"Bring on the revolution! Let the government collapse!" is just another way of saying

[pnwmom]

Bring on the fascists. Bring on all the ordinary voters who'll vote for "law and order."

Will we never learn?

[daleanime]

1. And if we do nothing?

:shrug:

[pnwmom]

3. I support OWS. I also strongly support VOTING.

I am NOT suggesting we do nothing.

[abelenkpe]

7. +1 nt

[H2O Man]

32. Frequently in life,

there are more than two options. This is one example of where there are many options.

[Fire Walk With Me]

2. If that revolution weren't so very adept at identifying and solving problems I might agree.

This is about solving the problems :shrug:

[abelenkpe]

4. Problems have been solved?

[Fire Walk With Me]

23. Look at their working models and apply them community-wide, city-wide, nation-wide

world-wide.

[abelenkpe]

54. OK where can I find these models?

Are you talking about OWS? Have demands been met?

I'm working 60 hours and in a fierce email battle with my ignorant teapot birther parents so any info appreciated!

[Fire Walk With Me]

70. Why so aggressive? Oh well. If you can't look at how they're organizing at camps and solving problem

as they appear, then I can't talk to you about it because you're not willing to entertain that they're actually doing so and that it is a good sign for the rest of the country if and when we can get enough people on board to make it happen....or, we can wait until we're in the same position as Greece, Spain, Ireland, and other victims of the same process that has begun here...I dunno, you can lead a horse to water...:shrug:

[abelenkpe]

75. You misunderstand me

I can't go to an occupy event right now. My teabagging parents are in town attempting to abscod with my children and constantly arguing with me and thats when I'm not at work. I've actually had to tell the school not to let my parents see my children or attempt to pick them up. It's emotionally and physically draining. I care about OWS and making sure that republicans don't make more gains. It matters greatly to me. I don't want my kids to grow up in a shitty fascist world. I'm having to deal with my rotten parents and am a full time working parent to two toddlers. If there is a site where I can check this stuff out once I shake them it would be appreciated.

[pnwmom]

5. Not voting won't solve any problems. It won't send any message

to the media or to legislators -- except that the country is indeed center-right.

[dameocrat67]

14. voting for center-right dlc and new democrats sends the same message

on the other hand not voting for them will cause them to lose and weed them out in favor or stronger dems like Elizabeth Warren. Allowing Coakly to lose was a good thing in my view.

[pnwmom]

17. Not voting for any Dem puts RETHUGS into power.

Do what you want in the primaries. But in the general election, it's INSANE to throw your vote away.

[dameocrat67]

22. the primaries are rigged too

you have to have lots of money to run them which is why only a few are run every year with pretty mixed results since money can manipulate opinion too.

I dont have a preference between a republican and a right wing pro wallstreet dem. I only like progressive dems. If democrats want to win they have to earn my vote. If they dont, the devil can have them.

[daleanime]

20. Yes, "not voting won't solve any problems."

But it's being beaten over our heads repeatedly that voting and being the majority mean nothing in this nation.

60-70% support Public Option, not even on the table.

80+% want no cuts in Social Security, you would think every public official would be running away as fast as they can from this idea: but no it's still being pursued.


The media and the legislators know that this isn't a center-right nation,
THEY DON'T CARE.

So we're left walking the tight rope between revolution and reform.


Alot of hard work ahead of us.

O8)

[Fire Walk With Me]

24. ...

:applause::hi:

[leftstreet]

27. +1

[a simple pattern]

49. Well said

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Tell me when the general assemblies have said don't vote

[Blue_In_AK]

29. One of our OWS activists has been registering people

to vote at our events. I haven't heard anyone discouraging voting.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Neither have I

Red hearings, and poisoning the well get old. I get it, people fear change, but lying ain't gonna help.

[pnwmom]

38. That's great. But I had just read an article about a controversy

among OWS people about whether they should be encouraging people to vote, or encouraging them to withhold their votes.

[Luminous Animal]

40. Which article is that? Link please.

[pnwmom]

43. Sorry, I have no idea. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

56. And you just read it?! Sorry, I don't believe you. And I can 100% assert that there is

no controversy.

[pnwmom]

69. I read it within the last couple days. Do you remember where you read everything you read?

Didn't think so.

(Unless, of course, you read very little.)

[Luminous Animal]

71. Pretty much, yeah. I have an uncanny near verbatim memory (much to the dismay of my husband...

when we are in an argument.) And if I've forgotten, there is always the history function in my browser.

[Avalux]

6. Learn what?

I'd like to believe a revolution can happen through voting; however I'm beginning to believe that no matter who from our 2 choices gets elected, the apparatus in place will not allow real change.

So what is the solution? The status quo isn't working.

[abelenkpe]

12. Check out history under FDR and Johnson

You need a massive push by the people, and to Vote for a seriously stacked congress in order to overcome the rabid push from minority reps.

[dameocrat67]

16. exactly and we are already living under corporate authoritarianism

so why should we fear something that has already happened.

[pnwmom]

18. Read Martin Luther King. His was the way.

Any talk of either not voting or violence will just empower the fascists.

