Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: What will be the start of the revolution?

Posted 10 years ago on April 10, 2012, 12:51 p.m. EST by Recycleman (102)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

All revolutions or Arab spring have a point of no return. We are approaching a time when the oppression by a dominate 1% will lead to their demise.

It could be The campaign reform that allows corp sponsored elected officials. Repeal of Obamacare. taxed by police for arrest

So I don't Give to many choices.

What is your point of no return. Where you walk on Washington? Your shot heard around the world.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 10 years ago

It could be the crash of the dollar. When the dollar becomes nothing, all investments and bank accounts turn to zilch. Business cannot be conducted, you can't buy even buy food. I think at this point, people might get a little upset.

[-] 1 points by Recycleman (102) 10 years ago

What will cause the dollar to crash.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 10 years ago

The long term cause has been the extraction of wealth from our economy by the super wealthy without any investment back into it. A more specific event is likely to trigger the final chain reaction leading to complete collapse, such as the collapse of the Euro. That is, unless Glass Steagall is passed to prevent the collapse.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 10 years ago
[-] 3 points by rbe (687) 10 years ago

As long as we are as divided as we are now as a society, I don't think there will be a point of no return. There will just be a steady decline. If there is a point of no return, it will be when the baby boomers' quality of life deteriorates during their retirement. If their social security gets cut, or if it doesn't increase with inflation, then that may cause it.

[-] 1 points by Recycleman (102) 10 years ago

They have a strong voting group. Problem is they believe the news as fact based and are not up to this types of communication for truth.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 10 years ago

Yeah. If it's not on CNN, ABC, or CBS then my parents don't believe it. :/

[-] 2 points by amanofnoimportance (82) from Orlando, FL 10 years ago

When someone kills TV and the internet long enough to cause people to withdraw and inevitably contemplate their circumstances.

These perfectly accessible activities make the average person docile and engrossed in a fantasy land instead of evaluating his/her circumstances.

[-] 1 points by nichole (525) 10 years ago

It already started. Revolution is an ongoing process.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 10 years ago

The enactment of the Free Democracy Amendment http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/ where applicable at the state level in the 24 ballot initiative states could spark a revolution, be it peaceful or violent. Any violence would be based upon the extent that corporate dominated politicians would be willing to prevent the people of the 26 non-ballot initiative states from receiving the newly established liberties of the other 24. Likewise at the national level in resisting national ratification.

  1. People becoming aware of just how unfree they are,
  2. Trying to peacefully become free through the political system,
  3. And meeting with defeat,

could lead to a revolution.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

there is no point of no return

that is a myth

there is always a choice

[-] 1 points by Recycleman (102) 10 years ago

The point of no return in this subject content is when the choice is made that starts a change by force.

[-] 1 points by MarshaCoakley (-1) from Valley Stream, NY 10 years ago

How about you start by getting a good firm grasp on the language?

[-] 1 points by Recycleman (102) 10 years ago

How about staying on subject

[-] 1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 10 years ago

It Is looking like the argument over space will be the fuel.OCCUPY!


[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 10 years ago

there won't be....a 'revolution'...People are too complacent and the process of steady decline will continue and when the sheeple do wake up...it will be too late ;)

[-] 1 points by JadedGem (895) 10 years ago

I think there are fewer and fewer sheeple everyday. There are too many of them blindly taking out student loans without figuring it up to see if it is still a good investment. There are too many of them buying tech, who needs a smart phone, laptop, ipad, ebook-reader and desktop??? Obviously too many got new cars. Its hard not to loose faith in people. People are afraid to protest but no one is putting a gun to their head and making them splurge at the mall! There are quiet ways to make yourself more worthless to a society who only sees your life in terms of the dollars you generate by being alive. Not everyone lives in a major city or is able to go to a protest but they can start to change their lives in other ways. Remind them, participating in boycotts is cheap and hassle-free anyone can do it anywhere and everywhere!

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 10 years ago

I don't know. This country is very large and everyone is spread out, so it will be hard for many to see just how bad things have gotten. Once this hits the rural areas, and no one in town can afford to live in their own homes...that's when things will get heated.

