[lYVgWWcP]

Invalid poll

[perpelverw]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Commies talk about it as they sip on their coffee and young people sport anarchy logos on their T-shirts but I don't expect much from them. Yes, let's follow the thought process of the people who have a firm grip on reality.

[+++Poguru+++]

Originally posted by Arrian
Too many of us have far too much to lose. Things would have to change pretty dramatically for there to be the right atmosphere for revolution.

-Arrian That's pretty much how I see it. So much to lose and really nothing to gain.

[CIAFreeAgent]

We did have a revolution, one that has occurred over the last 30 years. Starting with the rise of the Moral Majority and Christian Coalition, Newt's revamping of the House and Bush's stacking of the federal courts.

Conservatives can have revolutions too. And they aren't necessarily violent.

[Lymneterfeiff]

The poor will have to feel such a crunch that they can't get by (again)... and the wealthy will have to not respond to it.

JM

[orbidewa]

when has the wealthy ever responded?

[Maypeevophy]

Of course it's my belief that the poor are too lazy to revolt. Which is why most of them are poor. Yes, I know there are exceptions.

[YonkFiorc]

Originally posted by Sprayber
We did it once but do we still have the fire or the cause for revolution. Times aren't good but not bad enough for revolution as it is, but what would it take to shift us to that point or are we all too comfortable and afraid of losing what we have to get to that point. Commies talk about it as they sip on their coffee and young people sport anarchy logos on their T-shirts but I don't expect much from them. Wouldn't you need some kind of real (like: better) alternative to what you have now for a rev, and that most people agree on this as a good idea?

Also, are we speaking about a real rev (incl use of force) or some girly non-violent rev like the one Tehban spoke about. Or like the non-violent changes in Eastern Europe incl EastKrautland done mostly without putting people against the wall.

[TornadoPD]

When tv, radio, and computers stop working and people read more. Then we might see a revolution. In the mean time everyone is preoccupied with Britney Spears' mental break down and Angelina Jolie's baby production.

[icerrelmCam]

A revolution is replacing one government with another, e.g. the French Revolution. What we Yanks had in 1776-1781 was a rebellion. At the time, "rebellion" was a bad word, so we blushing called our rebellion a "revolution."

But I believe the opening post means what it says: Can we kick out the crooks now in charge and replace them with a whole new set of crooks?

For a rebellion, you need two things: the will and the means.

We don't have the will. Regardless of all of Bush's short comings, he is still seen as the legitimate President of the U.S. Likewise, Congresscrooks are also seen as legitmate. Absent a vast change in perception, you're not going to be able to rouse 99.9% of the population against them

Obtaining the means would not be as hard as most people believe. In the American Revolution [sic], we -- uh -- "borrowed" cannon from the British. In the French Revolution, the soldiers sent to reinforce the Bastille turned their guns on the fortress instead and led to its capture.

And BTW: Happy Bastille Day!!

[GECEDEANY]

Originally posted by Arrian
Too many of us have far too much to lose. Things would have to change pretty dramatically for there to be the right atmosphere for revolution.

-Arrian Very true, and none of the aggrieved parties has too much power. I mean there's a lot of unhappy people, but their causes are disparate; and most of them are probably waaay short of open revolution.

Also, are we speaking about a real rev (incl use of force) or some girly non-violent rev like the one Tehban spoke about. Or like the non-violent changes in Eastern Europe incl EastKrautland done mostly without putting people against the wall. It's just not a real revolution if you don't put some people against the wall after you're done, even if it's just Ceausescu and his wife

[soyclocky]

No revolution is possible in the US.

[corriffuniee]

Originally posted by Theben



bye I wish it was that easy!!

[lidya-sggf]

Just remember which way the mighty Mississip flows when we piss in the river con giusto...

[Faungarne]

Originally posted by rah
Bread and Circuses That's all it boils down to folks, thread over. As long as there's TV, pro sports, fast food, and cheep beer, there won't ever be a revolution. It's amazing just how little people truly expect from their lives.

[Tarrccrys]

What exactly would the revolution's goal be? Socialist revolt? Too many people are well off enough that you wouldn't be able to get the manpower you'd need for that sort of thing.

Otherwise, if you are concerned about crooks in power... well, welcome to government.

[Karensmith]

Too many people like their liquor and porn.

[DoctorNiCYDEn]

Originally posted by Arrian
Too many of us have far too much to lose. Things would have to change pretty dramatically for there to be the right atmosphere for revolution.

-Arrian Then I guess the answer to the question would be; If the situation got bad enough where very very few had much to lose and very very many had nothing to lose.

The only way I could see that happening is if the economy got so bad that we had a super-depression. By that I mean way way worse than the 30's.

How could that happen? How about $20/gal gas. The entire infrastructure would start to crumble. It would raise the price of food and unemployment to such an extent that people would start to starve. If people start to starve they really aren't interested in some high or mighty political issue - they are worried about feeding themselves and their family. They would demand that government did something.

I assume at that point the government would be required to take resources thru whatever means possible - which would mean a major if not world war - or face local rebellions and general unrest.

Historically these are the usual conditions that lead to revolution or war in otherwise stable countries.

[Innockcroff]

Originally posted by Deity Dude

Then I guess the answer to the question would be; If the situation got bad enough where very very few had much to lose and very very many had nothing to lose.

The only way I could see that happening is if the economy got so bad that we had a super-depression. By that I mean way way worse than the 30's.

How could that happen? How about $20/gal gas. The entire infrastructure would start to crumble. It would raise the price of food and unemployment to such an extent that people would start to starve. If people start to starve they really aren't interested in some high or mighty political issue - they are worried about feeding themselves and their family. They would demand that government did something.

I assume at that point the government would be required to take resources thru whatever means possible - which would mean a major if not world war - or face local rebellions and general unrest.

Historically these are the usual conditions that lead to revolution or war in otherwise stable countries. Enacting "fair trade" tarrifs would probably do the trick.

The resulting trade war would cause a huge depression. People, who had been told that the law would benifit them, would be very, very angry. Nothing is worse than raising expectations and then dashing them.

-Arrian

[Ruidselisse]

Well said, Mike.

-Arrian