What's all this talk about "Revolution" in the US

There seem's to be a rise in the number of post's on the subject of "The US Needs A Revolution". What is going on over there? Why are people making these statements? As i live in the UK we are detached from what is going on over there. Are things so bad?
The general theme seems to be that US politicians appear to have betrayed the country. More so you need a second revolution.
Just asking out of interest.

reply to post by alldaylong


Ahh yes, the Revolution fetishist. This kind of person is so incapable of thinking his/her own positions through enough to avoid being violent.

They lack patience and vision. They simply don't see the changes that can be made by learning why and how to steer an argument. It's an art.

But not a well practiced one. Is the government here totally out of control? Some would say yes, and I'm leaning that way as well, however, as a thinking person and avid study of history, I know all too well that VERY RARELY do revolutions lead to the rosy, BS, scenario envisioned by those who would be revolutionaries.

reply to post by alldaylong


In my opinion it needs to be a global revolution but the reason why there is a call for one in the US so much is becuase the global power structure is mostly centered in the US (and western Europe too)

reply to post by projectvxn


I agree with you because at one time i supported the thought of a revolution but then i did some reading and met my wife and had two precious children and now....I cant see revolution as an option except as a last resort and by last resort i mean the "down the street they are coming for you and yours type scenario". Some would say that that would be to late but in reality I think at the present time we have more options for revision than at any other time in history (i could be wrong). We can vote with our money, feet, actions, so on etc. I believe that if it came to that (revolution) we would probably end up the slaves of another country or an even worse off country than before as these things tend to happen after a revolution. Fight with your mind first.

I just think your witnessing more and more Americans starting to wake up and many of those who have been awake are finally finding forums to voice concerns. It is out of control but significant change isn't in the cards as of yet. Perhaps steps towards a change for the better are happening as we sit here.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by alldaylong

 

Ahh yes, the Revolution fetishist. This kind of person is so incapable of thinking his/her own positions through enough to avoid being violent.

They lack patience and vision. They simply don't see the changes that can be made by learning why and how to steer an argument. It's an art.

But not a well practiced one. Is the government here totally out of control? Some would say yes, and I'm leaning that way as well, however, as a thinking person and avid study of history, I know all too well that VERY RARELY do revolutions lead to the rosy, BS, scenario envisioned by those who would be revolutionaries.

edit on 25-9-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

Wow, would you like me to send you a daisy to put in your hair? What a sweet sentiment that we can just sit down with the criminals who are stealing the wealth from this country and nicely explain that they are big meanies and we would like them so much more if they would be nice and share.

I think you need to study a little more history. In actuality, revolutions tend to work. The only other revolution in this country's history was a huge failure, right?

Apparently social uprisings usually happens when food is 40% of average income, at the moment it is 12% so there won't be any revolutions in America for a while.

if you don't know, then you aren't angry enough.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


I'm pretty sure TPTB have this statistic figured out.

reply to post by DragonTattooz


I would like to add that from an outsiders point of view and looking directly down (perhaps South) on USAmerica I would say the longer they try to "wait it out" and steer an argument the sooner they will find that they cannot steer with both hands being firmly tied behind their backs.
The American Revolution was an amazing victory by all accounts. Is there no reason why it couldn't happen again. I sometimes wonder if, like in Egypt, the US Military might just sit back and keep the peace through the whole process. Now I know some people will say well that didn't work in Syria but might it happen, maybe. I would also add that perhaps like yourself, not all people in the armed forces subscribe to the brainwashing and pro-flavoroftheweek-ness in power.
Anyone else have ideas on the perfect storm to cause revolution? Any thoughts as to how other nations would handle it if it did? hypothetical I know.

Originally posted by alldaylong
There seem's to be a rise in the number of post's on the subject of "The US Needs A Revolution". What is going on over there? Why are people making these statements? As i live in the UK we are detached from what is going on over there. Are things so bad?
The general theme seems to be that US politicians appear to have betrayed the country. More so you need a second revolution.
Just asking out of interest.

Didn't you hear?
The revolution is over.
Ron Paul lost to Herman Cain in Florida and Michigan.

reply to post by alldaylong


It's difficult to pinpoint the mandate of revolution given that the American political arena is fragmented into three main camps: 1) Republicans; 2) Democrats; 3) Libertarians. They all three have their subdivisions as well, making it all the more difficult to flesh out some common accord that may be described as the mandate(s) of the revolution.

Based on President Obama's election one could tacitly say that a revolution occurred. He campaigned on a platform of change, and perhaps some have taken this to be a synonym for revolution. So possibly what you're reading in terms of peoples' usage of "revolution" could equally be interpreted as change. I believe, however, that change and revolution mean two different things. If certain people really want revolution then it carries with it some sort of connotation that armed conflict will inevitably occur. As much as the three main camps may disagree, I don't believe for a second that any one of the three camps want this to occur. So what I believe people are moving toward when they say revolution is in fact change--change to the extent that the American federal government reflects the values and philosophy of a particular political party.

