ssj12 said: tarheel91 said: ssj12 said: tarheel91 said: ssj12 said: tarheel91 said: SSJ has revealed his utter lack of knowledge in regards to the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and modern day American politics. Normally, I'd feel bad at attacking someone's post without backing it up with several paragraphs of argument, but I really think the issues with this topic are plain for all to see. The world is also a different place. And i know what I meant I was just reading an article on the two possibilities and put civil war instead of revolutionary. The revolutionary war was because of the British government's disregard for the colonies. Extreme taxation, military enforced restrictions, etc all caused that uprising. The civil war wasn't just because of slavery. It was due to the southern state believing they should have individual power and didn't want to be limited to what the federal government said they could do/control. Like I said in my edit a civil war now would be liberal (mainly extremists but all liberals would follow) and conservative (extremist with more following). Now the revolution im talking about is US citizens revolting against the government over over-taxation and having our god given freedom , like our founding fathers made sure we have, thrown into a shredder. I'm shocked the bill of rights still exists. The Patriot Act just shows how little the US gov cares about our freedoms. The Revolutionary War did not occur mainly because of taxation. It occurred because British Parliament, an entity far removed from the American colonies, was taxing America. They had no problem with taxation itself; they simply wanted it to be carried out by those closer to the people, specifically the colonial legislatures. Granted, the change from salutary neglect to a tighter form of control over colonial economies did play a role, but it was the fact that some body of men across the Atlantic Ocean who had no connection to the people being taxed were doing it that really caused all of this. The taxes were neccesary (heck, they were paying for the British soldiers protecting Americans from the French and Indians); they themselves weren't the issue. Second, times have changed drastically since then. The only conceivable way of rulership changing hands was by force back then (with a few, isolated exceptions). The United States is marked for having one of the first times where leadership voluntarily and peacefully changing hands in history. The Civil War is such a false analogy that it's ridiculous. The issues at stake here are much less important than in the Civil War. Despite what you may think, the major issue for the Civil War was slavery. It was not so much that the entire North wanted to abolish slavery, but that the South felt threatened by the increasing amount of abolitionist support in the North. Lincoln's election was the last straw that led to the South's seccession. The abolition of slavery challenged a social hierarchy, an entire economical system for a region, and a way of life. It had been an issue since the founding of the Union, and was only kept dormant by a refusal to talk about it. The issues the United States faces today pale in comparison to what was going on then. Finally, really, check this article out about political realignment. That's how it happens today. umm... apparently you dont know your history... the civil war wasnt jsut about slavery, that was MINOR. Ak a historian, history teacher, something. I just had to write an essay about it on my Mid Term for AP US History; I certainly hope I know my history. State's rights was just a means to accomplish protecting slavery. The Civil War was as much about state's rights as the War of 1812 was about impressment. Don't believe me? Wiki "American Civil War" and read the causes. Here's a few excerpts: "The coexistence of a slave-owning South with an increasingly anti-slavery North made conflict inevitable. Lincoln did not propose federal laws against slavery where it already existed, but he had, in his 1858 House Divided Speech, expressed a desire to "arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction".[2] Much of the political battle in the 1850s focused on the expansion of slavery into the newly created territories.[3][4][5] All of the organized territories were likely to become free-soil states, which increased the Southern movement toward secession. Both North and South assumed that if slavery could not expand it would wither and die.[6][7][8]" "Southern secession was triggered by the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln[19] because regional leaders feared that he would stop the expansion of slavery and put it on a course toward extinction. Many Southerners thought either Lincoln or another Northerner would abolish slavery, and that it was time to secede. The slave states, which had already become a minority in the House of Representatives, were now facing a future as a perpetual minority in the Senate and Electoral College against an increasingly powerful North. Deep South states with the most slavery seceded first, followed by the secession of four more states following the Battle of Fort Sumter and Lincoln's subsequent call for each remaining state to provide troops to retake forts and suppress the insurrection. Upper South states refused to send troops against their neighbors in what they considered an invasion." I could go into more detail about why Lincoln's election was so alarming, but I think you get the point. Note: The idea that it was state's rights that caused the war is the one popular after reconstruction and all the way into the 1960's. It belongs in the same group of ideas that said the KKK were simply heroic white men who protected white women from rape and murder using the black's superstitions. your KKK point is true butare you sure? I had to write up an essay on the civil war and my history teachers and other sources said that it was because of what I said. And I listed taxation as one factor not the only factor for the revolution. General disregard in parliment was an issue thats why I said disregard for the colonies.

