A Second American Revolution: Is It Necessary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Luxor Ignotis
  • Start date Start date

Do you agree?


  • Total voters
    60
This honestly doesn't need to happen. We have a peaceful system. It shouldn't change. We do not need more screws with the law. If we just keep screwing with the law, Eh.. Who knows we could lead up to a system that is like the Hunger Game's system. (You never know)
 
This honestly doesn't need to happen. We have a peaceful system. It shouldn't change. We do not need more screws with the law. If we just keep screwing with the law, Eh.. Who knows we could lead up to a system that is like the Hunger Game's system. (You never know)
Actually, Panam (I think that's how you spell it) from Hunger Games reflects the Martial Law system of the United States, Martial Law will only occur in a complete government collapse, you can't "screw" with the law, yes, there may end up a system worse than now, but that's what happens in revolutions. Do you think our Constitutional government was conjured up first? No, we had the Articles of the Confederation, it was only vetoed because we were too small at the time and states had too much power for the state of the country, on the topic, I actually think it would be a better system now, since it was made with a powerful country in mind, but that's my opinion anyways. (that's how it seems to be anyways, I'm probably incorrect about the last part, as I am rusty on early US history)
 
to all who rated me the longest rating, please explain it? i have, like read my post 5 times and i didn't come to a different conclusion @Grailen @gridiron1024
It's because communism has nothing to do with the thread. Your comments were referring to Communism when the thread is about an American Revolution, even if our current system has some socialism in it. Hope that cleared it up for you! :)
 
a litle, my post was more a reaction on Waminer his list with communist counrty's with healtcare, or that's what i understood from it at least, if it wasn't, then it was just a stupid miscumunication XD want me to remove it becouse this tread isn't about it? (might have worded this wrong)
 
a litle, my post was more a reaction on Waminer his list with communist counrty's with healtcare, or that's what i understood from it at least, if it wasn't, then it was just a stupid miscumunication XD want me to remove it becouse this tread isn't about it? (might have worded this wrong)
Remove you? Why? You weren't breaking any rules, you just were replying to a post.
 
Actually, Panam (I think that's how you spell it) from Hunger Games reflects the Martial Law system of the United States, Martial Law will only occur in a complete government collapse, you can't "screw" with the law, yes, there may end up a system worse than now, but that's what happens in revolutions. Do you think our Constitutional government was conjured up first? No, we had the Articles of the Confederation, it was only vetoed because we were too small at the time and states had too much power for the state of the country, on the topic, I actually think it would be a better system now, since it was made with a powerful country in mind, but that's my opinion anyways. (that's how it seems to be anyways, I'm probably incorrect about the last part, as I am rusty on early US history)
Have you heard of the Amendments. Those Basically screwed with are Bill of Rights (If I am correct). And Yes, You can screw with the law. Its not it happen a bunch of times before.
 
Have you heard of the Amendments. Those Basically screwed with are Bill of Rights (If I am correct). And Yes, You can screw with the law. Its not it happen a bunch of times before.
That does not imply that it is good to partake in such an act if it is not in the interest of the population of the country.
 
First off I meant it was communist in NATURE not actual communism

There's no 'grey area'. Something is considered communist or it's not. A cloud is not 'tree-like' in nature. It's either a cloud, or a tree.

Calling something "(Insert arbitrary concept) in nature", particularly in political rhetoric, is usually used by a party with beliefs that oppose their interlocutor's to equate said opposing beliefs to that which it (By definition) is not, usually for the purpose of sowing confusion and ramming in a point with little effort.

Although the effect it usually has is to make the speaker sound ignorant and obstinate.
 
Ireland isn't communist.
since when is belgium communist?
from the link you put in, so directly from wikipedia were do i see communism in that? :^)

I was making a joke about how rash it is to call Universal health care communist. Seeing how in my country Canada, the most right wing party with a considerable following in the last thirty years (Which now forms the part of the ruling conservative party that even members of the party consider conservative) have not suggested or even spoke of publicly or in private of the abandonment of universal health care or even that hypothetically it was a mistake to implement it in the past. Therefore calling it communist or even that socialist. (Seeing how a totally free market would evolve to take the most cost effective method in theory which happens to be universal health care) Sorry for the confusion. :)<<

@Luxor Ignotis I will remove the disagree from your post in a second now that I have fixed the miscommunication.
 
