Will Washington's Failures Lead To Second American Revolution?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Putting the rhetoric aside, are there people on VJ who seriously believe that violent revolution would be a proper course of action when a president/congress/the house are acting within the rules,

And what if they are not, not even the rules they made for themselves?

President Barack Obama is hailing pay-as-you-go budget legislation he signed Friday night as one in a series of crucial steps needed to snap Washington out of a destructive pattern of overspending.

“Now, Congress will have to pay for what it spends, just like everybody else,” Obama said in his radio and Internet address released Saturday morning. “After a decade of profligacy, the American people are tired of politicians who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk when it comes to fiscal responsibility. It’s easy to get up in front of the cameras and rant against exploding deficits. What’s hard is actually getting deficits under control. But that’s what we must do.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32921.html#ixzz0vNafr8Ft

[_Simpson_ 250]

Really? Iraqi leaders were removed because they were considered evil but the US and UK singularly failed to have a strategy in place to prevent Iraq descending into chaos once the dictator was removed. That is what happens when there is a power vacuum. Seems to me like that is a very apt comparison.

Lets go back and look at what you posted -

Merely destroying that which you do not like is worse than leaving things as they stand (Iraq springs to mind), having an alternate,

We went to war because a majority of people believed that Iraq had WMDs or very close to obtaining them.

Now had there been WMDs ignoring the situation would of been stupid. To say we destroyed it just because we didnt like it tells me you know very little about how it really went down. We thought we faced a major threat and considering 9/11 we knew we couldnt just do nothing.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Are you hallucinating? A.J did not post any pictures - that was Simpson.

MC you are hallucinating. AJ posted those pics.

[^_^ 5,021]

Are you hallucinating? A.J did not post any pictures - that was Simpson.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's another conspiracy!

I apologize, it was A.J

[natty bumppo 289]

It normally is, but not always - regardless, revolutions only succeed where the alternate, more appealing objective is clear to all. The aims of the tea party from the list Simpson provided appears to be a totalitarian state - is that the appealing alternative that a velvet revolution will achieve?

fence sitting ... maybe you should start another sex thread .... cause you're posting what you enjoy...

Edited August 1, 2010 by frank bama

[^_^ 5,021]

fence sitting ...

It normally is, but not always ...

Where did you get the idea a revolution has to be violent?

Pointing out that revolutions are usually but not always violent is "fence sitting"

[Peikko 1,575]

Is the revolt against banks from Obama violent? Is the revolt against insurance companies from Obama violent? These types of revolt are more hideous than the violent type. Is what Obama doing totalitarian? Not to you or AJ cuz you dont see it that way.

If you and AJ were truly concerned about violent revolt there would be pics of ppl being arrested in the violence down in Arizona.

The OP is not presenting a picture of vocal dissent from government policy, it's presenting overthrow of an out of control government - that is what revolution is.

No, Obama is not totalitarian - you do know that that means?

I don't endorse violent protest in a country that has free and open elections, period.

[slim 1,514]

The Internet is a large-scale version of the "Committees of Correspondence"

HA! That's funny right there!

That's like saying American Idol is like the presidential election.

You have to be a member of an armed elite in order to survive

Now you're starting to get it!

We thought we faced a major threat and considering 9/11 we knew we couldnt just do nothing.

That was the "official" story although that's not what really happened.

I don't endorse violent protest in a country that has free and open elections, period.

The U.S. doesn't have "free" and open elections. It costs a lot of money to get into politics and that's part of the problem. That is one of the reasons the Committees of Correspondence pressed for revolt. Had they been "freely" represented they probably wouldn't have been so apt to take up arms against the king.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The Prime Ministry of Lord North

On January 31, 1770, Lord North ascended to the Prime Ministership of Great Britain. He was favored by King George III and his strength in leadership did return some stability to the Parliament following a series of disastrous Prime Ministerships.

The Stamp Act and all of the Townshend Duties, save the one on tea, had been repealed. The Declaratory Act still stood, although it was little more than a statement.

For about three years, Lord North managed to restrain the activities of the Parliament so as not to feed American colonial resentment. He brought this about, in part, by finding other mechanisms to generate revenue to pay off Britain's massive national debt.

He successfully employed a lottery to raise revenue without increasing English land taxes, and removing the pressure to resume or increase taxes on the colonies. However, in an effort to salvage the East India Tea Company, North miscalculated the strength of colonial sentiments. The Tea Act of 1773, designed to rescue the near bankrupt company, was to generate capitol from the colonies by shipping surplus tea there directly and selling it through a network of consignment agents. The intention was to remove the Townshend tea duty (the last remaining "external tax".) Lord North intervened on this point however — the tax was not eliminated, but merely reduced by half. The patriot movement in Massachusetts saw this act as creating a practical monopoly on the sale of tea for the East India Company, and as a shallow ploy to mollify the colonies into the continued payment of taxes to Britain. Agitation in Massachusetts proceeded anew, eventually bringing about the Boston Tea Party. This lead to the Coercive Acts (Intolerable Acts) which were calculated to force Massachusetts into compliance with British authority, but ultimately brought on the War of Independence.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCEQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ushistory.org%2Fdeclaration%2Frelated%2Flordnorth.htm&ei=MfJVTJvCE4nGsAOrj5XaAg&usg=AFQjCNH_nKcDCEZ18yLCCXdoPkrPpFJBqA

[^_^ 5,021]

The U.S. doesn't have "free" and open elections. It costs a lot of money to get into politics and that's part of the problem.

So public financing of campaigns would be a good thing, no?

Edited August 1, 2010 by Legacy member

[Pooky 3,348]

So public financing of campaigns would be a good thing, no?

Shortening the election season to 6 weeks would help a lot more.

[^_^ 5,021]

Shortening the election season to 6 weeks would help a lot more.

I realize that's a bit of a Brit fetish but I don't see how that helps if money decides viability of a candidacy. If anything, a shorter campaign makes it more difficult for the less monied candidate to fight off well financed smears.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

A "cleansing" is the only way society ever learns anything. It's why large populations who aren't under a totalitarian/communist regime as are dangerous unto themselves.

A free-thinking society can never survive without a revolution ever-so-often to cleanse things back to their original form.

Government has grown exponentially, taxes have grown exponentially in the course of the past 50 years alone.

Why? Simply because of mass-growth in population AND the fact that our government is not in its original form.

People are always going to butt heads, especially when it comes to how a government should be run. If people would stop worrying about the piddly little things and just move on with their own lives, we'd all be fine. Instead you get these nitwits who feel they need to tell Sally and Bobby what to do, because they don't like what Sally and Bobby do with their time. They feel it's 'harmful' and so it must be banned/taxed/ostracized, etc. Welcome to the world of free-thinking human nature.

[NVC FAN :( 18]

how can there be a revolution,

there are not enough americans left!