You don't like what we have? You haven't seen anything yet

[RKP5637]

21. You are so correct. It's exactly what the fascists want to have happen and

then they will steamroll people in the name of national security, motherhood and apple pie. It's exactly what they want to have happen, not voting or violence. IMO it's stupid, really stupid not to vote. It's like pissing your pants. It make you feel warm, but does nothing in the big picture.

[dameocrat67]

26. mlk was not a democrat or a republican

just because you are not committed to a party does not make you an advocate of violence.

[pnwmom]

31. He was a strong advocate of VOTING as the only way to progress.

Of course being committed to a party doesn't make you an advocate of violence.

Being committed to voting doesn't either.

But people who are pushing for "revolution" often think violence is the only way forward.

[dameocrat67]

35. Ill bet he did not advocate voting for a dixiecrat

if i recall correctly the civil rights ran independent candidates against dixiecrats.

[dameocrat67]

28. Do you believe mlk voted for the dixiecrats, who were democrats by the way.

that is what you are advocating. you are advocating ows vote for democrats that oppose their agenda.

[pnwmom]

33. Back then there were liberal Republicans, like Nelson Rockefeller

and conservative Democrats. We still have some conservative Democrats, but no liberal Republicans.

I'm sure MLK always voted for whoever he thought was the better candidate.

[dameocrat67]

37. and what if he thought both were skunks.

n/t

[leftstreet]

8. Who's calling for revolution?

[elleng]

11. Thanks. Was gonna ask that.

[deutsey]

13. that's what leaderless, unruly mobs do, don'tcha know?

:sarcasm:

[pnwmom]

39. I've heard it countless times here on DU. Are you seriously saying you haven't?

Although the mods do delete explicit calls for violence, they do happen,

[leftstreet]

47. So what? Obama campaigned on 'change.'

Apparently people are calling for change again. Big deal

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Yes I have used the r word

I am truly cognizant that the r word does not include guillotines regularly. In fact this country has a peaceful revolution every so often. The New Deal WAS a revolution, so was the civil right movement and the Reagan revolution. I missed the people's committees or people's courts in either of them. Care to point them to me?

Save the Revolution and the civil war our revolutions tend to be mostly peaceful. But those who prevent peaceful revolutions assure the violent kind. I guess I should call President Kennedy comrade for stating the obvious.

[RegieRocker]

9. ROFLAMO

It's a damn good thing people didn't think like you in 1763. How on earth can you say this when this country started from a revolution? Are you OK?

[apocalypsehow]

30. 1763? Can you say "was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"

I think you meant "1776."

[RegieRocker]

36. No it started in 1763.

Answer my question.

[apocalypsehow]

41. No, it didn't: the only thing that "started" in 1763 was Pontiac's War, and France ceding Canada to

Great Britain, also known as the end of the Seven Years War. Colonial grievances were nowhere on the horizon, yet.

Second, I'm not the OP, and don't really have any opinion one way or another regarding your "question." Just doing you a favor by educating you on a bit of history you don't seem to know much about - and you're welcome! :thumbsup:

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. May I recommend a book?

:hi:

The unknown American Revolution by Gary Nash.

It goes into the threads that started to radicalize people, before the French Indian wars.

[apocalypsehow]

51. Sure: you could go all the way back to the termination of the War of the Roses and the rise of the

House of Tudor if you want to get "technical" about the seeds that originally germinated into what later, generations later, was part of the justification for first the Glorious Revolution and later the American colonies rebellion against their rightful government. But most people generally date the origins of the American Revolution - which was really a transcontinental English Civil War; we call it a "revolution" because it sounds better - to 1776, and the Declaration.

Stating that what we call the American Revolution began in 1763 is historically wrong in about any context and in any event, and "recommending" all the books in the world does not change that fact. :hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. As I said Gary Nash an EXPERT in the revolutionary

Period is a nobody...noted.

Wallow in your ignorance.

Have a good day...and we all know movements emerge Athena like from zeus's head.

Thanks for the correction. It came fully formed on The Fourth of July of 1776... Nothing that preceded it mattered. It came poof. That is grammar school thinking but if this fits your way of thinking who am I to question your expertise. I should have the library banish experts and bow to your expertise.

No, no sarcasm needed.

[apocalypsehow]

58. And as I said: most people date the commencement of the American Revolution to 1776, and the

Declaration. The rest is just putting words in my mouth since (1) I never said anyone was a "nobody" and (2) that anything came "fully formed" and then "poof" just erupted onto the scene fully formed.

But I do find it curious that you complain about non-existent "personal attacks" in one post, and in the very next one engage in some actual ones: "Wallow in your ignorance...grammar school thinking."

Tsk, tsk: now nadinbrezinski, that's not a very scholarly way to reply to people who have gently corrected you on your historical errors. :hi:


Edit: html fixed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. You need to learn HOW TO FRACKING READ

Thevrevolution started in 1776. The MOVEMENTS that led to it started in the 1740s. What is the problem? It is not grammar school history. Oh and yes Washington did cut the cherry tree and never told a lie either.

[apocalypsehow]

61. Oh, I read just fine: Reggierocker stated the Revolution started in 1763, I corrected him with the

actual date, and you weighed in with a lot of noise and irrelevancies about MOVEMENTS and such, which was not an issue under debate.