 

the quote was "No taxation without representation."

After the 7 Years War, not even the most diehard colonists could deny that they owed mother England for protection from France and her Native American allies. The English could collect money from the colonies and still keep them happy. They just bungled it up. 

There are more sound reasons for rebellion now than anything that actually caused the original revolution, however, people just take it like its theirs. The people during the American Revolution had a huge advantage: they had the groundwork for being united as a huge force. Revolution won't happen because people are by far too segregated and have too much faith in their ability to vote. Individualism and the false sense that we make our own will keep us in our place and the government is trying to get so much control that they keep us here.

It isn't just the government either, but corporations have too much power, school systems, law firms, hospitals, etc. Every organization in the US has developed methods to deal with things internally to the point that questioning anything is quickly stifled and the questioner is quickly put into their place. It is hard enough to find someone who would even have the sympathy to listen to your situation, much less get a group of people together for a single purpose and even less to go the distance despite opposition. Beneath the claims of freedom, commercial society is turning the people into slaves, cattle, and drones despite their skills or intelligence level, and those in a power to make a difference are happy with things as they are because it makes the cushions they sit on.

I think the U.S. will have serious problems in the future simply because of the amount of debt accumulating and the unwillingness of either party to make people pay the amount in taxes they should be to support current government spending. Add that to the amount of baby boomers and social programs that will be stretched to their limits and then some and it's a recipe for disaster.

Add also the ever growing population and the old belief that each succeeding generation is better off than the previous (something that is now being proven incorrect with the post baby boomers). Will each generation put up with a gradual slide in the standard of living (scarcity of resources, continual (relative) lowering of wages to compete with third world countries, etc)?

ssj12 said: tarheel91 said: ssj12 said: tarheel91 said: SSJ has revealed his utter lack of knowledge in regards to the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and modern day American politics. Normally, I'd feel bad at attacking someone's post without backing it up with several paragraphs of argument, but I really think the issues with this topic are plain for all to see. The world is also a different place. And i know what I meant I was just reading an article on the two possibilities and put civil war instead of revolutionary. The revolutionary war was because of the British government's disregard for the colonies. Extreme taxation, military enforced restrictions, etc all caused that uprising. The civil war wasn't just because of slavery. It was due to the southern state believing they should have individual power and didn't want to be limited to what the federal government said they could do/control.  Like I said in my edit a civil war now would be liberal (mainly extremists but all liberals would follow) and conservative (extremist with more following). Now the revolution im talking about is US citizens revolting against the government over over-taxation and having our god given freedom , like our founding fathers made sure we have, thrown into a shredder. I'm shocked the bill of rights still exists. The Patriot Act just shows how little the US gov cares about our freedoms.  The Revolutionary War did not occur mainly because of taxation.  It occurred because British Parliament, an entity far removed from the American colonies, was taxing America.  They had no problem with taxation itself; they simply wanted it to be carried out by those closer to the people, specifically the colonial legislatures.  Granted, the change from salutary neglect to a tighter form of control over colonial economies did play a role, but it was the fact that some body of men across the Atlantic Ocean who had no connection to the people being taxed were doing it that really caused all of this.  The taxes were neccesary (heck, they were paying for the British soldiers protecting Americans from the French and Indians); they themselves weren't the issue. Second, times have changed drastically since then.  The only conceivable way of rulership changing hands was by force back then (with a few, isolated exceptions).  The United States is marked for having one of the first times where leadership voluntarily and peacefully changing hands in history. The Civil War is such a false analogy that it's ridiculous.  The issues at stake here are much less important than in the Civil War.  Despite what you may think, the major issue for the Civil War was slavery.  It was not so much that the entire North wanted to abolish slavery, but that the South felt threatened by the increasing amount of abolitionist support in the North.  Lincoln's election was the last straw that led to the South's seccession.  The abolition of slavery challenged a social hierarchy, an entire economical system for a region, and a way of life.  It had been an issue since the founding of the Union, and was only kept dormant by a refusal to talk about it.  The issues the United States faces today pale in comparison to what was going on then. Finally, really, check this article out about political realignment.  That's how it happens today.  umm... apparently you dont know your history... the civil war wasnt jsut about slavery, that was MINOR. Ak a historian, history teacher, something.

