PDA

View Full Version : This American Revolution Has Begun,Watch Who Would Stop it ?"



megimoo
04-17-2009, 08:49 AM
This American Revolution Has Begun

I changed the title because I consider the 1980's to have been the second revolution. This is our third revolution, but in any event this is a good inspirational video for your enjoyment. Use the You Tube link to view. Stay brave, defiant and by all means LOUD!!!

The Second American Revolution Has Begun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jq8rKSXhQY
...............................
Common Sense" by Thomas Paine - Sparked the Revolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3kTkeUOSEk&feature=related
.....................................

ReaganForRus
04-17-2009, 11:08 AM
Thanks Megimoo,

The Congress, (Republican and Democrat alike) fear an informed public. They caused this mess, WE wil hold them accountable.

To paraphrase Kurt Russell out of "Tombstone"......."The spending is finished!, So run you cur, run! You tell'em that the voters are coming!........and hell's coming with US!!!!!":D

PoliCon
04-17-2009, 01:38 PM
I am VERY much against revolution. Revolutions always result in bloodbaths and wild instability in government.

FeebMaster
04-17-2009, 02:00 PM
I'm going to cry when the Republicans retake the presidency.

Rebel Yell
04-17-2009, 02:03 PM
I am VERY much against revolution. Revolutions always result in bloodbaths and wild instability in government.

Sometimes that's what's needed. Not saying were at that point now, but perhaps soon.

InspiredHome
04-17-2009, 02:04 PM
Revolutions aren't always violent. The early Christians in Rome were persecuted and outcast. A few centuries later Constatine was converted and the pagan empire was dramatically changed. Real change works from the ground up. By persuasion and good works.

Rebel Yell
04-17-2009, 02:04 PM
I'm going to cry when the Republicans retake the presidency.

Why? Are you crying now? Do you cry when someone paints the walls a different color? Same room, different scenery.

FeebMaster
04-17-2009, 02:10 PM
Why? Are you crying now? Do you cry when someone paints the walls a different color? Same room, different scenery.

No, it's just that Republicans are so tolerable when they aren't in charge. All the small government and revolution talk. Support for the 10th amendment. Talk of secession. You can almost forget they're a bunch of fucking communists the second they start running things.

Rebel Yell
04-17-2009, 02:12 PM
No, it's just that Republicans are so tolerable when they aren't in charge. All the small government and revolution talk. Support for the 10th amendment. Talk of secession. You can almost forget they're a bunch of fucking communists the second they start running things.

Touche'.:D

marinejcksn
04-17-2009, 03:23 PM
I'm going to cry when the Republicans retake the presidency.

I'll cry (for joy) when the Libertarians actually win a seat in Congress.....eventually....

PoliCon
04-17-2009, 08:42 PM
Sometimes that's what's needed. Not saying were at that point now, but perhaps soon.

Revolutions have NEVER been a good idea. There is not one example of a revolution that did not result in an absolute bloodbath. And just for the record - the War for Independence was NOT a revolution. It was a rebellion.

megimoo
04-17-2009, 11:26 PM
1:A revolution calls for the complete overthrow and replacement of a specific govt, political system, etc.

While a rebellion is an outward protest to a specific restriction, requirement, or ideology placed by the govt or leaders on a people group; it does not call for complete abolition of the current system as a whole.
...................................
2: What is the difference between a revolt and a civil war?

A revolt is any conflict in which a group fights against an authority. If its participants fail in defeating the authority, the name of the revolt becomes "rebellion," and its participants are called "rebels," as in Shays' Rebellion and the Whisky Rebellion. If the revolt succeeds, it can be called a "revolution," and its participants are "revolutionaries," as in the American Revolution and French Revolution. During the middle of the revolt, when it is not clear who will win or lose, the conflict remains called a "revolt," (or, specially by the authority, a "rebellion") and sometimes this name sticks even after the conflict has subsided, regardless of who loses or wins.
..........................
Another interesting point is that a war in which a single country is basically divided, each side fighting for political authority, is called a "civil war" if the rebel side (the side that does not have control of the government while the war is being fought) fails, and a "revolutionary war (a.k.a. revolution)" or "war of independence" if the rebel side succeeds. For example, if the Confederate fighters had won the American Civil War, it would probably be called the "Confederate Revolution."