Oh wow look at this thing called a constitution. Huh, what's this? Bill of Rights? Rights? As in things that cannot be taken away or infringed upon? Oh looky here, every official makes an oath to defend this here constitution. Freedom of speech, wait isn't protest in the United States a felony if too close to an acting politician? Hmm, right to bear arms, don't some states need to register weapons. Search and arrest, what about those swat teams that search homes without warrants? The NSA's worldwide internet searches and telephone spying, bah I'll ignore that. Huh, you need to consult congress before a war, haven't we been doing that for years now? Might as well call the Bill of Rights the Bill of Privileges.
 
Personally, I feel no need for a revolution of any sort. Peaceful or violent. From what I can tell, the government is not breaking anything from the Constitution of Independence nor the Bill of Rights. Also, I do not recall the government saying anything about peaceful protests being illegal, and the whole camera used to spy thing, I personally believe those are for our own safety, and I do not see much camera's our where I live. Finally, about the government putting homeless people in camps, a lot of them are located where I live, and I have yet to see a single camp ever.
 
Personally, I feel no need for a revolution of any sort. Peaceful or violent. From what I can tell, the government is not breaking anything from the Constitution of Independence nor the Bill of Rights. Also, I do not recall the government saying anything about peaceful protests being illegal, and the whole camera used to spy thing, I personally believe those are for our own safety, and I do not see much camera's our where I live. Finally, about the government putting homeless people in camps, a lot of them are located where I live, and I have yet to see a single camp ever.
Even if the camp thing is real. I read that they are located in SW states like Arizona. And the NSA spy ring, I can see how the media makes it look like it's for safety and how people who exposed
it like Edward Snowden are "traitors."
However, if up really is for safety, then explain why Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel is under NSA surveillance. Also, if any of you pay attention to the police force, you'll see police being militarized 1984 style. Why can't anyone notice the martial state taking over America. It really isn't hard when you do real research. Most people that do notice however, tend to believe that if they just turn their mind away from it it isn't reality. It's normal human psychology, but it doesn't. And those like @Mecharic who think that it is soo wrong and immature , etc. to believe change is needed. Do you know what is included in the NDAA of 2012-2014, or the Patriot Act. Oh wait, you're probably one of those people that believed Obama during the Syrian crisis last September, when they said they used chemical weapons on their own people, or believed them when they said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Seriously, what is it that makes tu people think this? Sorry if I sound unreasonable but seriously? People like to put full trust in their politicians when beginning a war, or putting pressure on a country when their oil isn't sold in USD (*cough Iran *cough*). I'm glad some people see what is going on, those are the people that truly pay attention to the world. Next thing you know the internet will e censored, oh wait they're working on that. Anyone who doubts me on this I dare you actually. I'll provide multiple sources to prove all of these facts. Good day Massive.
 
@Corxenshi - First off, f*ck you. Secondly, my thoughts below:

Let us say that you are correct and a revolution is needed. What do you intend to do? Kill everyone in congress? Murder the president? Butcher the Supreme Court? Will you shoot soldiers just doing their jobs and protecting what they believe to be the proper government? Will you kill innocent people because they disagree with your ideal? Are you ready to plunge the US into a long-term civil war with no clear-set sides? Do you even understand the side effects of that?

The world we live in is fragile and barely holding together. The dollar is supported by faith - a revolution would cripple not just the US economy but the GLOBAL economy. The US exports lots of food, but if the dollar is worthless no one will be able to buy or sell that food, causing mass-famine across the globe. US cities will starve for resources while mass migrations occur as people try to escape the growing conflicts. Other nations will suffer and human civilization will start to unravel even before the revolution gets violent.

Now people start shooting each other. In the US loads of people have guns. You'll see mass-murders, military rule in areas that the military can keep control over, militias and minor kings/dictators/nutjobs taking over chunks of the nation, and crime will skyrocket. You can expect at least 1/5th of the population to die and another 3/5ths to be directly affected and harmed. You will watch cities and towns burn while the people living in them starve and flee. And then the war really sets in and all forms of trade that are left are redirected towards the war fronts.

