reply to post by de_Genova
You missed the point
Your failure to comprehend my post does not equate to a lack of perception on mine.
When free speech is abrogated - or abridged for whatever reason - then the Revolution should and must proceed with zeal and
So, because this one douchebag was put in a psychiatric ward for babbling about 9/11 conspiracies, castles owned by a former president for the purpose
of raping children, and insinuating he was about to go kill people in the name of a revolution that was only liked by one other person on
We need to overthrow our current government (killing whoever is currently affiliated with it, I presume).
It would be a good idea for you to actually READ the post and then to read the attachment.
You presume I'm not familiar with the material because I have come to a completely different conclusion than you have.
I'm sure the notion of "Revolution" started with one man TAKING ACTION on his principles and through his example decided to act themselves.
That might very well be what happens in this case as well.
This is not how it works at all.
The American revolution began with....?
No one in particular. The colonies had largely become used to self-governing and self-regulation in the years prior to the increased taxation by
Britain. The taxes were, actually, relatively mild - but were levied due to the massive amounts of industrial and agricultural growth the American
colonies were seeing. We were quite wealthy with a huge ship building industry.
Many of the revolutionaries of the day were business leaders, former military officers with governmental ties (who were tired of dealing with politics
from half a world away), and others in authority who had become used to running "under the radar" of the Royal Crown. Our local governments had,
largely, already been formed prior to the revolution and the people had become used to resolving their own issues.
Which is what they unified under. They weren't simply against British rule. They were for the system they had already developed, recognizing they
could apply it to a larger scale spanning the colonies.
It was a multilateral movement and effort with a few key leaders emerging among them. Washington didn't take the nation to war against the British.
He emerged as a leader within colonies that had gone to war against their proprietor.
Especially if the bastards kill him or disappear him, which is very likely in the Fascist climate we presently find ourselves.
It is actually not likely at all.
He's a nobody. He has no power, and no -real- motivated following.
He doesn't even really mean something to you. He is merely being used by you and others of your camp of thought as verification for their paranoia,
discontent, and malice.
Your line of non-reasoning makes me sick.
I'm not here for your health.
I'm here to tell you how reality works.
I'm all for a more perfect government with reduced National authority - its current functions being delegated back down to the States (where they
belong), and a much stricter citizen monitoring of our political offices. I'm for a more transparent government - even within the military. I've
seen a number of things in the military that I, personally, feel the American people should know about. There are heroes who get vilified because the
truth of events never gets told, and there are villains who are praised as geniuses or experts who get people killed or botch foreign relations. ...
Though I understand why some of these things never get told - and have to swallow the fact that some things simply need to remain a secret for the
foreseeable future - the ideal is to make the government as transparent as functionally possible.
The difference is that I'm not so addicted to the childish delusions of battlefield glory as to feel the need to resort to violence or petulance to
bring that about.
I'm willing to. But if I start killing people - I'm not going to do so just because I'm pissed and have the delusion that I am going to be some
part or leader of a revolution. I'm going to do so knowing that I have A) no other option, or B) a very plausible shot at bringing the vision of a
better government to fruition - meaning I can see the hostilities through to the end and I have enough level-headed people to not devolve into a
"game of thrones" with a dozen different parties vying for control of a revolution or dethroned nation.