In summary, I think some folks have extended the meaning of revolution from its original sense and reference interpretation to mean change. Possibly (well, probably) there are those who are keen to take up arms, but I don't believe they they represent anything near the majority. At any rate, this is merely one American's perspective.

Addendum:
The Libertarian party may be the least fragmented of the 3 main groups. That is, its tenets tend to ... harmoniously distribute among its members in comparison to other political parties. That may result from the fact that Libertarians are the smaller base of the three main political parties.

Is the government here totally out of control? Some would say yes

lol, everything is just peachy, usa loves obama, their foreign policies and everyone is free.


sometimes its just better in the matrix, less to worry about

ok, back in my box i go

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4903085c1793.png[/atsimg]




Our government is being persistant in its
deafness to any of the real issues.

In media this is constantly
blamed on the average joe.

Unresponsible,
and missmanaged comes to mind.


David Grouchy





Murders.




Shots reported.




Murders.




Freight tonnage.




Cross traffic.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by alldaylong

 

Ahh yes, the Revolution fetishist. This kind of person is so incapable of thinking his/her own positions through enough to avoid being violent.

Really?

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

So, Thomas Jefferson was a "fetishist" who was "incapable of thinking his own positions through?" Interesting.

I may or may not agree with the idea of violently overthrowing a government... including the current US government. One thing I will say, however, is that the folks who have been pushed to their breaking point and openly discuss such matters are far, far from "unthinking" and likely know exactly the day and the hour in which they first realized their testicles had descended and they had hit their limit.

reply to post by ZuluArtZero

.I cant see revolution as an option except as a last resort

sadly elections dont matter anymore its always the elites who win, you can vote but none of your votes really matter just look at here in canada, how did harper win? no one wanted him again yet he won.

sorry if a bunch of people said jump off a cliff i wouldnt jump off a cliff

its always the ones who scream revolution who just sit back and let everyone else do all the work

and then come back out of the shadows and scream viva la revolution.

hate to break it to them and those people who subscribe to that idelogy

there are mechanisms in place to exact change when we feel that errors have been made.

to put it bluntly i will never ever pick up arms agianst my fellow countrymen

and anyone who claims to have read and live by that constitution would not either.

life liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all americans

shooting at them deprives them of the same rights afford to all free men in this country

so no dont beleive everything you hear or read 9 times out of 10 they are full of crapola.

reply to post by projectvxn


Very nice post. I have been lucky enough to be alive for quite a while, and there is no difference over the decades of the desire for some sort of a "revolution" held by XX% of the American population. Prior to my birth in the 1940's, history shows the same thing. Like a lot of people (maybe all) we feel disenfranchised from time to time - I certainly have.

However, "revolution" means so much and spans a wide definition; music revolution, food revolution, style revolution, education, laws, etc. I imagine a lot of ATSer's mean an armed or huge political revolution of some sort. The idea of any revolution is good - it makes everyone think (although that word "think" is also a big grey area here!) and considering alternate ideas is indeed good. However, to imagine that things are so broke that an army must rise up and kill goverment officials is just plain nuts - that particular notion of a solution really changed with the establishment of rules that work - like the Constitution, and branches of government. There are much more realistic and smart ways to make change happen - you don't have to kill your neighbor ( mine is a local cop) or your football buddy (who is in the National Guard). People forget WHO you must kill to forcibly remove your leaders - it's not faceless dudes in black helicopters - it's OUR friends and neighbors - and frankly, I would battle you first before I shoot them.

reply to post by projectvxn


Precisely!

One would be wise to beware the revolutionary. They all say they want freedom. However, when you talk to them in depth, you often can find glaring flaws in their philosophy.

The US does need a revolution, but a non violent one, a political one, one that supports freedom and justice for all. This revolution I speak of requires no bullets. It just requires people to vote for the right people. And keep replacing those people so that they cannot become corrupt.

IMO no politician should be in office for 30 years or more. No politician should be over 65 and still in office.

No, this country doesn't need a violent revolution, but our attitudes towards government needs to change.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Apparently social uprisings usually happens when food is 40% of average income, at the moment it is 12% so there won't be any revolutions in America for a while.

Apparently Americans have a history of bucking trends. The Revolution for American Independence was not fought over diminishing food supplies, and/or rising food prices...unless you want to count the tax on tea that pissed of so many Americans back then. The Boston Tea Party was the flashpoint of a revolution that was largely fought and controlled by some very clever opportunists.

Arguably, Great Britain had every right to try to recoup their expenditures in the military excursions in Canada against the French, on behalf of the Colonists. The American Colonies had requested Great Britain's military help, got it, then once taxed for it, outraged by it.

Taxes are generally outrageous, but the accusations of taxation without representation are oddly moot when the tax was a direct consequence of representation. The American Rebels were slightly disingenuous on many levels, but their motives to wage revolution and fight for independence were not founded in food shortages and hungry people...at least not hungry for food...some would say they were hungry for freedom.