As resources get burned up in fighting, things we take for granted (like electricity, water, food, shelter, internet) will collapse. Getting medical attention will become almost impossible, medicine will be hard to find. Diseases will begin to spread and vast numbers of people who could have been saved will die. As people flee the conflicts they will bring disease with them, and stray animals will be ready to prey on the weak and old and young and sick in equal numbers.

Literally hundreds of millions of people will die in the US alone, across the globe the losses will be in the billions. Are you really willing to go through all that just because you don't like the government? Did you even realize just what a US revolution would cause right now? I doubt it.

So my conclusion is as follows: if change causes the deaths of half the human on earth it's not worth the gains we'd make.
 
Last edited:
As an outsider, the only problem I truly see is congress. Too many people give Obama shit for not doing enough or anything, when it's not really in his power to do anything.

But that's also kind of the end of my assessment, American politics don't inherently affect me and while I know the bare minimum of government elections and representation there trough following some crash courses, I doubt a destabilization of US government is going to do anyone any good.
 
Oh wow look at this thing called a constitution. Huh, what's this? Bill of Rights? Rights? As in things that cannot be taken away or infringed upon? Oh looky here, every official makes an oath to defend this here constitution. Freedom of speech, wait isn't protest in the United States a felony if too close to an acting politician? Hmm, right to bear arms, don't some states need to register weapons. Search and arrest, what about those swat teams that search homes without warrants? The NSA's worldwide internet searches and telephone spying, bah I'll ignore that. Huh, you need to consult congress before a war, haven't we been doing that for years now? Might as well call the Bill of Rights the Bill of Privileges.
Oh look we have freedom of speech but we can't tell people we're going to murder there whole fucking family or yell fire in a crowded theater or hell we can't even call in with phony bomb threats! Such infringements on my rights!
 
Tongue-biting intensifies.

A lot of these opinions seem to be dogmatic due to a lack of empirical evidence that supports them.

Just call me Captain Obvious.
 
Last edited:
@Corxenshi - First off, f*ck you. Secondly, my thoughts below:

Let us say that you are correct and a revolution is needed. What do you intend to do? Kill everyone in congress? Murder the president? Butcher the Supreme Court? Will you shoot soldiers just doing their jobs and protecting what they believe to be the proper government? Will you kill innocent people because they disagree with your ideal? Are you ready to plunge the US into a long-term civil war with no clear-set sides? Do you even understand the side effects of that?

The world we live in is fragile and barely holding together. The dollar is supported by faith - a revolution would cripple not just the US economy but the GLOBAL economy. The US exports lots of food, but if the dollar is worthless no one will be able to buy or sell that food, causing mass-famine across the globe. US cities will starve for resources while mass migrations occur as people try to escape the growing conflicts. Other nations will suffer and human civilization will start to unravel even before the revolution gets violent.

Now people start shooting each other. In the US loads of people have guns. You'll see mass-murders, military rule in areas that the military can keep control over, militias and minor kings/dictators/nutjobs taking over chunks of the nation, and crime will skyrocket. You can expect at least 1/5th of the population to die and another 3/5ths to be directly affected and harmed. You will watch cities and towns burn while the people living in them starve and flee. And then the war really sets in and all forms of trade that are left are redirected towards the war fronts.

As resources get burned up in fighting, things we take for granted (like electricity, water, food, shelter, internet) will collapse. Getting medical attention will become almost impossible, medicine will be hard to find. Diseases will begin to spread and vast numbers of people who could have been saved will die. As people flee the conflicts they will bring disease with them, and stray animals will be ready to prey on the weak and old and young and sick in equal numbers.

Literally hundreds of millions of people will die in the US alone, across the globe the losses will be in the billions. Are you really willing to go through all that just because you don't like the government? Did you even realize just what a US revolution would cause right now? I doubt it.

