Is revolting against our government a viable option now?

True except for one item - the "right" and "left", or Democrat and Republican, is a false model. There is little diference between Democrats and Republicans. obama campaigned as the anti-Bush but has ruled as the 3rd term of Bush. The Congressional Republican leadership talks about repealing socialist and crony programs, but they never act to repeal them.

Take obamacare, the Republican establishment talks about repealing it and they have dozens of sham votes to repeal it, because it looks good and the people overwhelmingly don't want obamacare. But when R's have a real opportunity to repeal it they don't do anything. Republicans don't want to repeal it, what they want is to run it.

 

I agree with this and have stated the same on many occasions. My position is that we live in an oligopoly. It is the oligopolies that fund the election of the various Presidential contenders and congress and it is them who they serve.

We yammer on about a "free market economy" but there is no such thing here in the USA. China has more of a free market economy than we do.

The Oligopolies maintain power through regulations, tax laws, and coercion of political forces. Whenever a change to regulations, tax laws, or laws that affect the Oligopoly they are there at the table peddling influence. Over time you get a system that favors the oligopoly over the little guy.

I do not have a problem with Oligopolies looking out for their best interest but do have a problem with our politicians not looking out for our interests by enforcing laws already on the books against price fixing, anti competitive practices, and monopolism.

Why is it that we are the only first world country without universal health care, but somehow have higher health costs ?? This is absolute nuttery. Price fixing is what it is. That and clubs that limit the number of doctors to decrease supply such that wages remain high.

This is the same in Energy, Food, Banking Insurance and so on.

I am not for charging ridiculous taxes on corporations but, GE makes 17 Billion in profit and pays no US taxes... come on.

 

No, the US is an oligarchy, not an oligopoly. The US is run by a small group of elites who move seamlessly between the govt and private entities. The US Treasury, Fed, and Goldman Sachs is a perfect example. These rulers work for themselves, not for the nation or the people.

Your post is bizarre. First you rail against the govt using the laws & regulations to oppress, then you demand the govt run health care, energy, food, etc.

 

It is an oligopoly. People are writing books on this subject. You are reading meaning into my post that is not there. I do not claim the Gov't should run Energy, Food and so on.

As far as healthcare is concerned it is debatable whether or not the Gov't should run it. Right now the laws are such that generics are not allowed. Many people get their drugs from Canada because the same drugs are a fraction of the cost. Why ? Price fixing and legislation. Some time ago it was brought before congress to change things but nothing ended up being done.

The food cartels and regulations make it such that the farmer gets bugger all for his grain and you are paying 3 bucks a loaf for bread.

There are 3 large re-insurers that provide most insurance products. That you think there is competition when you look out and see hundreds of companies selling insurance is an illusion as they all buy from the same re-insurer and they fix the prices.

The Military is a huge oligopoly that has huge influence. Total Military Spending is now over 1 Trillion per year. Much of this spending is on things such as new manned fighters and aircraft carriers that we know are already obsolete while we pretend that there is some massive enemy out there that threatens us.

There is not much difference between oligopoly and oligarchy. It is pretty much nit picking to think there is.

We still allow congress to conduct insider trading. It is absurd that these folks can be on a committee that allocates large contracts to various companies and that they can buy shares in these companies prior to the news of the contract hitting the street.

 

"The possibility of harm coming to a US citizen from a terrorist action is orders of magnitude lower than the threat of harm from driving to work in the morning."

That, giftedone, is fallacious reasoning at best. When you are driving to work in the morning the threat of accident is primarily just to YOU. The threat from Islamic terror is to ALL OF US. If they can, they will detonate a nuke here, in an American city. If they can't get their hands on a nuke (because through good intelligence we prevent it) then they will wrap radioactive waste around a conventional explosive and detonate that, or maybe several such "truck bombs" one day -- in several cites. It would make 9/11 look like a walk in the park. Have you forgotten the severe criticism of the FBI, the President, the CIA etc. for failing to connect the dots re 9/11? You grossly underestimate the significance of Islamic terror. The watchfulness of Homeland security and a very active program to take out terrorist leaders with drone strikes is the ONLY reason such a horrendous attack has not already occurred.

 

I respect your opinion Wist, but I can't help but note that you were unable to respond to my post yesterday. I'm not surprised. Let me repeat it for you to give you another chance to answer if you can:



Look, Wist 43 -- I have no use for Obama or his policies, but seriously, you think we have authoritarian rule?? Really?? Perhaps you'd prefer China? Russia? India? Cuba? Vietnam? Venezuela? Or how about Saudi Arabia? Iraq? Afghanistan? Syria? Libya? Or any African hellhole? How about Mexico or anywhere in South or Central America? I could go on and on, but you get the picture. Come on -- tell us which of these paradise nations you prefer to ours! If you think we live under authoritarian rule, you are a fool. Perhaps you'd prefer Egypt where they held a ten minute trial yesterday and decided to put more than 700 people to death. You think we live under authoritarian rule because you have no clue what that even means. You've never actually seen authoritarian rule so you imagine that is exists in the freest nation on earth. The united States of America.
Do you not appreciate what you have here???

