Should we have a bloody revolt against our governrment?
Do we begin a Bloody Revolt againts our Government?
Voting for this poll has ended.
0
NEXUS
Since 2010
varem wrote...
@SLAYERNEXUS, Never implied I'd do it. One would expect better counter arguments than "Are you going to do it?" in a srs discussion subforum. Even so, I also said "saying reform is needed is easier said than done." Even though it is you don't know the first step to attain said reform? And I never implied that you'd be able to do it just saying you shouldn't spout nonsense like that. The government doesn't care about you or me just money why do you think theirs always so many major debates about spending cuts to the rich? If it weren't such a big deal to all these money grabbers in government and wall street chances are their would be no financial crisis but money talks and people listen sadly. Society is fucked.
0
I voted yes, but that option should always be saved as the absolute last option. If it comes to some form of rebellion, it means we have already failed miserably enough to warrant one.
0
After reading all the comments here, I have come up with a definitive answer to the poll question. My answer is that we do not need a revolt against our government, but we do need to change where our leaders are coming from. Have you ever noticed where these candidates come from with their backgrounds? Most come from some high class family who sent them to Harvard or Yale. The only flaw in that statement is the fact of one person, Barack Obama, who came from a low class family, and became a wealthy lawyer. We need someone who is FROM the people and FOR the people instead of these tightwads who get corporate backings just to run for the freaking office, and then when they get there, they sit on their thumbs and do nothing for the people and only jump when it concerns them or the people that backed them when they ran.
As from the Declaration of Independence, we only need to over throw our government if they become destructive towards their own goals, without regards to the populace as a whole. And when this change does occur, it is up to the people as a whole to decide on the next form of government and to institute those who will be able to carry out such form of government with the people in mind. But as Thomas Jefferson said, there will always be corruption. And when people become accustomed to such acts, they start to become like sheep and become placid.
And I have thought much on the current situation of the country, and I've come up with certain ideals that would be beneficial to the entire country and its people, but would never work through the House of Representatives, or the Senate because one person cannot change the laws of the country, and these ideals would effect both Houses and their campaign contributors.
First, a cap on the amount of money one person or company can make. As such, no one can make more than $250,000 a year and no company may make more than $1.5 million more than the costs needed to sustain the company. Any capital in excess over those stated, will be given to the Government to help with such things as education, health care, infrastructure, ect. as to which is needed to maintain the country, its people and governing body. (people can live happily off of a quarter million dollars)
Second, a flat tax rate, no matter how rich or poor you are, which is to be equated based on the amount of capital that is needed to provide services such as infrastructure, health care, education, ect., and to not exceed 15% of one's annual income.
Third, taxation on any goods that are not made within the United States of America, as to which shall not exceed 10% of the value of the product.
With those three stated above, the government would never have to worry of a deficit, raising the debt ceiling, finding ways to cut spending, or the people to worry about losing their social security benefits when they retire.
There are many points of views over this topic, and this is just one of them. My opinion. And in my opinion, I can do as a better president then the last 10 of them we had in this country. I am also of no political party, but share views of the libertarian party.
Amen.
Declaration of Independence
Spoiler:
As from the Declaration of Independence, we only need to over throw our government if they become destructive towards their own goals, without regards to the populace as a whole. And when this change does occur, it is up to the people as a whole to decide on the next form of government and to institute those who will be able to carry out such form of government with the people in mind. But as Thomas Jefferson said, there will always be corruption. And when people become accustomed to such acts, they start to become like sheep and become placid.
And I have thought much on the current situation of the country, and I've come up with certain ideals that would be beneficial to the entire country and its people, but would never work through the House of Representatives, or the Senate because one person cannot change the laws of the country, and these ideals would effect both Houses and their campaign contributors.
