Question about the next American Revolution

[Duddy]

EDIT: Why yes, yes I AM retarded.

EDIT 2: To punish myself (and to satisfy the flamers) for asking the stupidest question on ATOT this week, I am putting "Hello, I'm an idiot" in my sig for 24 hours.

 

[Alistar7]

I will respond in a minute, I just have to finish putting on my tin foil hat and launching the anti invisible black helicoptor shields.

 

[Feldenak]

Honestly, how fucking stupid are you?

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Honestly, how fucking stupid are you?

He is a Ron Paul supporter....

OP, Kennedy and Clinton both enjoyed many young and relentless supporters.

 

[badkarma1399]

Sure, go ahead and do it. The worst that could happen is you go to jail and it makes an interesting story for us here on ATOT to read.

Just please don't mention Ron Paul anywhere on the site. His campaign doesn't need any more association with radicals.

 

[Kadarin]

IIRC it's illegal to advocate the overthrow of the US government.

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Honestly, how fucking stupid are you?

He is a Ron Paul supporter....

OP, Kennedy and Clinton both enjoyed many young and relentless supporters.

The only difference is that those supporters were part of the majority, and not part of an angry political minority.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Honestly, how fucking stupid are you?

He is a Ron Paul supporter....

OP, Kennedy and Clinton both enjoyed many young and relentless supporters.

And for a good reason. All the experienced voters vote/voted for someone else.

The only reason Clinton won is because some jerk face Republican ran for the independent and split the Repub vote.

Kennedy won because everyone thought he was hot, and everyone was on drugs, so it didn't matter.

Originally posted by: badkarma1399
Sure, go ahead and do it. The worst that could happen is you go to jail and it makes an interesting story for us here on ATOT to read.

Just please don't mention Ron Paul anywhere on the site. His campaign doesn't need any more association with radicals.

yeah, after the neo Nazis are claiming he's one of them, lol. Although that sounds like a smear.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Honestly, how fucking stupid are you?

He is a Ron Paul supporter....

OP, Kennedy and Clinton both enjoyed many young and relentless supporters.

wait a dog gone minute...he is a Ron who supporter??


Is that something akin to that old joke goes something like....there are only 2 things in Texas...steers and queers and since I see no horns on you you must be a queer...lol

 

[Gunslinger08]

I find it very ironic that someone wanting to overthrow a government is worried about its rules.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Honestly, how fucking stupid are you?

He is a Ron Paul supporter....

OP, Kennedy and Clinton both enjoyed many young and relentless supporters.

And for a good reason. All the experienced voters vote/voted for someone else.

The only reason Clinton won is because some jerk face Republican ran for the independent and split the Repub vote.

Kennedy won because everyone thought he was hot, and everyone was on drugs, so it didn't matter.

Originally posted by: badkarma1399
Sure, go ahead and do it. The worst that could happen is you go to jail and it makes an interesting story for us here on ATOT to read.

Just please don't mention Ron Paul anywhere on the site. His campaign doesn't need any more association with radicals.

yeah, after the neo Nazis are claiming he's one of them, lol. Although that sounds like a smear.

Not a fan of either party, rather cynical of both and politicians in general.


Clinton/Kennedy supporters might have been in the majority, but it was their anger about the current administration/policy that sparked their acitivism.

I would think most minorities would agree that what Kennedy accomplished mattered. You put the drug revolution about 10 years before it's time, that had not even happened when JFK was elected. The "more experienced" voters must have voted for LBJ. He got his chance in the next term and we got Vietnam, those must have have been some wise, experienced voters lol.

I would also venture most investors would agree the fiscal responsibility and resulting economic impact under Clinton mattered. He won twice BTW, without an independent stealing votes from both sides the 2nd time.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
I find it very ironic that someone wanting to overthrow a government is worried about its rules.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking that

 

[Mo0o]

god i'll be so glad when this election is over and the whole internet can stop hugging ron paul's nutsack

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
I find it very ironic that someone wanting to overthrow a government is worried about its rules.

he wants to be protected by the piece of paper that he wants to overthrow and abolish. duh!
:laugh:


on a side-note, I have a buddy that thinks its okay to - and that the government should - make changes to the Constitution to make it more modernized. I say: , as well.. the government was not set to be ruled by the constitution (by which I mean, the government's laws should not be held within the constitution), but rather the constitution was meant to be a framework for creating as minimal of a government as possible, and letting the idea of a federation system run true. sadly, everyone else fails to see this and want to continue to give the federal government all the power and leave the states powerless.

it seems as if the EU is currently in a state of governing in which our country was supposed to be, with the top government laying only the groundwork, and the individual states (those who know the definition of a state should understand why the colonies became 'states', and why all the U.S. states to this day are referred to as states, and not provinces or what have you) governing themselves and working together through the top level. This has been abandoned.

