When Would You Be Revolting?

CSL · Post by **CSL** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:51 pm

hepcat wrote:
Anonymous Bosch wrote:I don't care. Just so long as I get to march in an angry mob, brandishing my torch and pitchfork.
we're talking about a revolt...not storming frankenstein's castle to get the monster.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:03 pm

Just posting in here let you know that you've all been marked - and you'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Biyobi · Post by **Biyobi** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:01 pm

Smoove_B wrote:Just posting in here let you know that you've all been marked - and you'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Take it easy. I'm sure we're all waiting for our octopod masters to take over. We're just speculating on what to do in the meantime.

Anonymous Bosch · Post by **Anonymous Bosch** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:07 pm

hepcat wrote:we're talking about a revolt...not storming frankenstein's castle to get the monster.

Bah, I'm an old-school revolter. Tish pshaw to these new-fangled baseball bats and boomsticks; rusty farming tools and burning lumber is where it's at.

Fear my rusty prod, iniquitous oppressors!

Eduardo X · Post by **Eduardo X** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:18 pm

en·fran·chise Audio pronunciation of "enfranchised" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-frnchz)
tr.v. en·fran·chised, en·fran·chis·ing, en·fran·chis·es

1. To bestow a franchise on.
2. To endow with the rights of citizenship, especially the right to vote.
3. To free, as from bondage.

To not be franchised means that you don't have all the rights of citizenship. I typically just call that disenfranchised.

disenfranchised

adj : deprived of the rights of citizenship especially the right to vote [syn: disfranchised, voteless] [ant: enfranchised]

Tareeq · Post by **Tareeq** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:22 pm

Eduardo X wrote:
en·fran·chise Audio pronunciation of "enfranchised" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-frnchz)
tr.v. en·fran·chised, en·fran·chis·ing, en·fran·chis·es

1. To bestow a franchise on.
2. To endow with the rights of citizenship, especially the right to vote.
3. To free, as from bondage.
To not be franchised means that you don't have all the rights of citizenship. I typically just call that disenfranchised.
disenfranchised

adj : deprived of the rights of citizenship especially the right to vote [syn: disfranchised, voteless] [ant: enfranchised]

Yes indeed it is. That's almost verbatim what I typed on the last page Eduardo.

And?

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:39 pm

Smoove_B wrote:Just posting in here let you know that you've all been marked - and you'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Well, the last time you put me against a wall, it was a real disappointment.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:53 pm

C'mon. No Douglas Adams fans here? You people sicken me. Enough to start a revolution.

Mr. Sparkle · Post by **Mr. Sparkle** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:59 pm

Smoove_B wrote:C'mon. No Douglas Adams fans here? You people sicken me. Enough to start a revolution.

Oh, I recognized the quote... don't get your panties in a bunch. Perhaps we didn't think it was clever enough usage to warrant a "props to Smoove_B post"?

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:24 pm

It's just when people tell me to take it easy, I want to grab them and throw them against...

Nevermind.

Eduardo X · Post by **Eduardo X** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:39 pm

Tareeq wrote:
Eduardo X wrote:
en·fran·chise Audio pronunciation of "enfranchised" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-frnchz)
tr.v. en·fran·chised, en·fran·chis·ing, en·fran·chis·es

1. To bestow a franchise on.
2. To endow with the rights of citizenship, especially the right to vote.
3. To free, as from bondage.
To not be franchised means that you don't have all the rights of citizenship. I typically just call that disenfranchised.
disenfranchised

adj : deprived of the rights of citizenship especially the right to vote [syn: disfranchised, voteless] [ant: enfranchised]
Yes indeed it is. That's almost verbatim what I typed on the last page Eduardo.

And?

Funny, we're saying the same thing!
One of the rights of citizenship is the right to have your voice heard by the government. To lose this means to lose your voice, meaning you're disenfranchised.

Mr. Sparkle · Post by **Mr. Sparkle** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:59 pm

Smoove_B wrote:It's just when people tell me to take it easy, I want to grab them and throw them against...

Nevermind.

I understand.

You're like a racecar and you're in the red. We all know it's fucking dangerous to run a racecar in the red.

Werd.

EDIT: No Pulp Fiction fans in the house? Oh WTF, I'm out to the gun shoppe brb... you fuckers will learn your lesson.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:03 pm

Mr. Sparkle wrote:[You're like a racecar and you're in the red. We all know it's fucking dangerous to run a racecar in the red.

Exactamundo!

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:56 pm

Loss of property rights or an attempt to nationalize all private property.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:25 pm

Mr. Sparkle wrote:In all honesty, I would move to another country WAAAAY before I would raise arms against anybody.

