Revolution has begun - What side are you on?

i'm takin sides with bill pullman.

2nd line

I refuse to pick sides.

I will how ever provide reasonable odds and take all wagers!

Originally posted by Legion2112

I'll be on the side of that which is more purely American.

What is an American?

It's just a label.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Brilliant. By choosing not to choose sides you acknowledge that both sides are wrong.
You also realize that there are many flaws to both.

reply to post by In nothing we trust


The issues you mentioned are things I can support. However, that is a far cry from armed conflict.

The two biggest issues with getting involved in or facilitating armed revolution is the immediate: how the fighting is done, the targets are picked and attacked, and the long term: defining victory and the ultimate plan assuming victory is obtained.

The issues of targets and methods of attack are actually the easy part. Unlike the government, rebels would have to minimize collateral damage and 'civilian' casualties. For example, and this is only a hypothetical, let us recall Joe Stack. He flew into a IRS building. While I agree the target of an IRS building may be valid, doing it during the day to take out many low level mail clerks etc doesn't help the cause. Now, had Joe Stack executed a precision assassination of the head of the IRS or the members who wrote the complex and criminal tax codes, such as Charlie Wrangle etc, that would make more 'sense.'

Bombing a FED building when their were fewest people, overnight or during a holiday, would make 'sense.' However, such large scale attacks would be equated to terrorism as we now know it, and would make a cause more difficult. Which is why, large scale political assassinations are the most reasonable and likely to succeed. If all that were to occur was on a near daily basis, some politician, czar, or cabinet head were surgically taken out, the average Joe would not be affraid for their life. If this were the case however, I think the government would either create a false flag of civilians and blame it on rebel groups to sway public opinion, OR some more 'radical' rebel group would take out civilians.

Defining victory is a challenge, unless the rebel forces are a collective of states. A collective of individuals can hardly organize to a point that they can determine what victory is, and what the plan is for once it is achieved. This concept alone, is what makes the idea of a rebellion to 'restore the nation' virtually impossible.

Needless to say, the whole idea is complex, and while I can easily see attacks against the government occurring, an organized resistance with defined goals and a strategic plan post victory is not likely. With that being said, I am FOR the side of freedom and limited government and that is about as clear or certain as I can be until D-day comes.

[edit on 29-6-2010 by Wolf321]

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

Brilliant. By choosing not to choose sides you acknowledge that both sides are wrong.
You also realize that there are many flaws to both.

The root word of revolution is revolve, so in reality all it is, is a planned regression politically to go back to policies and ways that ultimately ended up failing, and end up failing, bringing everyone back full circle again and again.

The solutions for our present problems don’t lay with past failed solutions.

That romantic idealistic temptation to hark back to the ‘good ole’ days, that are often glamorized as being ideal, but still were fraught with the pitfalls and loopholes that just leads to eventual corruption and failure of the system.

The system is broke, yet the truth is, revolving back to the starting point of that slow decline, doesn’t prevent the decline. It just ensures it happens all over again.

So while it’s easy to imagine using a romanticized and embellished past as a guide is a solution, it really isn’t.

The world needs radical evolution, not revolution.

I favor egression over regression.

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
I think part of the problem that we made as a country was to give everyone the right to vote. The right to vote should be based upon service to country, intelligence testing and land ownership only. Nothing more, nothing less.

I couldn't disagree more. I think by the fact that we have the freedom to do or do not, means we cannot force someone into service, require purchase of an item (land), or a set level of intelligence. And for an individual not to be able to choose their representatives, we would not be a free republic, but something more akin to a feudal system.

Anyone who has laws and taxes imposed on them, despite financial means, intelligence or 'pay-to-play' service has the RIGHT to vote for who they see fit.

reply to post by In nothing we trust


Yes, mass protest. Have you attended a protest? I meas MASS protest? Ever? Probably not, because, and see this is my point, people are not united. They can't even be bothered enough to go to a protest to show their unity or their outrage and you expect them to start shooting people? Again, good luck with that.

Public referendum? Sure. We can fire people in government. They work for us. But have we tried it? Nope. Because here again, good luck uniting anyone enough to do that. We're divided. Do you GET this? You're armed revolution is a pipe dream. You'll all be dead or in those FEMA camps or hiding in the woods within 48 hours.

Do you not see this?

Financial revolution is the ONLY way we have left. And again, good luck getting everyone or even enough people to agree or unite for even the 3-6 months it would take to make a real impact.

