The Way to Start the Revolution

reply to post by devildogUSMC


Thank you.
I am all for peaceful resolutions. At all costs.
Wherever, whenever possible.

reply to post by devildogUSMC


I never said he (Jefferson, or myself) would be in favor of what the thread creator is talking about. I don't view what is being discussed here as a Revolution. No. I am thinking more drastically myself

Unfortunately, we are a higher form animal that behave much the same as more primitive animals. We are territorial and seek power over the other Human Animals. Those with money, have that power and control. This is where males seek 'Status' from to acquire greater reproductive potential. Women are attracted to power, wealth and "Status", though some may not admit that, it is mostly true.

So there are no peaceful resolutions where things are so one-sided. You have nothing to offer NWO architects that would have them peacefully bow out of their NWO goals and objectives. It would take something even more beneficial to them than what they are seeking with globalization, control and even more money.

So, I ask you, join a revolution, but one that doesn't draw first blood.

reply to post by devildogUSMC


Just to let you know, I was Mechanized Infantry attached to a 4.2 mortar platoon. And I think that your corpsmen are NAVY, right? I was infantry soldier first, combat medic second. But as you mentioned, this is all irrelevent.

Maybe it's the words I've used that make it difficult for you to understand the idea. You're all like "NO CIVIL WAR, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE."

I'm not talking about a civil war. I'm talking about a new way of thinking, which would allow more oversight of governmental affairs. In much the same way as what the two-party system was supposed to be, each faction working to represent their members.

Think about it, if you can. The two governments would actually end up competing for members to generate tax revenue for themselves. This would only serve to promote the common good, as they'd be careful of engaging in unethical practices for fear that they'd loose members.

All I'm saying is that the Government should be working for us, not be doing everything in their power to milk us dry. And right now, even though we still do enjoy freedoms at the surface, we have allowed the Government to become something we had to fight against before.

[edit on 8-5-2008 by cryingindian]

Originally posted by devildogUSMC

Originally posted by cryingindian
reply to post by devildogUSMC

 

Ok medic, I've been trying to treat you with respect, although you don't deserve it, and you want to get tough with me?
I was 0311 infantry 26th MEU USMC, you were an army medic; I don't think it is even up for discussion who's tougher, nor is it relavent. And the fact that your weak twin brother was a #bird has no bearing on anything except that you probably are one too.

Neither myself, nor any other prior service member has ever fought for a "PARALLEL GOVERNMENT" which abides by the constitution. You do not even realize how foolish you are, and it saddens me. If you weren't such a coward and a fool, instead of starting your own little parallel government that is going to fail miserably if you dare ever try it, you would work to initiate something that might actually change things for the better of everyone, like your hero that you are undermining and ultimately are a thorn in the side of, Ron Paul, who I do support completely.

You say you support Ron Paul. You do realize that he just wrote a book called The Revolution: A Manifesto, right? I've read it, have you?

There is no way to turn things around by CONVENTIONAL MEANS. Voting doesn't work, contacting representatives doesn't work, all we are to the government is mules that allow them to redisperse our earnings into the hands if greedy warmongers.

What would you suggest we, as citizens who have seen the light, do to fix things?

I've recently seen commercials on TV that feature Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich sitting on a love seat in front of a city skyline, saying how they don't agree a lot of the time, but that they're in aggreement that something needs to be done about global warming. They say contact your leaders and urge them to act...Aren't they our leaders? If they realize that there's such a big problem, and they're in aggreement that something should be done, couldn't thay already be working on solutions? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

[edit on 8-5-2008 by cryingindian]

Hey DirtDevil,

Maybe I was under the impression that guys like you and me could try to fix things. Now I see that even people who realize that the current government's policies are fataly flawed are too afraid to stand up and do something they're not expecting. The current system is set up so that we don't have a voice anymore. The only way to get them to listen is to give them millions of dollars, like the lobbyists that swarm over Washington not for the COMMON GOOD, but for advancement of their own agendas.

