Is there a point at which revolution becomes a necessity in the US?

[Occulus]

Poll question: Is there a point at which revolution becomes a necessity in the US?

Please discuss this topic in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1315453#

[liberalhistorian]

1. It certainly was at one time in our history,

when we were under the thumb of another King George, coincidentally enough (or maybe not!), and I have no doubt that it will be a necessity yet again at some point. Perhaps even in the near future.

[whistle]

2. I say Yes...

...every four years. If we are denied our right to free and open elections then the revolution must be taken to the streets.

[Occulus]

4. A denial of elections is a denial of democracy is a denial of freedom is a

denial of a basic human right.

Do we have the strength to enforce that shining goal?

[bushbegone04]

8. I say yes too but

But as a pro-gun Democrat, a revolution will be hard without something to defend yourself with. Why do you think the gubmint keeps trying to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. They knew the day of revolution was coming.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FlemingsGhost]

15. Bullshit!

Unity and self-sacrifice are the most powerful weapons in our arsenal.

Firearms are the tools of our enemy.

[Occulus]

17. Reeeallly?

So... The People are our enemy?

I'd like to not derail this thread, but read the 2nd Amendment and get back to me. Since when is exercising a Constitutional right siding with the enemy?

[FlemingsGhost]

22. If they're using guns to initiate socio-economic change? Yes.

I promise you, those who take up arms in the name of a popular revolution will not only fail, they will perish.

Guns will inevitably lead to violence. The first to implement their use, will lose the fight.

[9215]

23. So much of this depends on what

the government is doing. If the government denies right to assembly and starts stationing troops and cops on street corners, or threatens to shut down an org that is putting out news that el Capitain's don't want to here....where do you say enough is enough and use force.

I'm going to grease the gun if troops start being stationed in my town, on street corners, etc. and prevent me from exercising my rights.

If Bush shuts down the elections, which I fully expect him to do, I think physical force will be neccessary to take back the country. What happens is things like public buildings, and spaces are no longer valid. They are no longer in service to the Constitution, but are part of an illegal occupying power.

In a way we become what Iraq is now: The BFEE becomes an occupying power. We have moved steadily in that direction since Bush took office.

The Bush regime may come unraveled and be dispersed. That is what I'm hoping. If it doesn't then this country will degenerate into civil warIMO

[MadProphetMargin]

31. History disagrees. Usually, the first side to get violent wins.

For example, the American revolution.

[liberalhistorian]

32. You need to get real, and I say this

as someone who's never owned a gun and who's not that crazy about them at all. The government and those on their side will most certainly have a ton of weapons on their side which they will happily use.

What the hell do you think we're supposed to resist them and defend ourselves with? One of the first laws Hitler imposed (and this goes for almost all fascist/totalitarian societies) was to take away guns from the citizens. Why? So that the government and its soldiers could do what they wanted without fear of any true resistance.

It's taken me a long time to get out of Mary Poppins-land and realize this, but I finally have. Without arms, we would have nothing, frankly, you think a government needing a revolution to overthrow it is going to listen to self-sacrifice and reason? COME ON!

[MadProphetMargin]

30. Um, do you think we'd be fighting BUDDHISTS, or something?

[The Lone Liberal]

3. There is, even T. Jefferson thought so.

The only trouble is,"how do you go about a revolution?" I think that the American people would be happy to see one, but just dont want to take the time to do one.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[teach1st]

6. About King George

(Selections from the Declaration of Independence)

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

[tom_paine]

9. King Georges don't change much. do they?

Plus a change, plus a la meme chose
(the more things change, the more they stay the same)

[liberalhistorian]

10. WOW!

Some of it hits just a little too eerily close to home, doesn't it? I say it's time for us to draft our own "Second Declaration of Independence", I have no doubt that we could fill up hundreds of pages with everything the Bushistas have done to this country and its people since their coup.

[Zorra]

29. Here's a starter.

THE DECLARATION OF IMPEACHMENT
THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION OF THE INDEPENDENT PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

http://www.opednews.com/michaels_declaration_of_impeachment.htm

[guitar man]

24. My all time favorite document

Hence,my sig line...

[JanMichael]

7. If the result would be the same old shit then no. No worth the trouble.

OTH if we were to try to evolve as Human Beings, as a Society, then yes.

Sort of depends what the game plan is IMO.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

12. If it's a return to the Clinton economic prosperity where the world...

...looked upon us as good neighbors, then I'll vote for that brand of SOS in a heartbeat.

Whatever we've had the last 3+ years is like nothing we've ever had before...and it's pretty damn obvious it's not working for anyone but the super-wealthy.

[jpgray]

13. Depends

If we can get enough rational people together in government to reform it back to some sort of form that works for its citizens, then no. If we can't do that, then yes.