[-] 0 points by DownwithObama (0) from Jersey City, NJ 10 years ago

No apologies accepted.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

Developing a broad consensus would be the first step. You can't skip that step. Occupy wants to skip that step. That isn't possible.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 10 years ago

As someone who has been a revolutionary socialist for nearly 50 years, I'd have to say that we are a very very long way from even a prerevolutionary period, much less a revolutionary period. Virtually no institutions of dual power exist an essential prerequisite for any revolutionary seizure of power. This is not to suggest that the situation could not change very rapidly, but I don't really see that happening either. It does seem to be true that more and more groups and organizations are joining in the May Day activities and more and more groups seem willing to characterize it as a general strike. But a one day strike is one thing, a revolution quite another.

[-] 1 points by Recycleman (102) 10 years ago

What would cause a rapid change to cause a revolution.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 10 years ago

A major success in an isolated but well publicized instance could inspire essentially copy cat events in numerous other cases. For example, there have been sit down strikes or work place take overs throughout history. Most are extremely short lived lasting only a few hours or even only a few minutes. Most of the rest are ill publicized or brutally put down. In 1936 auto workers took over and extensive plant complex in Flint Michigan and held it for more than a month. This inspired similar events all around the nation and in a period of 10 months a half a million workers took over their work places. This was coordinated with the activity of 5 million other workers who as part of this coordinated process organized the CIO. Industrial union councils were formed in every state and major city and in most counties. Had the momentum of this movement continued these councils may have formed the basis for dual power. What intervened to interrupt that process was the largest war in human history. There are numerous other examples, but I wanted to pick one that was both relatively recent and specifically American.


[-] 0 points by bobgnote (-55) 10 years ago

Maybe somebody will learn to read, go to law school, and sue enough riotous government and corporate cartel profiteers at riot, so we don't suffer a catastrophic meltdown of some kind. As for revolution, too many people into this cannot even read enough, to get to the part of the news, which tells how the three-letter agencies have us by the e-trade, and they trash whistleblowers, and since non-readers don't actually look at my posts, they miss the part about how the NSA is a likely suspect, as to why guitar music took off in 1971, but it isn't around as much, since so many of the corporate plagiarists were sync-tape geeks, in concert, not even playing what they stole! You just cannot revolt, successfully, when DD doesn't read, and the pigs were listening, before DD was even born, such as, since 1948, when the National Security Agency was founded. If anybody thinks a revolution can get past pigs who profiteer on uneven enforcement SO MUCH, they blow past WBPA to prosecute whistleblowers with Espionage Act or Sedition Act, let me offer a clue. NOT NO WAY, NOT NO HOW.

[-] 1 points by Recycleman (102) 10 years ago

I agree to a point except that it is those are the people that make the first strike. They have nothing else to be taken from them except their life and that has been threatened.

You make a good point.

Belief that the law officials will protect them will be the biggest mistake. They are using them presently but forget that they are doing to their protectors the same as the rest of us.

[-] 0 points by bobgnote (-55) 10 years ago

Global warming will eventually translate, to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, in a lot of places, cyclonic storms, and a rebound, to colder temperatures, in an out-of-control global reflex. Cartel-connected agencies are monitoring this, likely. But when that big volcano at Yellowstone blows up, and the trade currents falter, not necessarily in that order, and when cyclonic storms are too tough for anything but berm structures, anarchy has a real chance. I doubt government is smart enough to avoid violence. we will probably all get killed by hunger or gunfire.

[-] 1 points by Recycleman (102) 10 years ago

Earthquake so California falls into the ocean and kills 1/5 of the population.

[-] 0 points by bobgnote (-55) 10 years ago

Earthquakes will not only affect California, but also the entire West Coast and up the gut, in the New Madrid zone. As the tides roll on, so will the quakes. As for Cali falling into the sea, more likely the usual trend of accretion will send Hawaii in our direction, and will collide with the North American land mass, before any of you figures out Michael Jackson was a ripoff who couldn't get another hit, when his hotspot quit playing eruptions, for him and Eddie the ripoff guitarist to dupe. Cali ain't going into the sea, but the sea will get up, over our cities.

[-] 0 points by EricBlair (447) 10 years ago

Combine the next Lehman brothers or Euro-zone crisis (and the subsequent global economic collapse) with the rapid advances in mass consciousness facilitated by the internet. It's a recipe for truly world-wide General Strike and insurrection.

It's inevitable. The 1% know it perfectly well too. Their days are numbered.