So my conclusion is as follows: if change causes the deaths of half the human species
it's not worth the gains we'd make.
First off, as an answer to the first paragraph. Some congress members will be inprisoned for high treason by breaking their oath, dissolving the constitution , and aiding foreign enemies. Also, I'd like I direct you to something @Luxor Ignotis and I have been trying to direct you in since this conversation started, I will say it twice there is such thing as peaceful resistance, to repeat, peaceful resistance exists. Plus, you don't explain the deaths that will happen if this continues to expand. See how Russia and China preparing to use the Yuan rather than the dollar in trade? This, I cannot stress enough, will truly in armed conflict if the US continues it's war-hungry ways. The three greatest nuclear powers and their allies firing missiles day and night, think about how many deaths that can result. Also, again, the dollar is $16 trillion in international debt. how on earth do you expat that to remain stable for years to come. A war between those powers I agree won't kill half the population of the earth, the nuclear radiation and waste will kill almost all of it. The slaughter of innocents in the Middle East would retract by thousands as well. So, here's our choice, either way we'll receive a global economic collapse, we could gain a nuclear war in the process of allowing this path. If we the people just learn their abilities, peaceful resistance would be all that's necessary, and maybe even decrease the chance of a global economic collapse. Believing that it'll magically be fixed is not true. All we need is peaceful resistance, as long as we have enough people. The guns are only to show a sense of strength. The world has gone through I've economic resets before, it can be done again. As long as we learn from our mistakes.
 
Oh look we have freedom of speech but we can't tell people we're going to murder there whole ****ing family or yell fire in a crowded theater or hell we can't even call in with phony bomb threats! Such infringements on my rights!
I said protesting, not threatening.
 
@Corxenshi - The issue with 'Peaceful Resistance' isn't that it's possible but rather that there is no way in HELL that the US would be able to have such a thing. There are too many gun nuts and political extremists to have a peaceful revolution.

As for nuclear war, the chances of Russia, China, or the US starting such a war INTENTIONALLY are slim to none. A terrorist group is more likely to start a nuclear war by framing one of them. As for currencies, I rather think that at some point it will be nothing but fear that supports the dollar - fear of what will happen if we stop using it.

I can't make heads or tails of the rest of your post though, it makes no sense to me. Try to gather your ideas into different chunks (like a paragraph solely about military stuff, another for economics, another for politics, ext) so that others can understand you.
 
Wait, first you state that
if any of you pay attention to the police force, you'll see police being militarized 1984 style. Why can't anyone notice the martial state taking over America.

and then you do a complete turnaround and say
Also, I'd like I direct you to something I have been trying to direct you in since this conversation started, I will say it twice there is such thing as peaceful resistance, to repeat, peaceful resistance exists.

If there is in fact a martial state taking over America, then what the heck is a peaceful protest going to do? I'm sure the nice men in full body armor will calmly listen to us protest and value our feedback, just like in North Korea! Seriously, it's a bit confusing when you state something and then go back on it.
 
Last edited:
Wait, first you state that


and then you do a complete turnaround and say


If there is in fact a martial state taking over America, then what the heck is a peaceful protest going to do? I'm sure the nice men in full body armor will calmly listen to us protest and value our feedback, just like in North Korea! Seriously, it's a bit confusing when you state something and then go back on it.
If enough people were to gather in DC, it could work. It happened in the Soviet Union. Anyone remember the Berlin Wall? Remember when the Soviet troops disobeyed and stood down to the people taking down the wall? It can happen again. Plus, peaceful protest doesn't jut mean get signs and gather. It also means to not pay taxes, to not obey "authority" in the United States. If they can't control the people, they have no power. Then they have no choice but to stand down.
 
If enough people were to gather in DC, it could work. It happened in the Soviet Union. Anyone remember the Berlin Wall? Remember when the Soviet troops disobeyed and stood down to the people taking down the wall? It can happen again. Plus, peaceful protest doesn't jut mean get signs and gather. It also means to not pay taxes, to not obey "authority" in the United States. If they can't control the people, they have no power. Then they have no choice but to stand down.

Excuse you, the Soviet Union fell due to a Progressive Coup d'etat that interrupted an already ongoing conservative Coup d'etat. The army seized the parliament, not the people, after the "old guard" locked down the government. The Berlin wall also didn't fall overnight because of a protest, it fell because of an agreement signed between the BDR and the DDR, which took years if not decades in the making and was signed by the governments, not the people taking a sledgehammer to the wall because they pleased it so. Germany also didn't immediately unite after the Berlin wall fell.

Don't misquote historical events to prop up a point that you don't have, you're completely quoting them wrong.
 