Maybe I've just added another action point in the plan...Establish a CITIZENS' Lobby group that can pay enough money to directly influence them. THE COMMON GOOD ISN'T PROFITABLE, so it goes by the wayside. But they're already supposed to be working for us, so maybe that wouldn't work either...

Come on DirtDevil, help me out here...

Originally posted by cryingindian
reply to post by devildogUSMC

 

I'm not talking about a civil war.

I know that you are in no way "tryng to start a civil war". I said that many times. What I am also saying, is that maybe you are so caught up in your ideals, which I mostly agree with by the way, that you aren't looking ahead far enough to see that the likely outcomes of what you are proposing will be terrible for you, your group, and our country".

Think about it, if you can.

Obviously I have been thinking about it; Say what you mean, you don't want me to "think about it", you want me to agree with you.

The two governments would actually end up competing for members to generate tax revenue for themselves. This would only serve to promote the common good, as they'd be careful of engaging in unethical practices for fear that they'd loose members.

All I'm saying is that the Government should be working for us, not be doing everything in their power to milk us dry. And right now, even though we still do enjoy freedoms at the surface, we have allowed the Government to become something we had to fight against before.

I agree things are messed up; I never said I didn't. You have that part right. Tell me what you think will happen when the government gets wind that your group has its own government, isn't following their laws, and has a militia. What do you think they will do? Let you? Support you? Compete with you? I'm sorry but that will not be how it goes. They will take you out, one way or another. They have too many resources to go up against in the way that you are proposing.
[edit on 8-5-2008 by cryingindian]

You say you support Ron Paul. You do realize that he just wrote a book called The Revolution: A Manifesto, right? I've read it, have you?

I have not. I will start it today.

There is no way to turn things around by CONVENTIONAL MEANS. Voting doesn't work, contacting representatives doesn't work, all we are to the government is mules that allow them to redisperse our earnings into the hands if greedy warmongers.

What would you suggest we, as citizens who have seen the light, do to fix things?

I've recently seen commercials on TV that feature Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich sitting on a love seat in front of a city skyline, saying how they don't agree a lot of the time, but that they're in aggreement that something needs to be done about global warming. They say contact your leaders and urge them to act...Aren't they our leaders? If they realize that there's such a big problem, and they're in aggreement that something should be done, couldn't thay already be working on solutions? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

I am trying to tell you I agree with you on all of this. Just not having a militia and operating completely outside the present government and anything else that will give them a reason to take us out. I want a revolution too, I just think that in our current situation your particular plan to achieve it would not work.

Originally posted by cryingindian
Hey DirtDevil,

Maybe I was under the impression that guys like you and me could try to fix things. Now I see that even people who realize that the current government's policies are fataly flawed are too afraid to stand up and do something they're not expecting. The current system is set up so that we don't have a voice anymore. The only way to get them to listen is to give them millions of dollars, like the lobbyists that swarm over Washington not for the COMMON GOOD, but for advancement of their own agendas.

Maybe I've just added another action point in the plan...Establish a CITIZENS' Lobby group that can pay enough money to directly influence them. THE COMMON GOOD ISN'T PROFITABLE, so it goes by the wayside. But they're already supposed to be working for us, so maybe that wouldn't work either...

Come on DirtDevil, help me out here...

Ok, good maybe we can be civil now. Read my post a couple back to Sizzle. I think the key to everything is the media. Maybe instead of making weapons and ammo and hoarding, We could put our efforts and resources into creating some kind of "peolples media" created by the people and for the people. Also, it would be funded by the people. I think that would be a good start. Get the public informed, then involved, then united. Whence you have the people truly united there will be no stopping it.

An individual comes on here and shares his ideals and his dreams.

He leaves the door open for discussion, but receives disrespect.

War was not advocated.

It's a blatant case of "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take
it anymore". ( I'm trying to get my window open to echo the call)

His ideas are true-blue, and he means well. That is a good thing.