First, a cap on the amount of money one person or company can make. As such, no one can make more than $250,000 a year and no company may make more than $1.5 million more than the costs needed to sustain the company. Any capital in excess over those stated, will be given to the Government to help with such things as education, health care, infrastructure, ect. as to which is needed to maintain the country, its people and governing body. (people can live happily off of a quarter million dollars)
Second, a flat tax rate, no matter how rich or poor you are, which is to be equated based on the amount of capital that is needed to provide services such as infrastructure, health care, education, ect., and to not exceed 15% of one's annual income.
Third, taxation on any goods that are not made within the United States of America, as to which shall not exceed 10% of the value of the product.
With those three stated above, the government would never have to worry of a deficit, raising the debt ceiling, finding ways to cut spending, or the people to worry about losing their social security benefits when they retire.
There are many points of views over this topic, and this is just one of them. My opinion. And in my opinion, I can do as a better president then the last 10 of them we had in this country. I am also of no political party, but share views of the libertarian party.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Amen.
0
While i do feel the government could use some major reform, a armed revolution wouldn't help anyone. There are better ways of fixing the problems our country has right now
0
Bro my only concern is the INTERNET! congress is currently pushing bills that will ravage our internet of its culture your freedom and your rights(that you apparently never had?)
if you would like to read about's your gonna have to do some Google magic http://blog.demandprogress.org/campaigns/
ageing my concern is the internet related stuff, nothing else.
INTERWEBS OR DEATH my friends! (only somewhat of a joke)
BTW, i am glad i got this off my chest, i was raging for a long time... kinda still am.
if you would like to read about's your gonna have to do some Google magic http://blog.demandprogress.org/campaigns/
ageing my concern is the internet related stuff, nothing else.
INTERWEBS OR DEATH my friends! (only somewhat of a joke)
BTW, i am glad i got this off my chest, i was raging for a long time... kinda still am.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
Be that as it may. It still is a violation of ones rights to apply the force necessary to "abolish propaganda" (since this can be seen as curbing the freedom of speech we liberals are always touting. Propaganda being such a vague term in this context can be one of many things, outright lies, half-truths, "spin" or just wording a question as to bring about an implied meaning instead of the literal on. Even if we do create a law abolishing propaganda who is trustworthy enough to enforce such a law? I certainly don't trust my corrupt and self-serving government.
It's quite the predicament. For some reason power seems to destroy morals. I too wouldn't trust the government because they're just puppets half the time, however i wouldn't trust the ill-aware populace either.
You make it sound as if we have no ability to balance our rights with a sustainable planet. Also, please elaborate on what "libertarian" rights are. Being a libertarian myself I am curious as what "rights" have become associated with my political philosophy. Though, I guess one could say libertarians of all varieties believe that each person has an exclusive right to the fruits of his or her labor as their private property
Not from what i've seen. You're being rather idealist if you think we could.
Define liberty and libertarian rights. I feel like it's a paradox almost.
There is no consensus for how far libertarian rights reach nor of what liberty truly is. Because of libertarian rights everyone has the right to their own definition of liberty and this is where the problem lies.
There are two failures here. First, I was not clear enough. When I suggested "aiming our forks lower" I was implying consumption of smaller fish varieties (instead of larger fish such as swordfish and Tuna) which can be farmed in a varieties of ways, either by fish farms, aquaponic farms or by simply catching them (since they are smaller and are destined for shorter lifespans they breed much, much faster than larger varieties.
The second failure is any claim of overfishing address only the larger varieties of fish such as Tuna and others whose names currently escape me. Tuna do not breed as fast as Brisling.
As I mentioned earlier the smaller varieties of fish are more versatile when it comes to farming since they can be included in aquaponic farms. I want to mention that aquaponic farms tend to have fish like Tilapia and Bass so we wouldn't be limited to just smaller varieties.
You ignore the fact that people don't want to eat those types of fish.