Excuse you, the Soviet Union fell due to a Progressive Coup d'etat that interrupted an already ongoing conservative Coup d'etat. The army seized the parliament, not the people, after the "old guard" locked down the government. The Berlin wall also didn't fall overnight because of a protest, it fell because of an agreement signed between the BDR and the DDR, which took years if not decades in the making and was signed by the governments, not the people taking a sledgehammer to the wall because they pleased it so. Germany also didn't immediately unite after the Berlin wall fell.

Don't misquote historical events to prop up a point that you don't have, you're completely quoting them wrong.
But I think you miss my point, I didn't say it fell because of that, I said that it's military did not fire on civilians during the fall of the Berlin Wall. That was the pint of which it was clear to many powers that Communism was weakening. When did I say it fell because of that? It played a role in showing the world that the Soviet Union was weakening.
 
But I think you miss my point, I didn't say it fell because of that, I said that it's military did not fire on civilians during the fall of the Berlin Wall. That was the pint of which it was clear to many powers that Communism was weakening. When did I say it fell because of that? It played a role in showing the world that the Soviet Union was weakening.
....then why do you think peaceful protest will work in this situation? I'm sorry but I don't think I understand much of what you're saying.
 
But I think you miss my point, I didn't say it fell because of that, I said that it's military did not fire on civilians during the fall of the Berlin Wall. That was the pint of which it was clear to many powers that Communism was weakening. When did I say it fell because of that? It played a role in showing the world that the Soviet Union was weakening.

No, the fact that Russia and China were suffering economic and civil breakdown due to a decade-long string of shitty rulers and a flawed premise to the structure of their societies proved that communism was flawed from the start.

And no, it wasn't a weak system, in theory. Any system in which the government owns the people is much more efficient (ergo; better) than any system in which one person can throw their hands up in the air and just stop living by his or her societies values.

The problem with all of said 'strong systems' in the past is that they fail to take into account that pissing off the populace means you have a good few decades.


It's a trade off between having a 'get-shit-done' society, or having a complacent society in which every twitch of the leader's finger results in public outcry.
 
....then why do you think peaceful protest will work in this situation? I'm sorry but I don't think I understand much of what you're saying.
When I said "the military did not fire on citizens." What part of that did you not get? When the population demands a better system the troops will (hopefully) realize these are their fellow people and they protect them, not the people "in charge."

No, the fact that Russia and China were suffering economic and civil breakdown due to a decade-long string of shitty rulers and a flawed premise to the structure of their societies proved that communism was flawed from the start.

And no, it wasn't a weak system, in theory. Any system in which the government owns the people is much more efficient (ergo; better) than any system in which one person can throw their hands up in the air and just stop living by his or her societies values.

The problem with all of said 'strong systems' in the past is that they fail to take into account that pissing off the populace means you have a good few decades.


It's a trade off between having a 'get-shit-done' society, or having a complacent society in which every twitch of the leader's finger results in public outcry.
Like you stated, pissing off the populace does no good in the long run? Do you really think people are loving the widening gap in the rich and poor, the 1% taking their dollars. Bailing out the Federal Reserve after it spent $2.2 trillion of American tax dollars in '08. I'm only scratching the surface here.

The thing is, the people of America really isn't run by democracy anymore. It is just bought out by businesses and industries. Which also, is another addon to fascism as I have stated before. That's why we need a system reset, otherwise wars on oil and currency status will continue, and slaughter if hundreds of thousands in the Middle East will extend farther into Asia and Africa. Killing people in the millions.

Now, most of you may think the wars in the Middle East are justified. I'll let you in on a secret, a war on terror can never be won. Even if the United States and its Allies destabilize every Middle Easter country, don't you think the innocents that survived will want vengeance on the United States and others? So isn't that creating more terrorists and spawning more terrorist attacks? Plus, you cannot kill an idea, it cannot be injured, thrown away, or anything. The Islamic Extremists are people gathered with an idea, it'll be like killing everyone that thinks a specific thought, it is impossible.

Like I have said countless times, these wars are just to defend the dollar's status. Because with the terrorist attacks like the Boston Marathon, it clearly isn't working. So yeah the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocents was for nothing, even if it were justifiable in the start. No offense, but anyone who supports recast on terror at this point is like a baseball fan supporting a batter without arms. At least agree with that. Unless you think more innocent people should die like half a million young children is justifiable, then you'd agree with that last paragraph.
 