[Occulus]

18. Wouldn't that also equate to a revolution?

[jpgray]

20. We would have to agree on a definition of the term

The recent so-called 'conservative revolution' and the French Revolution are rather different, but both are called revolutions. Reforming the system within the system, without drastically changing it, seems to me less a 'revolution' than what is expected of all governments over time. A drastic overhaul or revocation of the system tends more toward 'revolution', in my opinion.

[BeHereNow]

14. Yes. However, the time is past.

The time was December 12, 2000.
At this point the ONLY way to take the country back is
for EACH and EVERY citizen in this country to completely
withdraw ALL economic support and dependence
on corporations.
It would require communities to form community gardens and
interdependent systems. No gasoline consumption or
monetary exchange. No more TV, telephone, Starbuck slurping.
Mall grazing etc...
But we all know, THAT aint gonna happen.
Economic starvation , as in the bus boycotts organized
by the Saint and teacher, Martin Luther King, is the only
way to end the corporate power which has overtaken
our country.
However, can you picture YOUR neighbor giving
up his RIGHT to eat at McDonald's and gas up his SUV?
I can't.
And so, we will continue to tighten the noose
around our own necks to our own demise.
And so it is.
The people will get the government they deserve.

BHN

[lapfog_1]

16. you say you want a revolution.... well ya know...

I am not in favor of revolution. However, I might well be
in favor of succession. In particular, the PSA (Pacific States
of America), to include the west coast, BC, Alaska, and Hawaii...
and possibly BC and, for good measure, Baja.

Ask the Orange county folks to migrate east, invite folks from
New York, Boston, and other of like mind. And create our own
little hydrogen powered utopia (but keep the nukes and subs and
threaten to blow the remaining USA to pieces if they try
to impose their will)... gay marriage allowed. Bill of rights -
upheld. terrorists - shown the door and told that unlike the
the USA, we WILL hunt you down, individually, and arrest you...
no oil, no pollution (or as little as possible). Peace with
the world... Pacific rim as our trading partners.

Of course, this is just idle speculation. I'm not actually advocating
succession. But Clinton could be our first president.

[Occulus]

19. ummm.....

K?

[Malva Zebrina]

21. change is not going to come from politicians

according to Howard Zinn in an interview with Ray Talliaferro. To paraphrase Zinn: Politicians will always gravitate toward what makes them look good, toward what will get them elected again and toward the support of the rich and powerful, who they will naturally, have to repay. There may be a few exceptions to that, I think. Perhaps a Paul Wellstone and a Dennis Kucinich.

There will be no making waves and not upsets of the status quo by politicians. Even if there is great suffering and I tend to believe that.

The revolution will out of necessity, have to come from the people,and I believe if it does come, it will have to come first from the prolls. The lowest class-the peasants-the ones with the pitchforks and the shovels as weapons and no one should ever question their emotional, unsophisticated, crass approach as being "like the freepers" or other such attempts at stifling the movement. Soon others will join them but they will be the ones to instigate the revolution and bring to consciousness the urgency of the situtation. they WILL be the first to take the stance and demand a change. The intellectuals will be important only later on.

My two cents

[guitar man]

25. Yes

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood
of tyrants and patriots" -Thomas Jefferson

[mhr]

26. If Current Trends Continue, A Revolution We Shall Have

One can only be oppressed so long before one begins to look for alternative solutions to problems.

Our problem, the unchecked power of corporations and the ultra wealthy.

When people are locked out of the economic system through no fault of their own, they will rebel.

It is just a matter of time.

[MadProphetMargin]

27. Yeah. 36 years ago.

[IndianaGreen]

28. We all hate the Tsar, and want him gone and want the war to end

The Mensheviks promise to get rid of the Tsar, but they will continue with many of the Tsar's policies, including the war in order to "not dishonor" the fallen.

The Bolsheviks promise peace now and a total reversal of the Tsar's policies.

I choose the Bolsheviks. Who would you choose?

Such were the choices in Russia in 1917.

[Dhalgren]

33. The revolution has already started.

All revolutions begin in the heart. A seed of injury is planted and nursed and becomes a giant tree. For any, relatively large, diverse group such as ours to be calmly and rationally discussing the revolt and how and why it will proceed indicates the existence of the revolution. Every action taken by the Empire will wrankle a little more, will fire the ire to a pitch heat, will cause people to look into one anothers eyes and find recognition. There is swiftly approaching the breaking point, where we will either rise up and give our lives for what we believe or we will cower down into the dust and beg for safety. The line has already been drawn, the choice is all that is left.

[Minstrel Boy]

34. If it happens, it will be a counter-revolution, to undo

the creeping fascist revolution of the past quarter century.

Is Bush's America really America? Is the United States still a democratic republic?

There's a changeling in America's place, and it's the National Security State. That ain't America.