P.S. Many of these terms are confused by the media and others, so its generally safest to use "revolt" or "rebellion" in most circumstances and to call their participants "rebels."
...................................
3:What is the difference between coup d'etat, revolution, overthrow, takeover, rebellion, uprising and mutiny?
..
Coup d'etat means a takeover accomplished without violence (or at least not much). Usually, it's an "inside job", where a minister or general conspires with the military to simply change allegiance from the current government.

Revolution, overthrow, takeover, rebellion, and uprising all refer to basically similar violent actions to change the governement (though "takeover" implies leaving the same style of government in place, simply assuming power).
Mutiny refers to a rebellion aboard a ship.
.............................................
A revolution succeeds. A rebellion fails. A revolt may or may not succeed.

A revolution is associated with plots to overthrow the government and that literally is what a revolution does.The essential Latin etymological parts are re- over and volvo- turn.In Latin, rebellio meant " a renewal of war" based re-anew and bellum- war. The implication is that rebels want to try again.A revolt stresses a casting off of allegiance or a refusal to submit to established authority.

During the hundred years of war between england and france-a series of wars actually lasting for 116 years from 1337 to 1453-Flanders, which was under French rule, rebelled against the french king and supported England. Why? the flemish depended on english wool for their textile industry.
..........................................
TimeLine Of The Revolution !
http://www.pbs.org/ktca/liberty/chronicle_timeline.html
.............................

M21
04-17-2009, 11:30 PM
Revolutions have NEVER been a good idea. There is not one example of a revolution that did not result in an absolute bloodbath. And just for the record - the War for Independence was NOT a revolution. It was a rebellion.

How would you categorize what happened in Eastern Europe?

megimoo
04-18-2009, 12:06 AM
Revolutions have NEVER been a good idea. There is not one example of a revolution that did not result in an absolute bloodbath. And just for the record - the War for Independence was NOT a revolution. It was a rebellion.
By this definition you are wrong !

"A revolution calls for the complete overthrow and replacement of a specific govt, political system, etc.

While a rebellion is an outward protest to a specific restriction, requirement, or ideology placed by the govt or leaders on a people group; it does not call for complete abolition of the current system as a whole."

PoliCon
04-18-2009, 11:55 AM
By this definition you are wrong !

"A revolution calls for the complete overthrow and replacement of a specific govt, political system, etc.

While a rebellion is an outward protest to a specific restriction, requirement, or ideology placed by the govt or leaders on a people group; it does not call for complete abolition of the current system as a whole."

And do you think for a second that the landless after the war for independence suddenly replaced the landed? Where is the complete overthrow? The Colonies had been operating under more or less republican principles for several generations before the war - each colony had it's own legislature and elected leaders self rule was the way of things - and it was the attempts of the monarchy to enforce it's "prerogatives" that was one of the incitements to rebellion.

PoliCon
04-18-2009, 11:57 AM
How would you categorize what happened in Eastern Europe?

At the fall of Communism? It varies from state to state - but by and large it was the collapse of the existing order - the descent into anarchy and the replacement of the old order with a new one. Very similar to the change over from republic to empire in Rome.

We have three perfect examples of revolutions to look at and draw from - The Russian revolution, the Chinese revolution, and the French Revolution. All three are prime examples of what results from revolutions. Moderates attempt to take power - kill off the old regime - the radicals sieze power from the moderates and the bloodbath accelerates until one group or another is powerful enough to take and hold power.

megimoo
04-18-2009, 12:09 PM
And do you think for a second that the landless after the war for independence suddenly replaced the landed? Where is the complete overthrow? The Colonies had been operating under more or less republican principles for several generations before the war - each colony had it's own legislature and elected leaders self rule was the way of things - and it was the attempts of the monarchy to enforce it's "prerogatives" that was one of the incitements to rebellion.
Your talking points shift like the sands of the desert .

It quite often starts as an rebelion and blossoms into a revolution.The war between the states started that way with North Carolina and spread .Most people don't want their lives to be disrupted by a bothersome thing like an uprising ,they would prefer to make the best of the situation and finally when it becomes overly oppressive they squeal for help !

megimoo
04-18-2009, 12:13 PM
Revolutions have NEVER been a good idea. There is not one example of a revolution that did not result in an absolute bloodbath. And just for the record - the War for Independence was NOT a revolution. It was a rebellion.Tell that to Samual Adams .
BTW Have you glanced at this time line?
...............thread:A brief History Lesson: Prelude to Revolution 1763 to 1775

M21
04-18-2009, 12:17 PM
At the fall of Communism? It varies from state to state - but by and large it was the collapse of the existing order - the descent into anarchy and the replacement of the old order with a new one. Very similar to the change over from republic to empire in Rome.

