Consider: R3VOLution tougher than Revolutionary War

[Banana]

1) Revolutionaries knew their enemies; they always came in red coats.

2) The conflict was open and hostile. Not easy for an average Farmer to remain uncommitted and tolerate the injustices and wrongs, whether real or perceived. Truly, they were either for the Revolutionaries or against Revolutionaries (Tories).

3) Because of #2, several Revolutionaries had to put aside their differences and fight for a common goal or else be crushed under the iron fist of the Crown.



The point?

People have different ideas of who are the real bogeyman: evil Government, CFR, 9-11 insiders, Communists, and even the official HQ and other "Sunshine Patriots" supporters.

Several events that have transpired is not always in the public eye as we're doing a lot of political maneuvering as opposed to being out on the battlefield firing away. Which also means that what actually happens is not always clear and obvious to everyone else. Some claims victory, some claim defeat for the same thing.


Just a something to keep in mind when fighting for Ron Paul, his message, the movement, and for Liberty & Freedom.

[eOs]

Wise.

[jkm1864]

They had a great thing going for them they had a 6 week voyage from england to the colonies to protect them. Also the colonial war bankrupted Britians bank account so all the had to do was fight for a couple of years and the economy would take over. We have no ocean to protect us and We are divided. I would also point out that Americans are also the greatest enemy to freedom just because they are ignorant stupid fools. We are basicly fucked so all We can do is push our congressman into power with our funds and energy. I would recomend to stay active with You're meetup group and to support freedom loving canidates.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

Read "A People's History of the American Revolution" and then repost. I can't disagree with you more.

[Banana]

Read "A People's History of the American Revolution" and then repost. I can't disagree with you more.

Went to Google Book (http://books.google.com/books?id=dcWDVCrPuWwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=A+People%27s+History+of+the+American+Revolution&sig=MiSPR2_KduN2kAYyTS8HJqQaFaw#PPA9,M1) to preview the book.

This looks like a compelling read and would want to read the rest of it.

I will concede that my #2 may be a bit less valid since there were indeed people who sat on the fence and wanted no part in the war or just laying low out of self-preservation, but the book also seems to reinforce the #1 because the war was much more polarizing, so it's hard to not to take sides.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

Actually, both sides, rebels and tories, were guilty of many crimes including but not limited to pillaging, cold blooded murder, rape, wanton destruction of property, and torture. Revolutionaries constituted only about 20% of the population. So many people saw revolutionaries and red coats as enemies. Therefore, enemies were not always wearing red.

After rereading your post I find I don't disagree with you as much. However, I think that this revolution seems more difficult because the people involved are far more educated than they were in the late 1700's. Also, I think the polarization was also fueled by frequent rebel violence against those who would not sign an allegiance to the revolution. Which is, and should continue to be, the defining DIFFERENCE between that revolution and this one.

[Mordan]

Actually, both sides, rebels and tories, were guilty of many crimes including but not limited to pillaging, cold blooded murder, rape, wanton destruction of property, and torture. Revolutionaries constituted only about 20% of the population. So many people saw revolutionaries and red coats as enemies. Therefore, enemies were not always wearing red.

After rereading your post I find I don't disagree with you as much. However, I think that this revolution seems more difficult because the people involved are far more educated than they were in the late 1700's. Also, I think the polarization was also fueled by frequent rebel violence against those who would not sign an allegiance to the revolution. Which is, and should continue to be, the defining DIFFERENCE between that revolution and this one.

well cry wolf conspirationists makes uncovering a real conspiracy really difficult. People think you are a kook. and they bring bad publicity... really. The Fox News Sucks thing in NH was so fucking stupid.
Ron Paul Revolution is not a SunShine Good feeling kick.

[Banana]

Actually, both sides, rebels and tories, were guilty of many crimes including but not limited to pillaging, cold blooded murder, rape, wanton destruction of property, and torture. Revolutionaries constituted only about 20% of the population. So many people saw revolutionaries and red coats as enemies. Therefore, enemies were not always wearing red.

I wonder how much of that was a product of the war rather than the stated objective? Did any revolutionaries who engaged in those get disciplined for their poor conduct or did the those in charge looked the other way?

Either way, I agree that such actions only served to turn off people from the cause, whether it was sanctioned or not.


After rereading your post I find I don't disagree with you as much. However, I think that this revolution seems more difficult because the people involved are far more educated than they were in the late 1700's. Also, I think the polarization was also fueled by frequent rebel violence against those who would not sign an allegiance to the revolution. Which is, and should continue to be, the defining DIFFERENCE between that revolution and this one.

No kidding? They actually demanded people to sign an allegiance? First, that would be hypocritical in that they're for freedom, yet they want to force freedom on others, and secondly, it would be meaningless. I know that if Satan himself came down and demanded that I sell my soul right now or die, I'd just sell my soul just so I can live another day and perhaps scheme my way out of the allegiance. (Admittedly, I wouldn't/shouldn't ever consider the possibility at all, but I think you get the point).

This also brings another important point:

When we open the tent to everyone, this is double-edged sword in that, we are also opening ourselves to people who may not be fully gung ho for the revolution. Even so, I think it more counterproductive to "purge" our ranks a la Stalin's purge and better to continue to encourage the fair-weather patriots to continue (provided we don't make this our exclusive goal- that would be futile).

