? to horde profits, and deny revenue would be awsome!

You mean have people on the west coast not spend money, ie not participate in the economy? Extraordinarily unlikley, to say the least.
Or do you mea that people, corporations, and state and local governments on the west coast not pay taxes? Again, unlikely, at least on a mass level, and utterly illegal.

it goes against my moral integrety to provide them with means to commit these world wide atrocities!

Then leave the country. Otherwise you would have to become a criminal in order to not pay taxes, ignoring even sales tax.

there is absolutley not a damn thing they could do if every one simply denied there wicked system.

Send in the military to supress the rebellion.

also the west coast has several very vunerable economic choke points that would substantially hinder american hemegeonical progression
imo

In case you forgot, the west coast is part of america, its part of the system.

Any 'west coast' revolution can, should, and would, be met with a heavy handed military reponse. Civil War and revolution is unacceptable.

Originally posted by sturod84
i can see you are in the palm of the hand. i said nothing about causing trouble either.

You are prosposing mass revolt and tax evasion. You think it will be permited?

that is until the neo-cons start lauching their scuds.

it hardly requires a person to be a neo-con to supress a rebellion.

America watches too much television. Everything has to be fast and the goodguy always has to come out of nowhere and win big instantly. It doesn't work that way.

People are busy. In practice, there is something more important than love, more important than ideals, more important than everything else; necessity. People go to work, go to school go to appointments, take care of the kids, go to the store etc etc etc and then they're exhausted and they go home and watch TV. They don't have the time or the energy to heed your dramatic call to revolution. They'll leave it for others to do and they'll stick to their routine.

You don't have to sweep the nation in an election year and rock the foundations of our system though. You can start small with the battles you can win and chip away for years until you fit into people's routine.

You can talk friends who don't vote into voting. You can help fund raisers to finance political action. You can make a small difference in your local area for the party of your choice- even a 3rd party. If you can get your 3rd party member onto so much as a city council and he does well, you may very well get another candidate into the state legislature. If your party makes a good showing there you might get a congressman or a governor. If you can do that you can get a senator and if you've got senators you've got the clout to influence the other parties. Finally, with that amount of exposure and influence which can be grown over the course of decades, starting in a single urban area and branching out to a state and further, eventually have a shot at the presidency.

That's how revolution works in America. It takes a few active and persistent people with the grit to work and gain credibility, not to overthrow the establishment but to become a respected part of it and have a say in it. This gives you access to the apathetic masses who won't care when you protest and who won't approve when you rebel, but who just may turn out and vote for you as long as there isn't anything good on TV during election day.