"If there was hope, it must lie in the proles because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, 85 percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated. The Party could not be overthrown from within... But the proles, if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength, would have no need to conspire. They needed only to rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies. If they chose they could blow the Party to pieces tomorrow morning. Surely sooner or later it must occur to them to do it?" --- George Orwell, 1984

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 10 years ago

When the people get smart. Just look through this board. Most are still voting for one of two warmongering, thieving parties.

We arent even close.

[-] 1 points by EricBlair (447) 10 years ago

Most people don't vote, actually...

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 10 years ago

They don't. Most just dont care. I would guess that of the 60% that dont vote, only about 25% of them dont because they have been down the political road and realize they are all criminals, and people outside the duopoly have no chance because of the stupidity of the masses.

[-] 1 points by EricBlair (447) 10 years ago

I think it's because people understand that there is no reason to vote. It's doesn't affect anything. It's not going to affect their lives either way because it's fake.

If we actually lived in a democracy, and voting could actually tangibly impact the world, I suspect more people would care about it.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 10 years ago

I think if people would just create their own people to vote for, with their own parties if they have to bundle them, then they would see just how easy it is to fix all this bullshit. But they simply wont give it a shot.

[-] 1 points by EricBlair (447) 10 years ago

There are all kinds of barriers to prevent that. People have been running on that hamster wheel for many decades getting nowhere. In the past, some people have actually overcome all those institutional barriers (like the corporate media, co-option by other entities etc) and started to build real political support.

They were violently suppressed and murdered such as with COINTELPRO or other examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

People have given it many shots---we just don't live in the society you seem to think we do. We need to ACT, not vote.

"If voting could really change things, it would be illegal." ---Unknown

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5909) 10 years ago

It is illegal in varying degrees. For instance, people in the US have never been legally able to vote federally elected representatives out of office in a recall vote. They have never been able to engage in a federal level initiative or referendum vote. These types of votes would bring about real change and challenges to unaccountable politicians, so they're not allowed. From the very beginning, the founding fathers had voted down the proposition of recalls for federal representatives while senators weren't voted for until the passing of the 17th amendment. To this day, an actual right to vote does not exist at the federal level, only constitutional amendments to prohibit various forms of discrimination that had been enacted by the states. So, while you may not be openly discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, or age upon becoming 18, the states still legally discriminate against convicts and ex-cons whose crimes had nothing to do with voting yet are nevertheless prohibited from voting. Even at the state level, only 24 of the 50 states have ballot initiatives. Voting is only allowed when it is not perceived to be a threat to the political-economic interests to allow it.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 10 years ago

Haha, ya I know what you mean.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 10 years ago

I may be wrong, but I think that quote was from one of the high-ranking NY mob bosses. Lansky probably. Not surprisingly, politics, and the power therein, were a fairly common topic of conversation among 'dos guys.'

[-] 0 points by Recycleman (102) 10 years ago

You got it.

This site should be.

Occupy the vote

[-] 0 points by Skippy2 (485) 10 years ago

Be careful what you wish for! A revolution leading to violence in the US will be a bloodbath. It would make the Civil War look like a picnic. What Assad is doing in Syria would be nothing compared to all out violent revolution here.

[-] 2 points by EricBlair (447) 10 years ago

The logistics of armed conflict with the population of the continental US against the US government are overwhelmingly in the People's favor---much more so than in Syria.

The Pentagon's advanced weapons systems (like fighters and submarines) are useful for fighting against other Nation-States---not for military occupation of a territory. As we can see from their inability to control a region like Afghanistan.

They wouldn't stand a chance at dominating a determined and united American public. They know this too. They know their power rests on smoke and mirrors. It depends on our complacency and illusions of powerlessness.

[-] 2 points by gforz (-43) 10 years ago

The problem is the with our divided populace, think about how easy it would be for the powers that be to convince (hell, they're ALREADY convinced) that the reason for the implosion were the radical ideas of the "other" side (liberals, socialists, communists, atheists, right wing nuts, teabatggers, every label imaginable), and you would have the people fighting each other instead of the government. And there are a lot of very well armed folks out there. I have never been a gun owner, nor wish to be, but even I've talked to my wife about the possibility of getting one or two, just in case this "revolution" ever comes about.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 10 years ago

This paragraph needs to be its own post.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 10 years ago

I don't always agree with you as you well know, but I do believe that you are right about this. Our divided populace has been promoted by the elites in order to keep us busy while they do their thing, which is why we are, where we are at. That is another reason why I do not like to see this devolve into a partisan battle, as there is much we have in common, including a love of our civil liberties, and wanting a government that is representative of the people.

