This year, the Revolution begins in earnest.

[mopaul]

I just don't see how this overburdened union can withstand the crushing weight of corruption and greed and deceipt coming from the gop. I just don't understand how it has not broken out into chaos in the streets. I suspect that is our sheer willpower that keeps it from happening. Superlative restraint, from peace loving people, is the only dam holding back the deluge.

Could this be the big historic year of a 21st century people's revolution? It can be done without bloodshed, if we keep our heads.

[pansypoo53219]

1. sorry,

teevee will keep the sheeple pacified.
is survivor on?

[SharonAnn]

2. One can only hope. I want real change. REAL CHANGE!

This is one thing Dean was right about. We have the power and we should be using it to vote out the bums and vote in the progressives.

[Insider]

3. IMO not GOP, it's the BFEE

i do not consider republicans to be the enemy. it is the BFEE that has screwed this country, and the world, since Prescott. (BTW, he lied about his military service too)

[bryant69]

4. Revolution without bloodshed?

Where have I heard that before.

Even the use of the term revolution does't strike me as smart; it implies a complete overthrow of the system. I think most Americans, even ones who are very critical of where we are today, would not want to throughout the constitution or the declaration of independence or the noble parts of our history.

A Reformation might be a better term; remind people of how President Bush and other republicans have betrayed the ideals of America; and argue that we want to take them back to the basics.

Of course you could be talking about a revolution against the economic system of America, in which case, I stand corrected. That's an even worse idea, in my opinion, but it is a revolution.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[DenverDem]

6. Corporatocracy is a good idea?

Corporate globalist feudalism is your concept of a sustainable economic model? A government by the corporations for the corporations.

[bryant69]

7. Yep

I mean I wouldn't use that language. But Capitalism is better than all the other economic systems that have been tried; and as far as I can tell better than all the ones that have been proposed (most failed economic schemes base themselves on the idea that if you change the economic system, bastards will stop being bastards. Sadly this seems not to be the case).

Of course I'm in favor of a managed capitalism where the rights of the individual are protected, not a lassaiz faire system where anything goes.

Bryant

[tom_paine]

11. Well said, sir.

I like to call it "Social Capitalism" to indicated it's a lot of capitalism with a little bit (relatively speaking) of social safety net and regulation. Not enough to stifle intitiative but enough to discourage and deter Bushevik and Argentinian-style Crony Capitalism.

most failed economic schemes base themselves on the idea that if you change the economic system, bastards will stop being bastards

:toast: :toast: How true and rightly said, sir!

So we would replace Bushevik bastards with Commie Bastards who would probably be worse. Nuh-uh.

I am reminded of the War Room in Dr. Strangelove with Soviet Abassador DeSadesky...

US Admiral: Try these Jamaican cigars, Ambassador.

DeSadesky: Thank you, no. I do not support the work of Capitalist Stooges. (turns and walks away)

US Admiral: Oh. Only Commie Stooges.

Well said, too, Mr. Kubrick.

[DenverDem]

12. Lassaiz faire does not even begin to describe American "Capitalism".

The current American economy is based on corporate welfare, far beyond lack of regulation. For capitalism to be sustainable, businessmen need to have ethics. In American capitalism the only ethic is profit for the shareholders. The increasing concentration of capital is not a sustainable system and corrections will be made, either with responsible leadership or with a people's correction. Corporations are not humans and do not have human rights. Corporations have proven that they are very poor citizens and, thus, deserve serious regulation and oversight or they will bring down the country, which I believe is their overt agenda.

[tom_paine]

9. I agree, bryant69.

MoPaul...I love your stuff and you are a warrior for truth, but if you are talking about overthrowing Capitalism or some other shit, to paraphrase the Beatles "well then, you can count me out".

Sorry, dude, I am a very strong believer in "Social Capitalism" as it was practiced at the Height of the Old American Republic. I strongly believe in capitalism itself vs. communism, which has never properly "worked" economically-speaking (IMHO) and has almost always caused Tyranny like nothing we in Amerika, even now, never had to deal with.

It depends on what you're talking about, mopaul. If you are talking about revitalizing the Progressive Movement, then I am with you, even if sometimes I don't agree with the Progressive Movement. If you are talking about restoring the health and integrity of the Old Republic and strengthening the now-weakened regulations on collusion/conflict-of-interest, then I am with you. If you are talking about restoring the Fairness Doctrine, then I am with you.

"But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow."
(well, except your missus, mopaul) :evilgrin:

Anyway, keep up the good work, pal, and I hope you're not a Comrade, but if you are, fine. Just don't wait for the support of 95% of the anti-Bush crowd for a Commie Revolution.

Not gonna happen. Sorry.

[IrateCitizen]

10. How about a revolution against concentration of power?

IMHO, that is the biggest thing that we need in this country. And it need not be violent, either. In fact, for it to work effectively, it would by nature HAVE to be nonviolent in nature.

Concentration of power is what has gotten us to where we are today. Further empowerment of the state will continue unless we decide to do something about it, to take away portions of our support for it. Allowing corporations to step into the void and take over is not the answer either, because they represent highly concentrated power structures as well.

The country will only be reclaimed with the great spirit of democracy sweeps across the land, and power is effectively diffused throughout the citizenry to a much greater degree. Without this, continued centralization of power within the state, big media, and big corporations will continue apace -- and freedom will wither and die as a result, continuing on only as empty words and slogans but lacking substance of any type.

[CaptainClark23]

13. Couldn't it be argued

That it is in fact our opposition that is working to throw out the constitution and re-design the system to their liking?

So in effect, the revolution has already begun, but it is we who are trying to retain the fundamental principles of the system against the revolutionaries who are trying to subvert and overthrow it?

We must not see (or present) ourselves as revolutionaries seeking to overthrow. Rather we are Patriots trying to retain the principles upon which the nation was founded.

There's a million weak points in this argument one could attack, but I believe the underlying concept is sound.

As to the overall topic...I worry less about a revolution than a cultural/political civil war without clear geographical boundaries.

[catmandu57]

5. The Revolution will not be televised

but you can bet we have already began it. There's going to be a change felt with the spring winds and bushco isn't going to like it.

[Evil_Dewers]

8. Where's Savannah, MO? n/t