While I don't really define myself as a Ron Paul supporter, as frankly, I don't know who the hell I support this time around, his idea of less government is ideal to how I think our country was founded and the founding fathers would be frightened at where we have gotten ourselves too.
is he the right person for the job though.. I don't know. I don't know nearly enough about him to determine that. And I also think it'll take far more than a single person in the government, in the position that actually makes the least progress as far as change (president), to steer this country back towards the structure it was. Frankly, with all the systems currently in place, that may be impossible.
However, some federal entities and the current structure definitely have a place in the modern world, but scaled down a bit. The original system definitely wouldn't hold in todays world, well.. at least it wouldn't last long and would probably begin to evolve into something similar to how it is right now, maybe why it didn't last long in the first place.

sorry for the rant, but by time I finished my tangent, I deemed it to far too late to delete and I have decided to keep it anyway. Some good stuff is in that rant.

 

[Mo0o]

I wonder if smaller states like Ron Paul and the idea of a smaller federal government. Wouldn't that mean much lower federal aid to the poorer states like Mississippi? Would that create a even sharper economic divide among the states and forcing the migration of people from the poorer ones?

 

[Eeezee]

Are you asking if treason is illegal?

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
I wonder if smaller states like Ron Paul and the idea of a smaller federal government. Wouldn't that mean much lower federal aid to the poorer states like Mississippi? Would that create a even sharper economic divide among the states and forcing the migration of people from the poorer ones?

How are people with little income supposed to move to an area with higher costs of living?

 

[FoBoT]

http://www.pics.bbzzdd.com/bet...BoT/discount-tent2.jpg

 

[everman]

Treason was illegal the last time I checked.

 

[Duddy]

Evacuate! Evacuate!

 

[irishScott]

If you hosted it on a foreign server in a country that won't cooperate with US authorities, then yes, theoretically you could. There are terrorist web-pages touting the same (and more extreme) measures all over the place. However, I assure you that the US authorities watch these sites closely, and will track your activity. Even bouncing the signal (Onion Routing) by networks such as tor and whatnot are crackable if someone really wanted to get at you, and had the resources to do so (read: The US gov). You would simply disappear.

If you decide to go at it violently, lol good luck. Unless you have 10s of thousands of fighters, you won't do shit as far as damaging the government. On the contrary, you would all be treasonous and be shot and/or executed.


In short, your idea is retarded. In any case, the US gov is far from perfect, but I'd still rather live here than anywhere else (well, Australia's a potential, but you get my point).

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
I wonder if smaller states like Ron Paul and the idea of a smaller federal government. Wouldn't that mean much lower federal aid to the poorer states like Mississippi? Would that create a even sharper economic divide among the states and forcing the migration of people from the poorer ones?

Under this theoretical model, the funds that went to support that large federal government would instead go to the individual states, so there'd be no net loss (if anything, a net gain since you remove a level of bureaucracy).

 

[pyonir]

I had to double check...i thought i was in P&N for a minute there.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Mo0o
I wonder if smaller states like Ron Paul and the idea of a smaller federal government. Wouldn't that mean much lower federal aid to the poorer states like Mississippi? Would that create a even sharper economic divide among the states and forcing the migration of people from the poorer ones?

Under this theoretical model, the funds that went to support that large federal government would instead go to the individual states, so there'd be no net loss (if anything, a net gain since you remove a level of bureaucracy).

But theres no incentive for California to give farmer subsidies to Kansas or give federal aid to Mississippi. So the money that California was giving up in taxes would be returned to them, which is obviously good for Californian but kind of bad for the states dont dont bring as much financially to the union.

A role of a larger governing body is to distribute public goods that might not otherwise by spread out.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Mo0o
I wonder if smaller states like Ron Paul and the idea of a smaller federal government. Wouldn't that mean much lower federal aid to the poorer states like Mississippi? Would that create a even sharper economic divide among the states and forcing the migration of people from the poorer ones?

Under this theoretical model, the funds that went to support that large federal government would instead go to the individual states, so there'd be no net loss (if anything, a net gain since you remove a level of bureaucracy).

But theres no incentive for California to give farmer subsidies to Kansas or give federal aid to Mississippi. So the money that California was giving up in taxes would be returned to them, which is obviously good for Californian but kind of bad for the states dont dont bring as much financially to the union.

A role of a larger governing body is to distribute public goods that might not otherwise by spread out.

BUT THAT THERE IS COMMUNISM!!!