We need to gather, to join, to unite.

reply to post by SIEGE


I know he means well. And I told him I know he means well many times. I'm glad that he wants change and is willing to fight for it. I think he has a good heart, cares about our country, wants change, and is more than willing to go for it. I respect him for that. I do not think he has thought his plans through well enough to even try to begin to get others involved, however. He accepts no criticism, and when challenged does not respond in a manner that will help his cause. I did not agree with him; instead of debating with me on the issue, he turned it into:

"I'd like to meet with you face to face and we could "discuss" which branch is tougher".

"Discuss", what does that mean, does he want to physically fight me because I disagree with him? It seems he is more than willing to go into LOSING battles when there are many more feesable and intellegent options available to him. That is not who you want planning your revolution. He is caught up in his emotions; thats fine, that happens, but when your actions are a product of your emotions only, it usually doesn't turn out well. You don't want an impulsive, rage-fuled, poorly thought out revolution do you? You want an extensivly planned, intellegent, thought through to the end, all bases covered, all risks and decisions weighed out and calculated revolution based on the ideas and thoughts agreed upon by the majority of an informed, involved, and unified American public, not the emotions of one man.

Originally posted by SIEGE

He leaves the door open for discussion, but receives disrespect.

He left the door open to agree with him. There should have been a question mark at the end of his thread; it would have made it much better.

[edit on 8-5-2008 by devildogUSMC]

Educate the people. Once the people understand what's going on, the political machinations that are perverting so many countries around the world, not just the US, will be toppled without us spilling a single drop of blood. If one can't get enough people to join one's cause, chances are one's thoughts and feelings are not shared by one's compatriots. If that's the case, it's time to re-think one's situation.

Once we fight, we've already lost.

And so, after many years of disillusionment, life went on, and nothing
changed. (Nothing)
Their rights and freedoms continued to ebb away.

But they did not fight. They continued to accept their government.

It was only a matter of time before mandatory disarmament occured.

But they did not fight.

Then came martial law.

But they did not fight.

More time passed. Their dreams of righteousness went away.

And they were assimilated.

reply to post by devildogUSMC


This is an idea, along the lines that I have been looking for. A mass-means of reaching the people. I have heard of underground radio stations. A friend of mine has one in San Marcos, Tx. The FCC keeps shutting him down.

Is this sorta what you have in mind? My friend does continually find ways to get back on the air.

reply to post by sizzle


Yes, sort of. I'm thinking more along the lines of something much bigger though. A huge media company that broadcasts nationwide on every medium that that is owned and operated by the American public. No profit. Low-pay and volunteer positions only. A democratic process for all decisons. The funding is the main issue that would need to somehow be worked out. It could not take large donations from anyone nor have any assistance from the government. We would essentially need to find a way to aquire a large sum of money to start. Maybe Ron Paul would be interested. Then in the very beginning we would need to explain what we are doing and why we are doing it to the public and gain their interest. After that, we would need their support. I would be willing to pay a small fee monthly to get unbiased, uncensored, accurate news, would you not? We would present clear and factual evidence that the MSM has been lying to the public and giving them biased, censored information since they were created. If Ron Paul would help with this, I think it would work. People might not vote him into office, but they know who he is, and if we did this everyone would know about it and at least listen to what was being said, if nothing else out of sheer interest and good old American hype. He could get the attention of the public and explain to them the situation at hand and what we are trying to do for them. If Ron Paul then asked all the people who would have voted for him to send as small amount of money per month to keep this alive, I have no doubt in my mind that they would.

reply to post by devildogUSMC


I like the idea. Do you think the major broadcast stations would allow it?
I know of an established group that might be interested in your ideas. Stand by for U2U.

reply to post by sizzle


Ok thank you. And I think they would have to.

This is pointless, Any resistance will be futile!!! The mere fact of mentioning can have repercussions... The U.S military would not be used against us most likely a foreign power that would not care to kill Americans.. A confederation will be squashed like a bug, The truth is we need to make a new colony somewhere else... Do what our forefathers did.. But with a real DEMOCRACY not a republic, We need to leave for this ship has sunk my friends.. The question is where?

reply to post by thefreepatriot


THIS IS A FISHING EXPEDITION!! STOP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!