Here's a pretty good read about the Romanian Revolution of 1989 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution_of_1989)You and others may find it interesting.

PoliCon
04-18-2009, 12:23 PM
Your talking points shift like the sands of the desert .

It quite often starts as an rebelion and blossoms into a revolution.The war between the states started that way with North Carolina and spread .Most people don't want their lives to be disrupted by a bothersome thing like an uprising ,they would prefer to make the best of the situation and finally when it becomes overly oppressive they squeal for help ! America never had a revolution. It fails to meet the criteria for a revolution. There was no radical change in the class structure - in the economic structure - the social structure - or even the political structure of the colonies after the war from what existed before the war. Can you point to an aristocracy that was displaced by the war? To a radical shift in the economic structure of the colonies? Did the people change how they related to each other - was there an alteration of the social fabric? And what changes in the political structure were there? Was there a sudden change in who lead the colonies?

BTW - how do my "talking points" shift like the dessert sand? What have I said that has changed? :confused:

PoliCon
04-18-2009, 12:28 PM
Here's a pretty good read about the Romanian Revolution of 1989 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution_of_1989)You and others may find it interesting.


Romania was a revolution - a violent bloodbath - a radical change in the social structure - in the economic structure - in the political structure . . . .

PoliCon
04-18-2009, 12:34 PM
Tell that to Samual Adams .
BTW Have you glanced at this time line?
...............thread:A brief History Lesson: Prelude to Revolution 1763 to 1775

Tell what to Samuel Adams? - and what do you want me to look at in the time period in question? I know you want to pretend that I am completely ignorant of the facts because I dare to disagree with the accepted meme that the war for independence was a revolution - but I'm not.

M21
04-18-2009, 01:30 PM
Romania was a revolution - a violent bloodbath - a radical change in the social structure - in the economic structure - in the political structure . . . .Less than 2,000 died. Hardly a bloodbath.

djones520
04-18-2009, 01:38 PM
Less than 2,000 died. Hardly a bloodbath.

Over a 9 day period? When you compaire it to things like the Tulip Revolution, then yes it was.

M21
04-18-2009, 01:47 PM
Over a 9 day period? When you compaire it to things like the Tulip Revolution, then yes it was.

Torture the numbers enough and they will confess to anything.

djones520
04-18-2009, 01:55 PM
Torture the numbers enough and they will confess to anything.

Translation: Perspective means nothing.

M21
04-18-2009, 01:59 PM
Translation: Perspective means nothing.Good translation. 9 days = 9 days.

PoliCon
04-18-2009, 11:19 PM
Less than 2,000 died. Hardly a bloodbath.They killed a whole segment of the society. Okay it wasn't as violent as it could have been - but that doesn't make it any less bloody.

megimoo
04-19-2009, 08:39 AM
America never had a revolution. It fails to meet the criteria for a revolution. There was no radical change in the class structure - in the economic structure - the social structure - or even the political structure of the colonies after the war from what existed before the war. Can you point to an aristocracy that was displaced by the war? To a radical shift in the economic structure of the colonies? Did the people change how they related to each other - was there an alteration of the social fabric? And what changes in the political structure were there? Was there a sudden change in who lead the colonies?

BTW - how do my "talking points" shift like the dessert sand? What have I said that has changed? :confused:Please post what you think the definition of a revolution actually is ?You say that America never had a revolution ? Yet all of the history books and literature keep refering to it as an revolution ,how is that ?

megimoo
04-19-2009, 08:40 AM
The American Revolution

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the United States, historians and the broader public have, for most of the past two centuries, looked at the American Revolution principally as the first step in the creation of the American nation. They have stressed the process of nation building epitomized by the creation of a republican political regime in each state and the subsequent establishment of a federal system for the distribution of power between the states and the nation.

They have emphasized the centrality of the drive for national self-realization that, beginning during the revolutionary era, provided the foundation for an American national identity. From the national-state perspective that has largely shaped the writing of United States history, such an emphasis makes considerable sense. For developing an understanding of why a revolution occurred in North America during the late eighteenth century and what that revolution was, however, it is, in at least two major respects, seriously deficient.