Even if we moved to alternative fuels, it wouldn't help a single iota. Petroleum is the cheapest form of fuel we have on this planet (Currently). So switching to alternative fuels wouldn't help as it'd simply cause the prices of foods to increase (since cost of operation would likewise increase). The real problem (and the one I assume you meant to address rather than sounding like some anti-oil rally) is that food travels too far from farm to plate which I think is averaging 1500-2400 miles. So we need to start considering ways to migrate the farms closer to home (if not actually make them AT home).
If we consider that an aquaponic farm is small enough to function on a building's roof then we can start alleviate the traveling problem.
Yeah but if say America started to grow food on their own like you said, then countries like mine (new zealand) that depend of dairy and meat export for our economy would go broke and other developing countries also. What we need is a more efficient way to distribute food not decreasing it.
That brings me to another rantish sort of point. Even if we figured out nuclear fusion next week, would companies even let it be known? Oil is the biggest industry in the world. I doubt companies would sacrifice that sort of money for the "well being" of the human race.
0
Anesthetize wrote...
It's quite the predicament. For some reason power seems to destroy morals. I too wouldn't trust the government because they're just puppets half the time, however i wouldn't trust the ill-aware populace either.Indeed, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
There is no consensus for how far libertarian rights reach nor of what liberty truly is. Because of libertarian rights everyone has the right to their own definition of liberty and this is where the problem lies.
I was asking for your definition of "libertarian rights" based on the context you were using it.
You ignore the fact that people don't want to eat those types of fish.
People don't eat them for various reason but, mostly due to bad publicity. You mention bristling and people say "Huh, what?" but, you mention sardine and people run for the hills. Bristling and Sardines are actually the same. Next time you're in the grocery store and some cans of Sardines will list Bristling as ingredients. All about marketing and education to fix this problem. Most people aren't aware of the levels of over fishing in the world.
Yeah but if say America started to grow food on their own like you said, then countries like mine (new zealand) that depend of dairy and meat export for our economy would go broke and other developing countries also. What we need is a more efficient way to distribute food not decreasing it.
That brings me to another rantish sort of point. Even if we figured out nuclear fusion next week, would companies even let it be known? Oil is the biggest industry in the world. I doubt companies would sacrifice that sort of money for the "well being" of the human race.
That brings me to another rantish sort of point. Even if we figured out nuclear fusion next week, would companies even let it be known? Oil is the biggest industry in the world. I doubt companies would sacrifice that sort of money for the "well being" of the human race.
If we started growing our own food? I don't know if you are aware of this but, we're not called the bread basket of the world for nothing. It would be unfortunate for New Zealand but, that is the price of not being diverse in your economy. If you rely on exporting certain products then you must face the consequences of that decision. Same goes for countries like Guam who rely on tourism. If your economy isn't dynamic then you are fragile.
Side note: I would love to visit New Zealand some day. Is the greeting like
"Welcome to New Zealand. Here's a complimentary sheep. If so, is it a faux pas to not accept the sheep because I don't have room for one in my apartment.
If nuclear fusion was cheaper to operate then oil companies would capitalize on it. As crude oil gets harder to acquire it raises the cost of their operations as well. Currently, oil companies make only 2-3 cents (from the last figure I heard, but it's been a while) on every gallon of gas. So if you are paying 3.60 a gallon the oil company probably spent 3.57 to mine, process and transport it. Oil companies are already buying up patents on alternative fuels like solar and wind farm technology.
0
I am not excited for the day this may happen, it'll be hell. Some may not understand, that it may be everyone that'll be paying for the damages
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
If we started growing our own food? I don't know if you are aware of this but, we're not called the bread basket of the world for nothing. It would be unfortunate for New Zealand but, that is the price of not being diverse in your economy. If you rely on exporting certain products then you must face the consequences of that decision. Same goes for countries like Guam who rely on tourism. If your economy isn't dynamic then you are fragile.
Side note: I would love to visit New Zealand some day. Is the greeting like
"Welcome to New Zealand. Here's a complimentary sheep. If so, is it a faux pas to not accept the sheep because I don't have room for one in my apartment.
If nuclear fusion was cheaper to operate then oil companies would capitalize on it. As crude oil gets harder to acquire it raises the cost of their operations as well. Currently, oil companies make only 2-3 cents (from the last figure I heard, but it's been a while) on every gallon of gas. So if you are paying 3.60 a gallon the oil company probably spent 3.57 to mine, process and transport it. Oil companies are already buying up patents on alternative fuels like solar and wind farm technology.
Sorry i'll respond to the rest of your post later when i have more time. This bit here though has me rather...upset. Are you a republican by chance FPOD?
If your economy isn't dynamic then you are fragile.
Is that suppose to be hypocrisy? Ever since the usher in of globalization, America is all a one trick pony. Last time i checked they imported over 70% of their consumer goods from other countries. It's a well known fact that America doesn't manufacture anything anymore.
And being diverse in our economy? Are you serious!? You're talking as if we had a choice. We're a population of 4 million with a land mass smaller than one of your states and you're telling us it's our fault? What do you want us to do? Start manufacturing toys with our awesome man power of 4 million? Or start mining our ever vast sources of natural minerals like grass?
I'm sorry FPOD, but i never thought you were so conceited.
0
Anesthetize wrote...
Are you a republican by chance FPOD?
Is that suppose to be hypocrisy? Ever since the usher in of globalization, America is all a one trick pony. Last time i checked they imported over 70% of their consumer goods from other countries. It's a well known fact that America doesn't manufacture anything anymore.
Did I say "be more like 'merica" No, I didn't, please stop jumping to conclusions, it makes you look foolish. It's not hypocrisy because I don't advocate the United States addiction to deficits. I chastise my own country, harshly I might add, about it's debt and apathy of the American people towards the debt. I also harshly criticize my country over the loss of it's manufacturing sector and movement towards a post-industrial society.
And being diverse in our economy? Are you serious!? You're talking as if we had a choice. We're a population of 4 million with a land mass smaller than one of your states and you're telling us it's our fault? What do you want us to do? Start manufacturing toys with our awesome man power of 4 million? Or start mining our ever vast sources of natural minerals like grass?
I'm sorry FPOD, but i never thought you were so conceited.
I'm sorry FPOD, but i never thought you were so conceited.
Did I even imply it was your fault, no. Did I state the commonsense notion that perhaps you could increase tourism, exports of coal, wine and medical equipment? Yes.
I don't even know where the conceited remark comes from. I assume you're just fishing for something to raise my ire. If that's the case, you're going to have to do a lot more to get a rise out of me.
I'm certainly not conceited about my country. If I had my way, I'd raze half of the country to the ground, and see a few politicians doing the hangman's jig from the nearest structure capable of supporting their weight.
0
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson
0
SLAYER NEXUS wrote...
varem wrote...
To think a revolution is necessary is beyond stupid. We need reform, no more tax cuts for the rich, less defense spending, get rid of the old people (social security), etc...And who's going to do that you? I think not. Sadly reform in the government is easier said than done but I do agree that we don't need a bloody revolution right away. What we need is to protest the government and demand reform by means of civil disobedience like really letting them know we are not going to tolerate their shit and if that doesn't work then as a last resort we unite and attack the government physically. It's unfortunate but sometimes using your words fail when they fall on deaf ears and to clear up another misconception about my view on this issue I'd like to point out that I am in no way saying we need to be rid of the government I am clearly saying that we should strike fear into the governments eyes and let them know they work for us not the other way around.
Oh yeah, really ? If protest to government is as easy as you suggest, perhaps every nook & cranny of each country in the world will changed greatly by now. But my point is, why we need to protest if the gov won't want to listen. Some gov more like to shot their own people in front of presidential palace before they even shout. An unnecessary bloodbath ain't needed. If you want to do it with a little style, just read Akumetsu manga series, it providing step by step guide to dispose some cocky, greedy, ugly bureaucrat fat assed-cat from their seat straight to hell (though it impossible to do it in real world).
0
Though a bloody revolt may help in the long run, the economy and the world as we know it would be in alot of chaos during the actual revolt. unless there was some type of leader or figure head, it would end up ending as soon as it started.
0
Most repeated thing here: "Why do we need a revolution?"
Simple, because there are subtle things going on in the background that more and more intelligent people are starting to realize. Such as? Such as getting on a bus and no one says a word at all the entire trip. That is going entirely against our nature. How about health industries lying to us and playing around with cures, simply for optimized profits? How about the war going on, the corruption, how about the lies?
Yes, life is better now in America and England than ever before, but ignorance is bliss, and soon these tiny cracks will shatter, and there will be a need for a bloody revolt.
"We should never fear our governments, our governments should always fear it's people".
Simple, because there are subtle things going on in the background that more and more intelligent people are starting to realize. Such as? Such as getting on a bus and no one says a word at all the entire trip. That is going entirely against our nature. How about health industries lying to us and playing around with cures, simply for optimized profits? How about the war going on, the corruption, how about the lies?
Yes, life is better now in America and England than ever before, but ignorance is bliss, and soon these tiny cracks will shatter, and there will be a need for a bloody revolt.
"We should never fear our governments, our governments should always fear it's people".
0
Doomextreme wrote...
Most repeated thing here: "Why do we need a revolution?"Simple, because there are subtle things going on in the background that more and more intelligent people are starting to realize. Such as? Such as getting on a bus and no one says a word at all the entire trip. That is going entirely against our nature. How about health industries lying to us and playing around with cures, simply for optimized profits? How about the war going on, the corruption, how about the lies?
Yes, life is better now in America and England than ever before, but ignorance is bliss, and soon these tiny cracks will shatter, and there will be a need for a bloody revolt.
"We should never fear our governments, our governments should always fear it's people".
There will always be corruption because money rules the world. A bloody revolt will do more harm than good.
0
say what! wrote...
Doomextreme wrote...
Most repeated thing here: "Why do we need a revolution?"Simple, because there are subtle things going on in the background that more and more intelligent people are starting to realize. Such as? Such as getting on a bus and no one says a word at all the entire trip. That is going entirely against our nature. How about health industries lying to us and playing around with cures, simply for optimized profits? How about the war going on, the corruption, how about the lies?
Yes, life is better now in America and England than ever before, but ignorance is bliss, and soon these tiny cracks will shatter, and there will be a need for a bloody revolt.
"We should never fear our governments, our governments should always fear it's people".
There will always be corruption because money rules the world. A bloody revolt will do more harm than good.
Corruption is a power resultant of money. Money was and will always be a bad idea.
"A bloody revolt will do more harm than good"
Sometimes going to extremes proves effective. "Only when you destroy everything, can you start over from fresh"
0
Doomextreme wrote...
say what! wrote...
Doomextreme wrote...
Most repeated thing here: "Why do we need a revolution?"Simple, because there are subtle things going on in the background that more and more intelligent people are starting to realize. Such as? Such as getting on a bus and no one says a word at all the entire trip. That is going entirely against our nature. How about health industries lying to us and playing around with cures, simply for optimized profits? How about the war going on, the corruption, how about the lies?
Yes, life is better now in America and England than ever before, but ignorance is bliss, and soon these tiny cracks will shatter, and there will be a need for a bloody revolt.
"We should never fear our governments, our governments should always fear it's people".
There will always be corruption because money rules the world. A bloody revolt will do more harm than good.
Corruption is a power resultant of money. Money was and will always be a bad idea.
"A bloody revolt will do more harm than good"
Sometimes going to extremes proves effective. "Only when you destroy everything, can you start over from fresh"
Again there will always be a form of money in any society and whenever there is money there is corruption in any type of government. If you have a bloody revolt you are breaking down the progress that the society has gained. If you shed blood in order to gain a new society then you are doing more harm than good in my opinion.