But feel free to keep believing whatever you wish, and I and the actual historians and scholars will keep believing what we wish, "m'kay"? :hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Buy bie have a good day

Know it all.

[apocalypsehow]

65. Bye bye, my fellow DU'er nadinbrezinski! Parting is such sweet sorrow, to coin a phrase....

:cry:

Have a great afternoon! :hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. You want to be technical 'bout that, look further back to the 1740s

When a slew of movements started the radicalization. One of them was even religious and shit.

[apocalypsehow]

45. Ahhh: our resident "trend" spotter weighs in. Looks like you need to take another gander at a

history textbook, or two. And too.

BTW, nice to see you have decided to deign us with your presence again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=777837

:rofl:

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Yup, since Gary Nash is a nobody

In the American historical establishment. Take your issues with him, m'kay.

Oh and personal attacks are just fucking dandy you attacker you. By the way that is a history book...may I recommend you read the AHA too? Jaysus there are days!!!!!!

[apocalypsehow]

53. And I'm even graced with one of those trademark "m'kay"s! This is my lucky day.

I'll stick with the accepted date among most scholars and historians for the commencement of the American Revolution, and you can say it started whenever you want, how about that? Is that "m'kay" with you?

By the bye, how is welcoming you back to DU so you can share some more of your spotted "trends" a personal attack? Touchy, touchy.....

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. I did not say it started

M'kay. You relly need to learn how to read.

And Nash is an ignorant fool who knows nothing, never mind he is considered an expert.

But let's try this. Did not write Te date it started...that be July 4th 1776. I said the MOVEMENTS THAT LED TO IT STARTED IN THE 1740s which is standard and accepted thinking.

But you are the expert...so let's throw the journals and books out...you are the expert on everything.

Oh I forgot, we also need to throw all the primary sources to the trash too

Now that requires the :sarcasm:

[apocalypsehow]

60. No, ReggieRocker said it started in 1763, and you doubled down on that historical error by stating

" You want to be technical 'bout that, look further back to the 1740s". The clear intent of that post was to support the notion that "it" - that being the American Revolution - "started" not just in 1763, but twenty year prior to it! That is simply historically false.

Now, you are free to believe the American Revolution started whenever you wish, and I'll believe what the actual scholars and historians say. "M'kay"?


"And Nash is an ignorant fool who knows nothing, never mind he is considered an expert....But you are the expert...so let's throw the journals and books out...you are the expert on everything.

Oh I forgot, we also need to throw all the primary sources to the trash too."

Nadinbrezinski, my fellow DU'er, what did I tell you about putting words into people's mouths? That's not the sort of thing groundbreaking "trend" spotters do, now is it? :hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. The trens started in the 1740s

But whatever...as I said washington could never tell a lie and did cut the cherry tree. For anybody who cares? That was created out of whole cloth by Washington Irving. Speaking the truth, Washington was in charge of a spy ring would be ahem unamerican. I took his as the trends started as in TRENDS. you can't deal with trends...and the fact that the VIOLENT phase started in 1776 and that events that radicalized the population started much earlier is way beyond what you understand.

By the way those of us who understand this are all but shocked that people are finally in the streets or that people continue to be radicalized. Alas your thinking is black and white. Oh and do me a favor, for your mental sanity stick to grammar school and don't read nash. Do yourself a favor. Pick a copy of Washington Irving's trope, far more up your alley.

I am dead serious on that.

[apocalypsehow]

64. But we weren't debating "trends": the sole issue on the table was the mistaken notion that 1763 was

the year the American Revolution started. And it still is a mistaken notion, ten replies later. :hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. Buy bie, now habpve the last word

And enjoy Washington Irving.

http://www.amazon.com/George-Washington-Biography-Irving/dp/0306805936

[dameocrat67]

10. I will vote but not for all dems

just those who seem truly sympathetic to ows.

[MadHound]

15. Ah yes, can only have a Democratic party sanctioned revolt,

Anything else will lead to disaster, right?:eyes:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Politicians are to OWS what turds are to salad.

[War Horse]

44. No. They should earn the privilege, sure

But that kind of one size fits all sentiment is harmful.

[girl gone mad]

50. The fascists have been brought on..

through the system you endorse.

We are fighting fascism here. Wake the fuck up.

[On the Road]

66. What I Think a Lot of People Fail to Realize About Revolutions

is that a power vacuum is always filled. And it's usually filled by someone with no allegiance to the principles that ignited the revolution. That's why my support of the OWS principles is tempered by the philosophy and methods.

In Libya, a change of power of any kind was clearly better than the status quo. In the US it is clearly not.

[Marr]

68. Who said "bring on the revolution, let the government collapse"? n/t

[Zorra]

72. Yes! Exactly what Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Franklin, and Washington were saying.

Well, OK, maybe not quite exactly.
:eyes:
Yeah...OK. That's not how it worked at all..

[RagAss]

73. It's fascism now ...... What the hell is there to learn ?

[Warren Stupidity]

74. I stand with Occupy Wall Street.

More of the same isn't working. Haven't you noticed?