The only reason to move to another country would be to find a nice safe and cozy spot to set up the mortars with a wide firing arc for targets of opportunity. Now, pass me those spotting goggles and the targeting laser.

Gebeker · Post by **Gebeker** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 8:24 am

I would do it for any of the reasons Mr. Fed or Hepcat stated. Some might find this interesting:

If the government ever passed a law either (a) banning religious faith or (b) compelling it, I would join an armed revolt.

I would also do it if free speech were restricted to the point where it became difficult to see how I could legally criticize the government.

WheelMan · Post by **WheelMan** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:43 am

I find it interesting that the radical left would speak of armed rebellion. How are they going to arm themselves with evil guns that no respectable citizen should own... or look at? Maybe there's a militant radical left I'm not aware of.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:11 pm

WheelMan wrote:I find it interesting that the radical left would speak of armed rebellion. How are they going to arm themselves with evil guns that no respectable citizen should own... or look at? Maybe there's a militant radical left I'm not aware of.

No rebellion could win an actual armed showdown with the forces of the US. If enough citizens organize against the US government to require it to rely upon its overwhelming forces to survive, it will have lost legitimacy. The radical left doesn't need to wield weapons or win armed skirmishes; simply provoking the government to turn its power against its own people will suffice. If the government's power derives from force of arms rather than the consent of the governed, it is an occupying force that must be swept away. That's why those dead kids at Kent State mattered so deeply, in case you ever wondered. We came very close to that tipping point back then.

$iljanus · Post by **$iljanus** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:21 pm

The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line...

WheelMan · Post by **WheelMan** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:29 pm

Ironrod wrote: If the government's power derives from force of arms rather than the consent of the governed, it is an occupying force that must be swept away. .

Isn't that were the guns come in?

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:59 pm

WheelMan wrote:
Ironrod wrote: If the government's power derives from force of arms rather than the consent of the governed, it is an occupying force that must be swept away. .
Isn't that were the guns come in?

US soldiers are American citizens, too, not mindless tools. If ordered to make war on their unarmed countrymen, might they not simply refuse? Where is the government's power if they do? I don't think you realize how close "flower power" came to overthrowing Nixon's government in the 1960s. Am I the only one here old enough to remember this?

WheelMan · Post by **WheelMan** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:29 am

Ironrod wrote: US soldiers are American citizens, too, not mindless tools. If ordered to make war on their unarmed countrymen, might they not simply refuse? Where is the government's power if they do?

A perfectly valid point Ironrod and I think that's the main reason you'll never see such a tyrannical attempt. But I think they our soldiers would even more unlikely to make war on their armed countrymen.

I just think it's funny that the same groups who do not trust "the people" with a gun might find them plenty trustworthy to overthrow an evil government. I mean the entire "no guns" idiology is very "the common man has not sense enough to govern himself" but as soon as revolution comes around "power to the people!" Strange.

And just to be argumenative: If a goverment robbed of it's military is without power is not a populace robbed of their personal weapons also powerless?

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:39 am

WheelMan wrote:
Ironrod wrote: If the government's power derives from force of arms rather than the consent of the governed, it is an occupying force that must be swept away. .
Isn't that were the guns come in?

They didn't in East Germany, Poland or the Soviet Union. (for the most part)

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 11:39 am

WheelMan wrote: And just to be argumenative: If a goverment robbed of it's military is without power is not a populace robbed of their personal weapons also powerless?

You'll get no argument from me. Guns are obviously a tool of empowerment, and it would be folly to surrender them. But if it ever does come down to revolution -- the premise of this thread -- the government will not be defeated by force of arms.

Eduardo X · Post by **Eduardo X** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 2:19 pm

WheelMan wrote:I find it interesting that the radical left would speak of armed rebellion. How are they going to arm themselves with evil guns that no respectable citizen should own... or look at? Maybe there's a militant radical left I'm not aware of.

The radical left isn't liberal. I haven't met many, if any, radical leftists who support gun reform.
However, as Ironrod pointed out, it has been a long time since I met radical leftists who want to fight an armed conflict against the US. If there is a conflict, it would limited warfare, and it would be suicide.
The Revolutionary Communist Party, crazy as they may be, thinks that the revolution will look like this: rebellion in the cities leaves the people in control of those cities, with the government forced to either negotiate with the people or leave them to their autonomous selves.
I don't see that happening in my lifetime, but as Ironrod pointed out, Nixon's government was nearly toppled.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 2:40 pm

rebellion in the cities leaves the people in control of those cities, with the government forced to either negotiate with the people or leave them to their autonomous selves.

Rebellion in the cities will never happen like that. Cities are practically enviornmental parasites. They can not survive even for short periods of time without sucking in power/water/food/resources/product from the surrounding area.