I too have never owned a gun in my life, but I do respect the rights of gun owners, as many people are responsible gun owners. I also have two daughters who own guns for good reasons. One owns a summer cabin in a remote area of Alaska, and the other is a public defender, also in Alaska. There are a lot of grizzlies, and crazies out there. Oddly enough though, they are both vegetarians. My other daughter who like me is not a vegey, and does not own a gun like to tease them, 'how many berries did you shoot off the bush today?' Yes, I too have thought about purchasing a gun.

[-] 0 points by gforz (-43) 10 years ago

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a capability of having a government that is representative of the people, because half of the people want one thing and half another. There are some commonalities, but it's getting to the point where we might just have to say "irreconcilable differences" and get a divorce.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 10 years ago

I'm an optimist, maybe to the point of naivete, but I will always believe our differences can be reconciled, at least to the point where such a large part of our population is not spewing out hatred. This will only come about by education, and a rejection of that vitriolic discource by the rest of us. And yes, I may have gone over the line with you in the past, and if so, I apologize.

[-] 0 points by gforz (-43) 10 years ago

Here's my two cents worth. I believe that virtually everyone with a brain can agree that our banking system needs regulation, compartmentalizing if you will, so that the actions of a Lehman Brothers or Goldman Sachs cannot bring down the economy. That's common sense to me. I think that even most conservatives are not down with companies or organizations buying elections, and that goes for both sides. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court rules that these corporations and organizations have a voice in our system like any person, as they are a collection of people, so we're going to have to work on how to fix that. Most of the rest of major disagreement are matters of degree. I think most OWS or liberal activists would like a strong national security apparatus but they want the dollars spent wisely, defensively, and for it to have certain limits. Contrary to popular opinion, conservatives do not wish to push granny off a cliff or see poor folks and their kids starve. They wish there to be limits to governmental assistance and for the private sector (charities, churches, individuals) to take up the rest of the slack. Everyone believes our children need a good education, especially now. Conservatives believe parents should have choices in where they send their kids to school and that there should be competition amongst competing paradigms as to what works best, and they don't believe that simply pouring money into a bureaucracy necessarily improves it. And I think that both sides would like everyone to have access to at least basic healthcare. I think it is pretty obvious that the present system doesn't work for some people, and it is expensive for the rest. At the same time, I don't see how, unless the cost of care is reduced, that we can afford to pay for heart surgery or kidney transplants or basically unlimited healthcare for everyone without seriously raising taxes on everyone. It's just a big conundrum, one that if it were easy, would have been done years ago. It is so very difficult and it isn't easy for parents or politicians to say no to their kids or constituents. There isn't any immediate upside, usually just scorn and condemnation.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 10 years ago

Once we have a representative healthy democracy/republic of the the people, I am willing to abide by the collective decisions made. Yes, we should address our problems in a thoughtful way. Neither conservatives or liberals have all the right answers, but it is the conservatives more than anyone else who are an impediment for this process to take place. Raher they engage in a series of sound bytes...catch phrases that appeal to the most juvenile, and sometimes even base aspects in humanity. They thrive on apathy, and ignorance.They more than anyone else do their best to divide us, ensuring that the real problems we face never get addressed in a rational manner, and they do so in a very vitriolic way.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

You start off in good form - but it has been my experience that that is your place of being.


[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 10 years ago

Thanks...big smile, right?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

YEP you got that right.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 10 years ago

I don't always articulate my thoughts well as you probably know. That frustrates me, but other times, usually late night I do a better job.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

mornings are clearer for me

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 10 years ago

In The Still of the night...a great old 60s song.


[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 10 years ago

I love the idea...watching the sun come up, and all that, and I have done that many times in my career as a merchant marine, but I am definitely a night owl. Only one of my three daughters has followed in my not so enviable habits. It is just the peace, and tranquility of night that appeals to me most...and it is usually when I think best.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

in the still of the night

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

I can relate to that. I have gotten a bit better at that since I first started participating here. It is another muscle getting exercise - it gets stronger as you go.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 10 years ago

I all comes down to, use it or lose it.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

Yes - exercise and get stronger as well. Preform mental gymnastics for flexibility balance and coordination too. A fit mind is a working mind.