As an outsider, the only problem I truly see is congress. Too many people give Obama shit for not doing enough or anything, when it's not really in his power to do anything.

But that's also kind of the end of my assessment, American politics don't inherently affect me and while I know the bare minimum of government elections and representation there trough following some crash courses, I doubt a destabilization of US government is going to do anyone any good.
Even if Congress is corrupt, and I do agree with that, you can't deny Obama being just as corrupt, correct?
 
Even if Congress is corrupt, and I do agree with that, you can't deny Obama being just as corrupt, correct?

I'm generally of the opinion that all American presidents mean well, even Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney in my opinion however ranked high on the scale of scumbag because of his prevalence near rich people and cutting their costs while raising it for the poor. This sort of lobbying seems very popular among congress members. As a bottom line I'm generally of the opinion that congress members are not interested in America's welfare, but more so their own.
 
Like you stated, pissing off the populace does no good in the long run? Do you really think people are loving the widening gap in the rich and poor, the 1% taking their dollars. Bailing out the Federal Reserve after it spent $2.2 trillion of American tax dollars in '08. I'm only scratching the surface here.

This happens anywhere. Like I discussed in my last post, this is a problem with people, not the government. The divide between people of high socio-economic status and low socio-economic status will always exist, and attempts to end this (Communism) will always fail due to the volatile 'human' element of society.

It is the government's role to keep the populace from screwing the country over, not the reverse.
 
What I find funniest is that this argument is even happening. No one here is going to start a revolution anyway, so why are we even arguing over it?
 
(Bare in mind, I am a 14 year old, and not a politician. What I may say can be inaccurate, or plain up just straight stupid.)

This is becoming a very popular thing (Complaints of America) about all these "communist blahdebells" and "Obama communist care" when really we should at least be glad we get some type of voice on some subjects. We choose a leader, they get their term. I mean, if people took a moment to realize, America isn't actually doing as bad as they all think.. compared to other countries at least. We aren't in complete anarchy, we have a government that's stable (But stupid) and an economy that can use some fixing.
Buying less cheap plastics from Japan and making things ourselves would be nice. Don't have to buy more every two minutes. *COUGH*
Limits on voting propaganda would be amazing, most now is straight up dirty and degrading. *WHEEZE*

Overthrowing isn't necessary unless it's ACTUALLY needed (And with some logical support that works and has enough justification), not decided from a few crappy acts only intending the best but ending up like SOPA, which would have been best left at the chalkboard and only the chalkboard.

Anonymous claims- Their videos are propaganda. Everything is distorted and stretched to get a political advantage. I don't care about them, and my life is completely fine. Most have no idea what they are and they lay unaffected.

What I find funniest is that this argument is even happening. No one here is going to start a revolution anyway, so why are we even arguing over it?
A zombie apocalypse have such a minute chance of happening but people still prepare and debate about it.
 
What I find funniest is that this argument is even happening. No one here is going to start a revolution anyway, so why are we even arguing over it?
Because arguments are fun.

Anyhow, onto my thoughts.

Would a revolution be useful to the Country. Maybe, but the costs of the fighting would be so costly that it wouldn't be worthwhile and it will destroy whatever is attempted to be implemented.

Is it possible? Maybe. If one (and at that point it would be parts) of the branches were to side with the people, it would be more likely to succeed. Without them, it would be virtually impossible thanks to the US's massive military budget.

Is it warranted? Right now, hell no. Yeah, our government is kinda broken because some of our politicians have forgotten that compromising is the only way to get things done. However, the government is still able to provide for the majority of its responsibilities. Times may be tough, however if people stop complaining and actually do something then there is a much better chance of a better future occurring. And hell, eventually all the politicians we dislike will die of old age, so it could just come down to out living them if you really are that lazy.

All in all, interesting conversation here.
 
Can anyone explain to me why every argument is assuming there would be an armed resistance when the first post specified that a peaceful one is also an option?
 
It should probably be emphasized that I consider a government reform a Revolution of sorts, a Revolution is simply a great change on a large scale, like the Industrial Revolution, that was a great change, wasn't it? Last I checked there weren't any wars then, now were there?

@Toxiclord 's post is a perfect example of my point.
 
Last edited by a moderator: