The boiling point.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Unfortunately, everyone who gets misty eyed when fantasizing the next revolution tends to be looking through the same distorted prism. This could probably be remedied by reading up on what actually happened in the course of the "real" revolutions that have occured over the past couple of centuries - but that's not likely to happen. So I'll summarize the plot for you - at best you'll play Trotsky to someone else's Stalin, and on average - you are much likely to contemplate the glories of the revolution from the gulag or from beneath the turf.

 

Ah yes, revolution is so noble and glorious. Liberte, fraternite, egalite - never mind the thousands of heads that roll of those who have done nothing to deserve it.

 

The great irony is how the same people who dream of revolution, harp incessantly on tragedies and relatively minor problems of the day, oblivious to the true horrors, mass-slaughter, and suffering that their uprising would generate - eclipsing the tragedies and problems they believe (more likely - pretend/pay lip-service to) they are solving.

[cj001f]

Ah yes, revolution is so noble and glorious. Liberte, fraternite, egalite - never mind the thousands of heads that roll of those who have done nothing to deserve it.

 

The great irony is how the same people who dream of revolution, harp incessantly on tragedies and relatively minor problems of the day, oblivious to the true horrors, mass-slaughter, and suffering that their uprising would generate - eclipsing the tragedies and problems they believe (more likely - pretend/pay lip-service to) they are solving.

 

We'd be better off a colony. As always spot on KK.

[ivan]

shit, imagine if we'd stayed an english colony and still experienced manifest destiny even as britian industrialized and did it's total imperialism thang?!? we would own this whole fucking world!

 

hmmm...i guess we kinda do already - maybe george shoulda taken that other hand out from behind his back?

[archenemy]

I respectfully disagree.

It is not up to us to decide when a person is allowed to excersize their right to free speech; especially by using our personal values as guidelines for others' right to voice their opinion.

 

Silly girl

 

Your reading things into my statement that aren't quite there. If a person does absolutely nothing else, they should at the minimum vote. If they want to make a concious choice not to vote, and have some other mechanism of getting their opinions heard, more power too them. That doesn't fullfill their obligation to participate in the process but it's a start.

 

However i'd love to know how many people actively abstained from voting as a political statement, and let their will be known as such, vs how many people didn't vote because they were lazy bastards who couldn't take the time to be informed about whats happening to them.

 

If you in no way participate in the process of running this country I don't want to hear you whine when you don't like the results. Now if you got something constructive and useful to say that's a different story and your welcome to the discussion and i'd love to hear your viewpoint.

 

Now me? I voted so I get to call bush a moron all I want

 

Please don't marginalize me by calling me a silly girl.

 

I doubt that I have misunderstood your post--you have clearly and consistently stated that in order to discuss the current state of our political situation, one must have voted. Your post even ends with a confirmation of this belief.

 

I think that me posting my point of view and my beliefs is not a form of whining, but rather, part of a discussion that we are having online (one which I do not need your invitation to join). I do not need permission to call Bush a moron--I don't post that sentiment because I don't believe it.

 

I also don't believe that casting a vote once every four years can be considered participating in running the country. Do you really think that is what you are doing? Or are you buying your right to complain and to look down on other people for being "too lazy" for voting? And I can't help but be curious how often you have participated in running the country...you don't sound old enough to have voted for a president more than a couple of times. Hell, if you voted in 2000, it may have not even been counted. Oh wait, it never really counts--the electoral college votes count.

 

What we do agree on is that people have an obligation to participate in civil duty. I have stated what I believe is the best way to fulfill this obligation, and I live by those statements. You can believe that it took me a while to get to this stage. Hell, I was in ROTC through college believing that I would serve full time afterwards. It was a painful decision to turn down that position--one that initiated a great deal of thought on this subject. But I know without a doubt that I believe: "Loyalty to the country ALWAYS. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."

 

This post is the first condescending, arrogant, holier-than-thou post you have directed toward me. I am a little baffled as to what has triggered such a harsh reaction from you. I am going to assume that I just caught you on a bad day. Or maybe we just misunderstood each other.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

We'd be better off a colony. As always spot on KK.

 

The American Revolution is exceptional in almost every regard compared to other revolutions throughout history. Civilian bloodshed was minimal, and it ended with a general willingly abandoning his power and negating escalation of bloodshed that plagued so many other revolutions which turned inwards upon their own people.

 

What is being advocated on this group smells of Marxist revolution, with Marxist utopian ideals, and would lead to the inevitable bloodshed of all Marxist regimes - wholesale slaughter of millions. Of course, that wouldn't bother you with your utopian, leftist world-view.

[graupel]

All you accomplish by not voting is allowing everybody else to decide for you.

 

By the same token, if you have two candidates that are too "establishment" that you are trying to avoid, so instead vote for a third party candidate that hasn't a chance in hell of winning, odds are you just selected the worst of the establishment candidates by your actions. If you follow that up by never contacting a representitive or elected official, your opinions will never be heard, nor will ever result in change.

 

The only countries where protest non-voting doesn't really matter are places where the elections are so rigged that the citizens take up arms to make their opinions known.

[Norman_Clyde]

Miniver Cheevy, child of scorn,

Grew lean while he assailed the seasons;

He wept that he was ever born,

And he had reasons.

 

Miniver loved the days of old

When swords were bright and steeds were prancing;

The vision of a warrior bold

Would send him dancing.

 

Miniver sighed for what was not,

And dreamed, and rested from his labors;

He dreamed of Thebes and Camelot,

And Priam's neighbors.

 

Miniver mourned the ripe renown

That made so many a name so fragrant;

He mourned Romance, now on the town,

And Art, a vagrant.

 

Miniver loved the Medici,

Albeit he had never seen one;

He would have sinned incessantly

Could he have been one.

 

Miniver cursed the commonplace

And eyed a khaki suit with loathing:

He missed the medieval grace

Of iron clothing.

 

Miniver scorned the gold he sought,

But sore annoyed was he without it;

Miniver thought, and thought, and thought,

And thought about it.

 

Miniver Cheevy, born too late,

Scratched his head and kept on thinking;

Miniver coughed, and called it fate,

And kept on drinking.

 

-- Edwin Arlington Robinson

[Fairweather]

You say you want a revolution

Well you know

we all want to change the world

You tell me that it's evolution

Well you know

We all want to change the world

But when you talk about destruction

Don't you know you can count me out

Don't you know it's gonna be alright

Alright Alright

 

You say you got a real solution

Well you know

we'd all love to see the plan

You ask me for a contribution

Well you know

We're doing what we can

But when you want money for people with minds that hate

All I can tell you is brother you have to wait

Don't you know it's gonna be alright

Alright Alright

 

You say you'll change the constitution

Well you know

we all want to change your head

You tell me it's the institution

Well you know

You better free your mind instead

But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao

You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

Don't you know know it's gonna be alright

Alright Alright

 

--Paul McCartney

[cj001f]

The American Revolution is exceptional in almost every regard compared to other revolutions throughout history. Civilian bloodshed was minimal, and it ended with a general willingly abandoning his power and negating escalation of bloodshed that plagued so many other revolutions which turned inwards upon their own people.

Bullshit. The 20th century alone had E. Germany, Slovenia, Czechoslovakia, Russia (most recent only), Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, and thats just the short list. The US isn't as singular as your neocon addled mind would wish to believe.

[archenemy]

All you accomplish by not voting is allowing everybody else to decide for you.

 

By the same token, if you have two candidates that are too "establishment" that you are trying to avoid, so instead vote for a third party candidate that hasn't a chance in hell of winning, odds are you just selected the worst of the establishment candidates by your actions. If you follow that up by never contacting a representitive or elected official, your opinions will never be heard, nor will ever result in change.

 

The only countries where protest non-voting doesn't really matter are places where the elections are so rigged that the citizens take up arms to make their opinions known.

It is the electoral college who decides for you.

Except in 2000, in that case it was, ultimately, the very judges who are supposed to be impartial.

[selkirk]

I think were still crossing wires a bit, and sorry to come across harshly, but what's spray without a little holier than thou-ness and crossed signals Though we still need a little name-calling. This is far too civil still!

 

And no, the comments about people who don't participate but still whine are directed at you. It's more me venting than anything else. No RUMR on the otherhand

 

Your right, I haven't been legal for that many presidential elections (a whopping 3) but i've expressed my opinions in every one (and in all the wonderful state and local stuff as well) And done my damdest to influence those I know to think for themselves and to independantly analyze the issues, and dissabuse them of any empty rhetoric they spew whenever I get a chance, regardless of where the rhetoric came from. I've written a few letters to the people I feel need to see them and use my bullypulpit as a teacher a bit to get my students to think independantly and analyze issues for themselves. (I teach young engineers who would just as well never open a paper or tap into any news source, and throughout the 1/4 make extra credit available for looking into contenious issues, analyzing them, and then writing up a short papers supporting the side they were initially opposed to and no I don't force feed them my own political beliefs so I don't want to hear any whining about liberal indoctrination from the peanut gallery) I may not do much, I don't volunteer, I don't contribute a great deal of money to PAC's, I don't go down to Olympia and lobby, but I do try to advocate that which I feel is important. Primarily that people don't think and analyze enough for themselves but are willing to take someone elses analysis and decisions on usually blind faith.

 

People who are unwilling to participate in the process of running the country (at any level from local to national) in any meaningful fashion get on my nerves. I know more than a few people who do absolutely nothing (from voting to being aware that there are important issues) but like to whine about the results regardless of what they are or who instigated them. And pointless whiners piss me off. Not only do they not participate (vote, protest, volunteer for an advocacy organization, write their representative, discuss the issues with people who feel differently aobut them, anything at all) they dont even deign to be aware of what the issues are since they're "too busy" watching crap on tv and getting tanked every chance they get.

 

and it's not quite: "either vote or quit whining" but "either particpate or quit whining", and I guess in my own definition voting is the absolute bare minimum level of acceptable participation. However there are other avenues that are also valid instead of or in addition to voting (vocal protest, lobbying, etc.) The options aren't mutually exclusive.

 

But people who don't to anything at all get the big

 

Sorry if I offended too greatly! And if your still feeling marginalized feel free to call me ignorant asshole

[selkirk]

All you accomplish by not voting is allowing everybody else to decide for you.

 

By the same token, if you have two candidates that are too "establishment" that you are trying to avoid, so instead vote for a third party candidate that hasn't a chance in hell of winning, odds are you just selected the worst of the establishment candidates by your actions. If you follow that up by never contacting a representitive or elected official, your opinions will never be heard, nor will ever result in change.

 

The only countries where protest non-voting doesn't really matter are places where the elections are so rigged that the citizens take up arms to make their opinions known.

It is the electoral college who decides for you.

Except in 2000, in that case it was, ultimately, the very judges who are supposed to be impartial.

 

But doesn't the electoral college vote according to the popular vote on a state by state basis as opposed to a simple national popular majority? In order to somewhat balance the influence of extremely large states over smaller states, the number of electoral votes is equal to the number of senators+congressmen? So your vote goest directly toward determining which candidate recieve the electoral college votes from your own state?

 

Or am I making shit up again? I hate it when I do that

[Cobra_Commander]

[slothrop]

Yeah, but the electors are independent actors who are not required by law to cast their votes according to the popular vote in their state.

[selkirk]

So I am making shit up again! Damn.

Does anyone know how often the electors have cast their votes in opposition to the popular vote in a state? or if a state has ever fractured it's electoral vote?

[slothrop]

Rarely.

[olyclimber]

 

v

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Bullshit. The 20th century alone had E. Germany, Slovenia, Czechoslovakia, Russia (most recent only), Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, and thats just the short list. The US isn't as singular as your neocon addled mind would wish to believe.

 

Governments that collapsed under their own weight. Far-different animal from the marxist-rhetoric espoused by the originator of this thread.

 

And I'm not a neocon you moron.

 

As for the US, I'm happy here and willing to live with what we have, making incremental improvements, and realizing that is the best possible approach. Unlike you, brave expatriate, talking revolution out of your , but you've shown what action and sacrifice your willing to take on - cutting and running.

[archenemy]

All you accomplish by not voting is allowing everybody else to decide for you.

 

By the same token, if you have two candidates that are too "establishment" that you are trying to avoid, so instead vote for a third party candidate that hasn't a chance in hell of winning, odds are you just selected the worst of the establishment candidates by your actions. If you follow that up by never contacting a representitive or elected official, your opinions will never be heard, nor will ever result in change.

 

The only countries where protest non-voting doesn't really matter are places where the elections are so rigged that the citizens take up arms to make their opinions known.

It is the electoral college who decides for you.

Except in 2000, in that case it was, ultimately, the very judges who are supposed to be impartial.

 

But doesn't the electoral college vote according to the popular vote on a state by state basis as opposed to a simple national popular majority? In order to somewhat balance the influence of extremely large states over smaller states, the number of electoral votes is equal to the number of senators+congressmen? So your vote goest directly toward determining which candidate recieve the electoral college votes from your own state?

 

Or am I making shit up again? I hate it when I do that

 

Originally, electors were chosen by the state legislature. Now they use the general ticket system, whereby a party needs only a plurality to carry the whole state. In most states a voter casts a ballot for as many electors as the state is entitled to. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires either that the electors be chosen by popular vote or that the general-ticket system be employed.

[archenemy]

 

Your right, I haven't been legal for that many presidential elections (a whopping 3) but i've expressed my opinions in every one I think you now see that your opinion is not expressed. Your electoral college makes the decision for you--2000 is a perfect example. (and in all the wonderful state and local stuff as well) And done my damdest to influence those I know to think for themselves and to independantly analyze the issues, Isn't this a paradox? If you are influencing people, then they are not thinking independently. This leap must be taken by the individual--they cannot be told or taught to think for themselves (although analysis is a learned skill). and dissabuse them of any empty rhetoric they spew whenever I get a chance, regardless of where the rhetoric came from. I believe that taking into account where information and beliefs come from is important. That is why I think having a good knowledge of history is key to being able to analyse the world around you and participate in discussions like these. I've written a few letters to the people I feel need to see them and use my bullypulpit as a teacher a bit to get my students to think independantly and analyze issues for themselves. (I teach young engineers who would just as well never open a paper or tap into any news source, Remeber that they are young. Most people do not become socially active until their 30's. I believe it is a natural step in our maturation process. and throughout the 1/4 make extra credit available for looking into contenious issues, analyzing them, and then writing up a short papers supporting the side they were initially opposed to and no I don't force feed them my own political beliefs so I don't want to hear any whining about liberal indoctrination from the peanut gallery) I may not do much, I don't volunteer, I don't contribute a great deal of money to PAC's, I don't go down to Olympia and lobby, but I do try to advocate that which I feel is important. Here is where I have difficulty with the belief that if a person doesn't vote, they aren't participating. It would be just as easy for me to say that if a person is not volunteering time or money in at least one thing he believes in, then he is not part of the solution and thus, has no right to free speech. Primarily that people don't think and analyze enough for themselves but are willing to take someone elses analysis and decisions on usually blind faith. Who does this? The people who are "too lazy" to think for themselves are most likely too lazy to vote; and therefore don't affect your world. But even if they do vote, it really doesn't matter because their vote doesn't count any more than yours does.

 

People who are unwilling to participate in the process of running the country (at any level from local to national) in any meaningful fashion get on my nerves. I don't know anyone that I consider in this catagory. Everyone I know does something. Either they pay taxes (funding the country) or have a job that somehow helps the economy. Even homeless people provide a service. It is my belief that when people see bums in the street, they are apt to wonder what is wrong with our system that allows this shameful situation to continue unabated. I know more than a few people who do absolutely nothing (from voting to being aware that there are important issues) but like to whine about the results regardless of what they are or who instigated them. And pointless whiners piss me off. The point is, they are allowed to do this in America, and they are excersizing their right. I have to assume that if someone is discussing something that upsets them, they have put some thought into it and are looking for a reaction from their listener. Not only do they not participate (vote, protest, volunteer for an advocacy organization, write their representative, discuss the issues with people who feel differently aobut them, If they are 'whining" to you, then they must think differently (at least about the voting part) and are indeed talking to someone who thinks differently from them. anything at all) they dont even deign to be aware of what the issues are since they're "too busy" watching crap on tv and getting tanked every chance they get.

 

and it's not quite: "either vote or quit whining" but "either particpate or quit whining", and I guess in my own definition voting is the absolute bare minimum level of acceptable participation acceptable to you, that is. To me, I would love to say that to not actually help other people less fortunate than yourself out is to fail in one of the basic responsibilities that all human beings have. . However there are other avenues that are also valid instead of or in addition to voting (vocal protest, lobbying, etc.) The options aren't mutually exclusive. Of course not.

 

But people who don't to anything at all get the big

 

Sorry if I offended too greatly! And if your still feeling marginalized feel free to call me ignorant asshole

I do not think you are ignorant. But I do think you have a tendancy to marginalize people whom do not fit within your perameters of polical-social requirements. You never know, some day you might just learn something from a lazy, tv watching non-voter. Or even from a silly girl.

[EWolfe]

 

Thanks, CC! That's my new avatar gif!

[Chaps]

MisterE....say after me...."Life is like a box of chocolates"

 

I knew you could.

[ivan]

i think there've only been 2 electors who ever voted in a manner other than that dictated by their elections - one was a simple mistake i think, the other was done out of jest - in niether case did it make a bit of difference. the parties that win the election afterall do get to choose the electors in the college, so there's little chance that system would ever go awry.

 

again, as a history teacher type, i would not really describe the events of the late 18th century in america as a full-fledged social revolution. basically one group of rich white dudes telling another group of rich white dudes to fuck off and convincing a handful of proleteriats to duke it out - succesful mostly only because another group of despotic rich white fucks (the french) felt like helping out to spite the brits.

 

the american south sent essentialy as many troops to fight for king george as against him - their economic interests afterall were more closely aligned w/ remaining under the crown.

[SemoreJugs]

What a thread! Arch, I love how clearly you speak.

 

The poetry like "miniver Cheevy" proves how valuble both history and art can be and further illustrates that to downplay their importance in our present "edukation" system is folly.

 

I often swing between the "glory" of revolution and the "soberness" of slow reform. It seems to me that to build anything lasting in this life requires constant devotion. A "quick" revolution is not a better answer usually. Because what takes place after the revolution? A power grab.

 

Therefore, I would agree that the american "revolution" was more disobedience and dissent than full-on revolution. After all, what revolution involves diplomacy? From my understanding of history, the battles of the revolution were more on par with skirmishes. How else did General Washington sit on his ass for an entire winter in Valley Forge? Most of the battles took place with economic and political maneuverings. The Brits simply gave up on trying to control the American colonies. The British crown was not overthrown, it was simply ignored.

[archenemy]

i think there've only been 2 electors who ever voted in a manner other than that dictated by their elections - one was a simple mistake i think, the other was done out of jest - in niether case did it make a bit of differenceThere have been 14 instances of this (minority presidents is what the result is called), not two. And they were not a farce nor an accident. They are examples of electors not following the popular vote. This makes all the difference in the world--the most recent example of this was the election of 2000. . the parties that win the election afterall do get to choose the electors in the college, This is incorrect. They used to be chosen by legislators, now they are chosen by election. They are not appointed. so there's little chance that system would ever go awry This system has gone arwy many times, which is why it has been adjusted a number of times in the past and people are still working to change it. .

 

 

 

again, as a history teacher type You would be perfect. I would suggest reading "Lies my teacher told me" to find out how other history teacher types believe the misinformation they are fed. , i would not really describe the events of the late 18th century in america as a full-fledged social revolution. basically one group of rich white dudes telling another group of rich white dudes to fuck off and convincing a handful of proleteriats to duke it out - succesful mostly only because another group of despotic rich white fucks (the french) felt like helping out to spite the brits. By the middle of the 18th cent., differences in life, thought, and interests had developed between England and the growing colonies--us. Local political institutions and practice diverged significantly from English ways, while social customs, religious beliefs, and economic interests added to the potential sources of conflict. This is more than just a group of weathly men arguing over money. It is a revolution in the way of thinking and of living.

 

the american south sent essentialy as many troops to fight for king george as against him - their economic interests afterall were more closely aligned w/ remaining under the crown.