[-] 0 points by gforz (-43) 10 years ago

I would only disagree and say that both sides do it on a daily basis. Democrats decry the use of the filibuster by Republicans, and are using it at this very minute to delay a vote on the Keystone pipeline. They are demogoguing a sincere religious belief by the Catholic Church on contraception and saying it is a "war on women" and Republicans "want to take away women's healthcare" (just listen to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Axelrod, or any of the other attack dogs they parade on the liberal network (MSNBC). I happen to watch MSNBC on a nightly basis, because in the central time zone you can catch Sharpton and Matthews at 5 and 6, and then switch to O'Reilly at 7, skip the 8 o'clock hour because both hosts at that hour are ridiculous, then watch Greta at 9. I don't always catch the full hour of any one of them, but I can say with certainty that Sharpton never has anyone who disagrees with him on, just liberal sycophant regurgitating the daily line, Matthews is better, but it's usually a 2 on 1 attack with Matthews and a Democratic "strategist" attacking a Republican. Matthews interrupts at will and constantly makes very quick snide remarks about whatever the Republican says just prior to cutting him off. Watch O'Reilly sometime and you will see him debating regularly one-on-one with people like Marc Lamont Hill, who is a liberal professor, but not a shrinking violet and others. He also has 2 on 1 segments, but he is famous for saying "you have the last word" on a particular subject and "I could be wrong, what say you?" I guess it depends on your political slant, but I would say the "tone" is much more balanced than the heads on MSNBC. The basic fact of politics is that you can't appear to be reasonable and get elected these days. You must be an absolute warrior for your side's collective policies, or you will get attacked by the Tea Party on the right, and Moveon.org and Daily Kos on the left. You are seen as "caving" to the other side if you'd like to work with them. It is just polar politics, a kill-or-be-killed attitude. It's going to be terrible to watch after the election this year, because you constantly hear about the "clear choice", the "bright lines" that are being drawn, and whichever side wins the election will claim an absolute mandate from the "people" to do whatever they want, when in reality the election will be close to 50-50, whichever way it goes. It's sickening.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 10 years ago

I don't know who half the people are on the political talk shows you mentioned , but I do think it is vital to hear both sides, and I also agree the "polar politics " in this country is 'sickening," as it prevents us from moving forward, and tackling the most pressing issues we face.

Where we vehemently disagree is who is most at fault for this fairly new, in our lifetime, screwed-up political paradigm. The fact also remains that the republicans have initiated neoliberalism, but yes it is both parties who have helped keep it in place, and that is to the detriment of the rest of us as corporate and banking interests are put ahead of people's interests.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

Yep politics is really not the issue - pardon - issues are the issue - the rest is distraction smoke and mirrors.

Issues do not need party's they need resolution in a manner that supports the good of "ALL" not the good of the very "FEW".

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 10 years ago

They want us to bicker back and forth about gays in the military...abortion...guns, and now war on women, while they fleece us with their corporate sponsored economics. Don't forget about that doc M, P, & WS tonight.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

I already have Frontline programed in and am really looking forward to seeing it.


[-] 0 points by gforz (-43) 10 years ago

And I usually would ask people to stop talking about it, because there are people who just get ginned up thinking about it. It's just a step below incitement in my opinion. I think people romanticize something like a revolution, and most of the time they don't even get what they wanted out of it in the first place. Not saying some things aren't worth fighting for, but it would get real, real ugly. Would be similar to the Mexican drug cartel violence, except on a much wider scale.

[-] 2 points by MachineShopHippie (216) from Louisville, KY 10 years ago

Yeah... that's why the department of homeland security is giving 'grants' to small farming communities for armored vehicles.


"Uses for the Bearcat in Keene include, “Pumpkin Festival and other dangerous situations,” Keene Police Chief Kenneth Meola said during a February 9, 2012 public hearing where over 100 residents voiced concerns about the new vehicle."

Except for Terry Clark, the lone dissenter who just doesn't know why they need a war wagon in a small farming community, the city council unanimously voted for this beast.

...after several petitions and appearances at their meetings by the citizens who elected them, imploring them not to let DHS do this expensive, unnecessary, and frankly threatening thing to their town.

I propose that this should be the start of the revolution in Keene. Recall the city council. Don't vote anybody but Terry Clark back in, since they have all exposed their willingness to ignore the will of the citizens they are supposed to represent.

Then block the bearcat, void the grant, and keep control of your town through civic activism.

If your next town council wants to take bribes from Homeland Security in clear violation of the will of the people, they should be publicly flogged.


