peacefully overthrow the government yay or nay

i like that idea. Go throw each part and fix it, restore it, revise it, step by step.

 

If, as you stated in a previous post, "my President won" is true, then I don't think you really like my idea. When I speak of restoring the government, I'm talking about the States reclaiming their sovereignty by drastically reducing the size and power of the Federal government. That would give the citizens of each individual state an opportunity to look at and evaluate the political activities of other states, and vote to empower their states government to adopt or avoid changes based on their success or failure. More or less what the Constitution intended to begin with.

 

that doesn't sound bad.

 

I've been out of school for about 50 years now, and if you're just 21, I'm curious if the Constitution was studied in depth during your education? Although not a perfect creation, it is timeless in many ways and some amendments have greatly improved it, while a few have weakened it.

Key in understanding the Constitution is what was meant by a republican form of government, which in no way has anything to do with the republican party, nor does democracy have anything to do with the democrat party.

In addition, the Declaration of Independence as many claim, does not indicate that the U.S. was formed as a Christian nation. The word "Creator" can have many meanings, God for those who are religious, and simply mother and father for those who are not. Likely at the time many more would have openly agreed that God was the creator, but I think the writers would have used the word "God" implicitly had that been the intent. I think many of the founders were more agnostic, and perhaps a few atheists, but more importantly I think freedom was the primary focus, and not individual beliefs. The formation of a government was for the purpose of protecting the inalienable rights mentioned in the document, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" and no where is it stated that those rights, or any others should be or would be provided by the created government. Further it states that those powers are derived from the "consent of the governed", not just the consent of 51%, 60%, or even 75%, but plainly "the governed."

Just where are we headed?

 

Stop feeding it, it will starve.

 

There is no such thing as the peaceful overthrow of a government. To even suggest such a thing is like saying, wouldn't it be great it food fell from the skies like mana... Sure, it would be awesome, but it will never happen.

As for someones post about each civilization goes through a period of a Golden Age where everyone was at peace and there were no wars and such... Could you please point these times in history out to me?

 

I completely agree, but there will always be the others on the food chain. It's a ladder of gluttony we're dealing with, and it's going to be a lot harder to starve it out than we think.

 

Considering that every single penny you spend feeds the government through taxes and such, this idea of starving the government is also impossible.

Unless of course you are going to convince everyone to stop buying computers (or anything else), using electricity from the grid (or any other type of utility company), buying clothes, or even the materials to make them, and so on and so forth.

And you know what? That isn't going to happen...

But, lets for a moment pretend it was possible to at least try...

Let's say we all found a way to stop giving our money to the government and it goes broke... Whats going to happen?

Let's phrase that a different way... When the people who are in power, realize they have no more money and it doesn't seem like they will get anymore soon, do you really think they will just shrug and say "well it was great while it lasted"?

Or will they use their guns and power to impose martial law and start confiscating what they need to continue?

I'll bet on the second one... Because those in power NEVER just let it slip quietly away.

They will put off their own starvation by trying to make you and me starve first. They will use violence and oppression to do so, and every personal freedom you think you have, will be stripped away.

 

You have said a mouth full and your right. When people are ready to overtrow this government, peace will have nothing to do with it."be prepared to die for your cause,you may have to"

 

To everyone who thinks peaceful overthrow of governments can happen, with the exception of civil fighting in Romania, I bring to you 1989:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1989

Didn't work so well in China though.



Even post 1991, the different "colored" revolutions in former Soviet republics.

Chavez was ousted for a few days in a bloodless coup.

People power won out in South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia.

The most oppressive or corrupt governments have peacefully been overthrown peacefully or at least with only civil strife, not actual war. It's just easier to focus on the ones that have failed in previous times.

 

Just because something isn't an actual war doesn't mean it is peaceful.

As for the examples you stated, the problem with that theory is that revolution is still going on and people ARE dying from it.

 

the Georgian-Russian war isn't revolution, it was a war. The problem with your theory is most of the revolutions of 1989 and others were peaceful, how about that.

 

Russia still considers the countries that left after the break down of the USSR to be part of their country that rebelled.

None of them were bloodless you moron.

But you know what, live in your fucking bubble madcap... I am so tired of pointing out shit that you can find yourself if you had a single active brain cell...

 

India got independence from Britain by passivism because the English were fairly civilized. Not working in Iran.

 

And many people died for that pacifistic act of rebellion.

 

Jesus, a few dozen deaths doesn't = violent revolution, fucking realize that already. More people will be killed by police in America then that in just a normal year, I guess we're having a bloody revolution

 

So, not only do you think war is just, but killing a couple of dozen people doesn't count as violence...

As for the number of a couple of dozen, to which incident do you refer? Because if you were responding to the india comment, you have just proved beyond a doubt that your are talking out of your ass...

Which I must admit is appropriate for you.

 

No, I'm talking about eastern Europe, that was my point, I wasn't the one who bought up India.

 

Oh, in eastern eurpoe... that makes a huge difference...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/01/russia-georgia-south-ossetia

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7572635.stm

The ONLY group who stated any number close to yours is a US-based which said a couple of dozen, but qualified that by stating there had been severe destruction of residential areas... (maybe nobody lived in those residential areas I guess)...

Do you have any more bullshit I can shine some truth on for you?

 

Dude, what part of 1989 do you not understand? The Russian-Georgian conflict was a war between two independent states. Why the fuck is this so hard to understand? Romania was the only communist block country to experience actual conflict in its revolution and only about 1,000 people died.

Yes, doesn't matter what you think, only 1,000 people dying in the complete revolution of a country is near peaceful.

And that was only Romania, people power took down the other countries.