While there were a large number of issues separating North & South, they all coalesced in the issue of slavery, allowing it to bed the "symbolic" issue of the war. It was also an effective symbol to rally support in the North, giving a moral justification for the war when otherwise many yanks would have been happy to let the South go to hell.

Americans concerning what we very likely temporary, cyclical issues, or problems systemic to every government like wasteful spending). Moreover, I can see no issue addressed so far which could be adequately resolved by revolutionary means. Will OPEC say "oh look! The Americans we turning against each other! Let's lower the price of oil!" Is there anyone who believes a revolution will improve the economy? And why rebel one a minority of right to left wing extremists when there remains placable alternatives every 2 years? And please note that the low approval ratings apply to both the Republican White House & Democratic Congress. Next year may just end up being a really bad year for incumbents of both parties

 

Legend11 said: I think the U.S. will have serious problems in the future simply because of the amount of debt accumulating and the unwillingness of either party to make people pay the amount in taxes they should be to support current government spending. Add that to the amount of baby boomers and social programs that will be stretched to their limits and then some and it's a recipe for disaster. Add also the ever growing population and the old belief that each succeeding generation is better off than the previous (something that is now being proven incorrect with the post baby boomers). Will each generation put up with a gradual slide in the standard of living (scarcity of resources, continual (relative) lowering of wages to compete with third world countries, etc)?

1. the problem is not that people went paying taxes. revenues are higher than ever. The problem is that as much as the government takes in, they fed compelled to spend even more! find for the record, the proposed Democratic budgets almost always wanted to spend even more than the fiscally irresponsible GOP.)

2. There is zoo proof that the post-baby boom generation is facing a lower standard of living It is certainly not the case for my generation, and simply too soon to tell for those that are following.

3. the US population is growing marginally, and that is only due to immigration.

You're never going to have a revolution, and the basic reason can be described by the boiled frog experiment. Basically, if you set a frog in a pot of water and increase the temperature gradually, you can actually get the frog to not notice the change in temperature and actually boil it alive.

Same is true for the government right now. If someone came into power and just tossed out the bill of rights, there would be a major uprising, but no one does that. There are always new laws and regulations pass that are designed to specifically to chip away at the various freedoms. We're allowed to own guns, but only certain types and we have to wait a minimum amount of time, get a permit if we want to carry concealed. Etc.
The new regulations are always spaced out so that we have time to have already grown accustomed to the old changes. By the time they actually get to the point that we really do need a revolution, no one will have the capability to do it.

It will happen if they assasinate  Ron Paul, just like they did another opposition leader in Benazir Bhutto

You generally don't get revolutions until lots of people are starving and/or unemployed. Look at the recent riots in France - caused by the young unemployed - for a recent example. As long as Americans are fat and busy, there won't be any violent political change. Few of them are even motivated enough to exercise their right to peaceful protest, why skip straight to the violence?

The Great Depression was the last time the US was anywhere near revolution. Elites in those days were so afraid of a communist revolution, they adopted as many socialist initiatives as they could stomach to head it off.

Now, if China were to decide to stop financing American debt, thereby plunging the world into deep recession, then we might see a lot of very interesting violent political change in this world. But it wouldn't really be in China's interest to do that.

Lost tears of Kain said: im killing my southern neighbor as we speak

 lol this is such an awesome comment .

 

But no ... I dont think this will happen , they will rather stay home and eat a couple of pizzas :P ( JK ) . Anyways , election is comming , and nobody will start no big anti-government movement ...