You say you want a revolution...2010

reply to post by boondock-saint

Thanks, boondock. I take each and everyone of your points to heart.

(As you were writing them, I went back and toned my statements down a bit. I wrote too fast and got a little overexcited.)

You're very right about so much of this, and I'm noting these pitfalls and this advice that I really appreciated your taking the time to put down.

reply to post by dreamwalker74


I am curious

en.wikipedia.org...

No Libertarians?

www.lp.org...

What did Boondock Saint say....

reply to post by boondock-saint

There does not have to be violence, and I think it's a pretty dangerous thing to be laboring under the assumption that there does. There will be sacrifice and maybe some very tough choices, but no one needs to fire a shot if it's done correctly. Even in countries with genocidal dictators there have been bloodless coups.

Smaller government is what we have to work for, and a government free from corporate influence and ties. As projectvxn said, restoration.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by boondock-saint

 

There does not have to be violence....

Yes there does.

Unless you want to have a failed revolution - which is still a revolution, in a sense.


Edit: I should also add that under the current circumstances I believe 'restoration' is the term most apt to describe the thing. Alas, violence will still be required.





[edit on 15-7-2010 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1

Please define what you mean by violence then. And please explain bloodless coups. Also, have you never heard of the concept of civil disobedience?

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

Please define what you mean by violence then. And please explain bloodless coups. Also, have you never heard of the concept of civil disobedience?

I use google to find definitions of words which I do not know the definition to. As should you.

And which bloodless coups are you referring to? Did the conspirators have some backing in the military?

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


Please don't condescend to me. I was asking how YOU define violence, and the underlying question here is really WHY you think there must be violence, which you did not explain.

Now, that being said, how would you feel if I came back to you with, "Please use Google yourself with the search argument "bloodless coups."

But you know what? I can already tell there's not going to be much of a discussion here. Thanks for playing.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


I take it you cannot find any bloodless coups which did not rely on at least partial backing of the military...

Oh well.

What do you think would be required for a bloodless coup (or rather 'restoration') to occur in the United States today?