Eduardo X · Post by **Eduardo X** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 2:48 pm

LordMortis wrote:
rebellion in the cities leaves the people in control of those cities, with the government forced to either negotiate with the people or leave them to their autonomous selves.
Rebellion in the cities will never happen like that. Cities are practically enviornmental parasites. They can not survive even for short periods of time without sucking in power/water/food/resources/product from the surrounding area.

Agreed. At least in the US.
Look at Fallujah, which has held out since April. I don't think the US could ever have a Fallujah, but it is an interesting example.

I didn't mention in my post that I think the "autonomous city" model of revolution is viable. In fact, I don't like to believe in any model here in the US. All I can hope is that, when and if the revolution comes , that I'll be part of it. My guess is that it will resemble nothing before, and that's fine with me. I'll just keep on with my activism and anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist work until I either die or the revolution suddenly starts. I'm betting I'll see the former first.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 2:56 pm

Eduardo X wrote: All I can hope is that, when and if the revolution comes , that I'll be part of it. My guess is that it will resemble nothing before, and that's fine with me.

I'll bet you the revolution will be televised. And netcasted. Hell, we might not have to leave our homes. Now a word from our sponsor:

You will not be able to stay home, brother.
You will not be able to plug in, turn on and cop out.
You will not be able to lose yourself on skag and skip,
Skip out for beer during commercials,
Because the revolution will not be televised.

The revolution will not be televised.
The revolution will not be brought to you by Xerox
In 4 parts without commercial interruptions.
The revolution will not show you pictures of Nixon
blowing a bugle and leading a charge by John
Mitchell, General Abrams and Spiro Agnew to eat
hog maws confiscated from a Harlem sanctuary.
The revolution will not be televised.

The revolution will not be brought to you by the
Schaefer Award Theatre and will not star Natalie
Woods and Steve McQueen or Bullwinkle and Julia.
The revolution will not give your mouth sex appeal.
The revolution will not get rid of the nubs.
The revolution will not make you look five pounds
thinner, because the revolution will not be televised, Brother.

There will be no pictures of you and Willie May
pushing that shopping cart down the block on the dead run,
or trying to slide that color television into a stolen ambulance.
NBC will not be able predict the winner at 8:32
or report from 29 districts.
The revolution will not be televised.

There will be no pictures of pigs shooting down
brothers in the instant replay.
There will be no pictures of pigs shooting down
brothers in the instant replay.
There will be no pictures of Whitney Young being
run out of Harlem on a rail with a brand new process.
There will be no slow motion or still life of Roy
Wilkens strolling through Watts in a Red, Black and
Green liberation jumpsuit that he had been saving
For just the proper occasion.

Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies, and Hooterville
Junction will no longer be so damned relevant, and
women will not care if Dick finally gets down with
Jane on Search for Tomorrow because Black people
will be in the street looking for a brighter day.
The revolution will not be televised.

There will be no highlights on the eleven o'clock
news and no pictures of hairy armed women
liberationists and Jackie Onassis blowing her nose.
The theme song will not be written by Jim Webb,
Francis Scott Key, nor sung by Glen Campbell, Tom
Jones, Johnny Cash, Englebert Humperdink, or the Rare Earth.
The revolution will not be televised.

The revolution will not be right back after a message
bbout a white tornado, white lightning, or white people.
You will not have to worry about a dove in your
bedroom, a tiger in your tank, or the giant in your toilet bowl.
The revolution will not go better with Coke.
The revolution will not fight the germs that may cause bad breath.
The revolution will put you in the driver's seat.

The revolution will not be televised, will not be televised,
will not be televised, will not be televised.
The revolution will be no re-run brothers;
The revolution will be live.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:06 pm

I'm all about the anti impeiralist thing. I simply can't hang with the anti capitalist thing. You might get a conversion out of me yet, though. The more I see corporate America and the US government sleeping in the same bed at the expense of consumer/producer/citizen (and even stock holder nowadays), the more I wonder how it is we will effect a decent change.

Kael · Post by **Kael** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:34 pm

Ironrod wrote:
WheelMan wrote:
Ironrod wrote: If the government's power derives from force of arms rather than the consent of the governed, it is an occupying force that must be swept away. .
Isn't that were the guns come in?
US soldiers are American citizens, too, not mindless tools. If ordered to make war on their unarmed countrymen, might they not simply refuse? Where is the government's power if they do? I don't think you realize how close "flower power" came to overthrowing Nixon's government in the 1960s. Am I the only one here old enough to remember this?

They are now but how many years before we have our mechanical army all run out of a military bunker 3 miles beneath Boulder Colorado? Of course the whole concept has been done to death in sci-fi movies and books but I couldn't help feeling a little chilled when the government announced these new remote control units they are using to limit human casulties.