Politicians are the voice of the people. These should be civil servant jobs where a person takes time away from their primary career to dutifully give voice to the needs, concerns and opinions of the people they represent. Instead, politicians decide which lobbyist they want to ignore their people in favor of.

Politicians that betray the sacred trust placed in them by the voters should be publicly, painfully punished. No more of this 'Sure, I wasted billions of dollars of taxpayer money, told lies that cost people their lives, and generally sold the power that people entrusted me with, but I had to sell my beach house and go to jail for 6 months... haven't I suffered enough?'

A politician whose bad acts cost a life should be publicly executed.

A politician caught taking a bribe should be fined 500% of the amount they received, and forced to stand in stocks in the town square for 1 minute for every dollar they took. If politicians looked at suitcases full of money and just saw 5 suitcases of potential liability and literally years standing in stocks, they wouldn't take bribes.

It sounds a little Draconian, and I absolutely hate that things are coming down to this, but really, if you can't trust your own f*ing city council to vote with you, against Homeland Security, what prayer does anyone have of keeping anything sacred from the government?

[-] 1 points by EricBlair (447) 10 years ago

Right on!

[-] 2 points by MachineShopHippie (216) from Louisville, KY 10 years ago

"show them who's boss"



Letter to the editor written by a citizen of Keene about showing Homeland Security who's boss:

*"Hundreds of Keene residents and businesses signed a petition against the BearCat. More than 30 letters to the editor since mid December, when it started.

An online poll done by The Sentinel with 87 percent opposed or wanting it to be reconsidered.

All this presented to the councilors by an overflow crowd; people had to be turned away for fire regulations!

And they are still going to vote for it and cram this BearCat down the throat of a public that loudly and clearly opposes it!

Please call your city councilors to tell them you don’t want them to vote for this thing. This is the BearCat sales rep from the Huffington Post article: “Massery predicted opposition from Keene residents will ultimately be in vain. ‘We have BearCats in 90 percent of the 100 or so largest cities in America,’ Massery said. ‘This is going to happen. It has already happened. To resist now would be like saying police officers should scrap the Glock and go back to the revolver. It’s a fantasy.’ ”

He said it’s a “fantasy.” Let us Keene residents show Mr. Massery that it isn’t a fantasy, that we can say “no” to this."

I guess they found out what the real fantasy was...

...and who the real boss is.

I retract my former statements. The current council shouldn't be recalled. They should be hanged.

[-] 1 points by Skippy2 (485) 10 years ago

EricBlair ,I did not say the US Gov't would win....I am certain that millons of us would be dead or wounded. This is only regarding a revolution of violence.

[-] 1 points by EricBlair (447) 10 years ago

Peaceful revolution is a beautiful idea---but it's a sheltered delusion that flies in the face history and reality:


[-] 1 points by Recycleman (102) 10 years ago

You gave the example of the first revolution.

What will cause the second one?

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 10 years ago

Revolutions don't need to be violent. We do not need to actually overthrow the government in any physical sense. We only need to undermine, or at least ignore it. (What is a government anyway if nobody heeds to it?) Revolution can start simply by committing to changing our thinking and lifestyles.

Let us all start our own revolutions right away today.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 10 years ago

Exactly. I and many others have started our own in the ways you suggest years ago. Many more need to do likewise.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 10 years ago

What 'Assad' is doing in Syria?

Hello..wake the hell up and STOP taking everything for face value!

Gen Wesley Clark Reveals US Plan To Invade Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, And Iran


[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 10 years ago

I dont think the people have the will for it anymore.

They only want to attack the other side, and pray their own side suddenly stops screwing them.

Plus the gov has all the big guns now...

[-] 0 points by Skippy2 (485) 10 years ago

Truer words were never said.

[-] 1 points by Recycleman (102) 10 years ago

The troops are more likely to lay down their weapons an join. They are the 1%.


[-] -1 points by passinthetime3 (-1) 10 years ago

Someone making an idiotic post without regard to spelling or puncation would be close to my "shot heard around the world"

[-] 1 points by MachineShopHippie (216) from Louisville, KY 10 years ago

Yeah... spelling and... puncation?

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 10 years ago

That definitely rates a 'like!'

[-] 0 points by Recycleman (102) 10 years ago

Boy that was profane. You should add to the conversation not be a hater.

Where do you draw the line. Guns, pot, free speech, greed?