1 First, it obscures the extraordinary extent to which the American Revolution was very much a British revolution. Second, it seriously underestimates the powerful continuities between the colonial and the national eras and thereby significantly overestimates the revolutionary character of the revolution.

In this essay, I will argue that the American Revolution can be most fully comprehended by viewing it as the first step in the still incomplete process of dismantling the imperial structures created during the early modern era to bring newly encountered areas of the globe into political, economic, and cultural association with the new nation-states of Europe.

The first of many such events, the American Revolution differed somewhat from many of those that followed it. I will sketch out some of the more important of these differences, differences that defined and accounted for the particularity of the American Revolution. In doing so, I will focus on three subjects: first, the nature of the British imperial polity in which the revolution occurred; second, the character of the political societies that participated in it; and, third, the nature of the republican polities created during it.

2 With regard to the first subject, the early modern English or, after 1707, British Empire was not held together by force.1 England may have been one of the earliest and most centralized and efficient of the nation-states that emerged in western Europe during the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries. Like all the rest of those states, however, it was, for much of the two centuries after 1560 and more especially after the union with Scotland, a composite state characterized by indirect governance, fragmented authority, an inchoate theory of national sovereignty, and limited fiscal, administrative, and coercive resources.

These conditions dictated that the new extended transatlantic polity we now call the British Empire would not be characterized by a devolution of authority outward from an imperial center to new American peripheries. Rather, authority in that empire would be constructed from the peripheries outward, in two phases.

The first involved the creation in America, through the activities of participants in the colonizing impulse, of new arenas of local and individual power.

The second involved the actual creation of authority through negotiation between these new arenas and the metropolitan representatives of the center that aspired to bring them under its jurisdiction and to which they desired to be attached. In the earliest stages of this colonizing process, the English state, lacking in revenue, had no choice but to farm out the task of colonization to private groups organized into chartered trading companies or to wealthy individuals known as proprietors.

But none of these entities was able to mobilize on its own the resources necessary to establish a successful colony. Hence, they had no choice but to seek cooperation and contributions from settlers, traders, and other individual participants in the colonizing process.

Efforts to enlist such cooperation acknowledged the fact that the actual process of establishing effective centers of English power in America was often less the result of the activities of colonial organizers or licensees than of the many groups and individuals who took actual possession of land, built estates and businesses, turned what had previously been wholly aboriginal social landscapes into partly European ones, constructed and presided over a viable system of economic arrangements, created towns, counties, parishes, or other political units, and subjugated, reduced to profitable labor, killed off, or expelled the original inhabitants. By dint of their industry and initiative, tens of thousands of immigrants created social spaces for themselves and their families and thereby manufactured for themselves status, capital, and power. 4

Throughout early modern English/British America, independent individual participants in the colonizing process, English and other Europeans, were thus en-gaged in what can be described as a deep and widespread process of individual self-empowerment. In the contemporary Old World, only a tiny fraction of the male population ever managed to rise out of a state of socioeconomic dependency to achieve the civic competence, the full right to have a voice in political decisions, that was the preserve of independent property holders. By contrast, as a consequence of the easy availability of land and other resources, a very large proportion of the adult male white colonists acquired land or other resources, built estates, and achieved individual independence.2


http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/105.1/ah000093.html

PoliCon
04-19-2009, 10:54 PM
Please post what you think the definition of a revolution actually is ?You say that America never had a revolution ? Yet all of the history books and literature keep refering to it as an revolution ,how is that ?

I think I pretty much have posted what the definition of a revolution is. You just need to actually read my posts. :p

As for literature referring to a person or even as something making that something true - does that mean that Bush is an idiot?

noonwitch
04-20-2009, 10:26 AM
How would you categorize what happened in Eastern Europe?


The USSR was bankrupt. Unpaid and hungry soldiers are not so willing to fire on their hungry and unemployed neighbors, just to keep the government that is starving them in power.

Milly
04-20-2009, 06:47 PM
The USSR was bankrupt. Unpaid and hungry soldiers are not so willing to fire on their hungry and unemployed neighbors, just to keep the government that is starving them in power.

Which would explain the DHS concern about OUR returning military, now wouldn't it?