Originally posted by E-ville

this revolution can be won non violently..

First off they have to piss off most Americans...

Then you educate everyone on fiat money and how it controls everything..

You're a dreamer.

People are mostly peaceful and stupid.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity

You're armed revolution is a pipe dream. You'll all be dead or in those FEMA camps or hiding in the woods within 48 hours.

Probably

What will the rest of you do then?

reply to post by In nothing we trust

Use our brains, maybe? Do you honestly not see any other way?

Originally posted by ~Lucidity

Do you honestly not see any other way?

Not really

The whole machine is broken beyond repair.

Which war do you want your children to fight; A war for territory, resources and power or a war for freedom, liberty and justice?


[edit on 29-6-2010 by In nothing we trust]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
The world needs radical evolution, not revolution.

I favor egression over regression.

I agree with the first, but I'm not sure what you mean by the second. If you mean leave country A for country B, I would disagree; especially if in regards to the USA.

Unlike past history, we Americans who believe in the same ideals and freedoms that the founders did, have no new undiscovered land to go and reestablish a free nation. All we can do is fight to keep/restore Americas freedom. As it is, many within the USA are trying to turn IT into something that already exists somewhere else. What was created in founding the USA is unique and if implemented as intended, is the pinnacle of human government.

Originally posted by azrael36

There will be a large part of the people who will remain loyal to the system that's in place now.

In war if you are not prepared to do WHATEVER it takes to win, you stand a great chance of losing.

Wise words

Trust no one, be bold and win at all cost.

reply to post by In nothing we trust

I want them to fight with their brains. What matters to these plutocrats is money. That's how we have to hit them. Take our bailout money back to start. I do agree with you on one thing. We're running out of time. But it's to late for violent revolution because people simply will not go there in enough numbers.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
But it's to late for violent revolution because people simply will not go there in enough numbers.

Interesting point you bring up. People will not amass enough to take on the NATION. This reminds me of the phrase 'United We Stand, Divided We Fall,' and not from the 'peoples' perspective.

If revolution were to come, if it were enough to break-up the union into regional or back to state control, then the people would have a chance. Many states are already in agreement that the federal government is getting too big, restrictive and encroaching on states rights. Some states as a whole might be on the side of the people and wait for other states or regions in conflict with the people to re-unionize the nation. There may be enough people to amass forces to take on regional, state or local conflicts.

I choose no sides. I choose to keep my family and my self alive and free. I will do anything it takes to accomplish this goal. no man, group or organization can truly be trusted. for this fact, I trust in God and God only for protection and liberty.

There will probably be more than two sides.

Y'all go ahead and choose which side you are on if you want to, just don't try force me to choose. You might not like what I choose.

I don't agree with this "you're either with us or against us" stuff.

reply to post by lagenese


the french revolution stared out okay but have ever read about what happened later ?

they had thirty years of daily guillotining of people, total fascism,neighbor spying on neighbor food shortages thought control in the form of government spies in every neighborhood spying on speech and falsely accusing people of crimes against the government . Religion was replaced by a State invented religion all holidays were replaced with completely different ones to celebrate a pantheon of new Gods. Oh list goes on forever ,The French revolution did not have a happy ending of peace and freedom .

Pretty much FUBAR

reply to post by ~Lucidity


Hmm maybe u misunderstood the tone of my post. Maybe I'm tired and didn't convey it properly. In an armed conflict u must treat anyone that isn't fighting for your cause as a potential enemy. For example, in Iraq, anyone that isn't a coalition force is treated as a possible threat. This doesn't mean that they are targets or that it is acceptable to harm them...
I was merely stating a fact, if you are prepared to take up arms in a conflict where the enemy could be your neighbor or family member, then you must be prepared to act accordingly.
I do not advocate the first step being an armed conflict. The situation proposed by the OP was that "the revolution has begun" which side do you choose.
It is a fact that the founding fathers treated the british loyalists rather shabbily. It is a fact that a loyalist could cause a freedom fighter their life. Ergo if you are a freedom fighter you must be willing to do whatever it takes to ensure your objectives are met. Am I saying that I would kill my neighbor in an armed conflict if he/she didn't side with me? No. If it comes down to me and a cause I'm willing to fight and possibly die for or a loyalist neighbor trying to sabotage the efforts and possibly bring my life to an end then yes, said loyalist will shuffle off this mortal coil before I do.