 

You are right and I do agree with you. I think it is a right and an option but we must complete our responsibility as citizens and one of them is to educate ourselves.

 

go ahead, start a violent revolution.

engage in deadly violence against local and state police, judges, elected local and state politicians.

watch what happens. watch how the American public demands you be taken down by any means neccessary.

watch how the vast majority of the American public oppose you.

 

You think revolution is "a right?" It's not, but it is the worst wrong you can possible commit. Perhaps you should start 'educating yourself' by learning that revolution consists of levying war against the United States. That is, treason by definition. Aticle III, Section 3, U.S Constitution. http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3

For which the penalty is death. Title 18 USC, Sec. 2381.

In addition whoever incites or sets in motion any rebellion, or insurrection against the United states, or conspires to do the same, commits a felony, and is subject to imprisonment for twenty years plus a twenty thousand dollar fine -- for each count. 18 USC sec. 2383.

 

That is the purpose of the second amendment and it is also stated as the right of the people to overthrow their government if need be. That is stated in the Declaration of Independence.

 

go ahead, try to overthrow the govt. by violence.

watch how the American people call for your destruction.

 

[/B][/QUOTE]

No, the Declaration of independence, which does NOT have the force of law, is referring to rebelling against the king of England, not the United Sates. The Constitution, which is the Supreme law of the land makes rebellion against the government of the United States of America a capital offence. I cited the relevant law for you, read it!! The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to preserve the government of the United States, not to destroy it or overthrow it! To use firearms to create insurrection against the U.S. government is treason. To even advocate the overthrow of the government is a twenty year felony. You ought, at least learn to read and understand the Constitution and the statutes adopted pursuant thereto. They do not say what you think they do at all.

 

Maybe I did read more into it than you intended. I think we largely agree.

 

We should all revolt against this corrupt scam posing as our "representative" government but taking up arms is not a viable option. The tactics used by Ghandi and other non violent revolutionaries are most effective. Get a grip champ, whatever pea shooters you or your compatriots come at them with will be crushed and give more power to the greedy slimy war profiteering scumbags who run the world.

 

Never said I wanted to, or said we needed too. I think it is an option but only a final one when all other options are exhausted. Peaceful resistance must be used first.

 

It is the responsibility of the education system to "educate". People these days do not even have a clue about what their responsibilities are never mind take up the challenge to educate themselves.

You can not educate yourself in something when you do not know of the existence of that something.

 

Not under the current government. Yes, Obama, like many presidents before him, has violated the constitutional right to privacy, and if it were feasible, I would vote to impeach him. However, he won the election fairly. There is no reason to violently revolt against a government unless citizens are brutally oppressed. The fact that the original poster was allowed to create this thread without governmental censorship shows that we are not being oppressed.

 

That's a common but incorrect assumption. There IS a court created right to privacy -- there is NOT nor has there ever been an expressed Constitutional right to privacy. In
Griswald vs. Connecticut, (1965) Justice Douglas interpreted various parts of the Bill of Rights as "penumbras" and "emanations" of various expressed rights as creating a guarantee of "a zone of privacy." The Constitution does not mention such a right.

 

Just because the constitution does not explicitly state the existence of a right to privacy, it does not mean that it is not implied, specifically in the 4th Amendment.

 

Revolution in itself is an option, BUT we are not at a point, no matter what some may claim to overthrow the freely elected government of the United States of America. Do it now and lose. Until there is major support from the American People and there is no possibility of a win. The Big question is what would those fighting the government want to install, in such a conflit this is important since while some may agree that the government is no longer a Representative form of government they may not agree with what forms would take its place. That would mean the US would not exists as a whole unit and would end up being split apart. For some of us that would not be particularly bad, such as here in Texas and Oklahoma but in some States it could become a nightmare.

 

While that may be your interpretation of the Declaration of Independence, it most likely isn't the interpretation of an overwhelming majority of Americans. Granted there may be small outposts around the country who view it as you do, but I don't think a vast majority of Americans would agree with you.

 

I guess you didn't read what I said. Or didn't understand it.

 

Actually that is not his "interpretation", that is exactly what the Delcaration of Independence says:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.​

True, the population in general is not at the point of "throwing off such Government", but its moving in that direction. Ten years ago I could not imagine people talking so openly about secession, Constitutional conventions, rebellion. Now even politicians in DC bring up the subject.

And politicians and universities come right out and directly say the US is no longer a democracy but an oligarchy.

Its still being examined, but last month Michigan voted to hold an Article V Constitutional Convention, by some counts that was the 34th state (Alabama and Louisianna rescinded their vote in 1988 & 1990 respectively). Thats a pretty good measure that the people are fed up.

 

The question then is, how does one "throw off such government"? By peaceful means or by violent means? That was the thrust of my original question. I interpret it as peaceful means by voting or a Constitutional Convention.

 

Most of us pledge allegiance to the flag, and to the republic for which she stands.

We do NOT pledge allegiance to elected leaders and politicians, especially when they are on a mission to destroy our economy, erode our civil liberties, and take over every single facet of our lives.

Patriotism means loving (and remaining) loyal to your country.
NOT remaining blindly loyal to the politicians currently at the helm.