[mjp1025]

I don't think education has a whole lot to do with it. Getting the 21st Century Man off his ass from in front of the TV is a major undertaking.

[Banana]

I don't think education has a whole lot to do with it. Getting the 21st Century Man off his ass from in front of the TV is a major undertaking.

LOL.


That's a good point there.

I wonder if people back then had something equivalent to TV? Was it the church or local bar?

[Brassmouth]

LOL.


That's a good point there.

I wonder if people back then had something equivalent to TV? Was it the church or local bar?

No. If they did, no revolution would have occurred.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

Let me clarify what I was saying. A difference between the American Revolution and this one is the violence. I don't think I got that across in my last post. Sorry about that.

As far as the allegiances be signed, yeah that actually happened on both sides. And many people did exactly what you said you would do. For example, the British would come to their door and demand allegiance to the King or imprisonement. Ok, fine, where do I sign, just leave me alone. Later, rebels would come by and do the same thing, ok, fine, where do i sign, don't touch me. For rebels to do this was very hypocritical. They became what they were fighting.

As far as the violence retribution, some were disciplined some were not. I highly recommend reading that book. It's a quick read.

[Penners]

I don't think education has a whole lot to do with it. Getting the 21st Century Man off his ass from in front of the TV is a major undertaking.

This is exactly why television must be used to educate the masses! There is no other avenue to reach the majority. And the use of the television media must be done in a fashion as to capture the attention of ordinary folks, give them a message they can understand and relate to (without scaring the shit out of them) and guiding them in their education to make better decisions. That is if we are even a "free" country by 2012.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

No. If they did, no revolution would have occurred.

Not as effective and efficient as tv, but yeah the church and local tavern were the main meeting places for revolutionaries.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

This is exactly why television must be used to educate the masses! There is no other avenue to reach the majority. And the use of the television media must be done in a fashion as to capture the attention of ordinary folks, give them a message they can understand and relate to (without scaring the shit out of them) and guiding them in their education to make better decisions. That is if we are even a "free" country by 2012.

I believe that national TV should be minimized (i.e. seriously scaled down from current levels). Information dissimination should occur because the people want to spread it, not because a few rich people think a lot of poor people will be interested enough to pay for useless programming. This is what the internet has provided.

In all honesty, we should all destroy our TVs.

[Penners]

not realistic

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

why?

[Penners]

because the majority of Americans know more about Paris Hilton and Anna Nichole Smith than they do about presidential candidates? Laziness? Addiction? Just don't see it happening. Particularly with the senior market who dont' own and are likely to not own a computer.... gotta reach those folks... they vote!

[Banana]

Let me clarify what I was saying. A difference between the American Revolution and this one is the violence. I don't think I got that across in my last post. Sorry about that.

I had understood, and that was sort of why I mentioned #2 in my first post. When a county convention passes an anti-McCain resolution, it's non-news for general mass, but if a shot was fired, then it's on everyone's mind.

Mind, I'm not suggesting that we turn into terrorists and start shooting neocons but only pointing out that it's easy to not see R3VOLution in progress (from the eye of an average Joe Six-pack) because it's mainly political maneuvering. I'd bet that Ron Paul has far more "supporters" than any other candidates (Obama?), but people think he can't win because he's not popular enough. (Note the discongruency here)


I highly recommend reading that book. It's a quick read.

Will definitely! :) Thanks again.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

now I get what you mean! :)


2) The conflict was open and hostile. Not easy for an average Farmer to remain uncommitted and tolerate the injustices and wrongs, whether real or perceived. Truly, they were either for the Revolutionaries or against Revolutionaries (Tories).


I was just trying to convey that the last part of for or against wasn't always the case. I'm sure back then just as now, most people are more worried about putting food on their tables and paying their rent.

[Misesian]

The r3VOLution harder than a revolution involving blood, sweat, and tears?

C'mon. Those revolutionaries put their LIVES on the line for freedom. We can't even get people off a message board here, go knock on doors, or go to GOP meetings to restore freedom.

I've considered this comparison in the past too, but there is no comparison. There's still time, we just need to utilize our meetup/precinct leader structure, and takeover our county GOP's. Hmmm, attend some meetings and be around neoconservatives or take up arms and die? I think I'll choose the meetings for now ;)

[Banana]

now I get what you mean! :)

I should apologize for not making this clear enough. :)


I was just trying to convey that the last part of for or against wasn't always the case. I'm sure back then just as now, most people are more worried about putting food on their tables and paying their rent.

Oh, definitely. Self-preservation is very strong, that's for sure.


We can't even get people off a message board here, go knock on doors, or go to GOP meetings to restore freedom.

That's precisely my premise in making the claim that they had it easier in the Revolutionary War. It's hard to just sit at your local tavern, bitching about those god-damned British tax taking away from your meager income while you try to make the ends meet amid the gunshots, pillaging, and explosions.

[Brassmouth]

Not as effective and efficient as tv, but yeah the church and local tavern were the main meeting places for revolutionaries.

No, I meant that if they had TV back then, no revolution would have occurred, as the majority of them would have been enslaved by it as today's citizens are.

[kigol]

:cool:

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

No, I meant that if they had TV back then, no revolution would have occurred, as the majority of them would have been enslaved by it as today's citizens are.

gotcha. So in essense, the onslought of materialism counteracts someone's desire to be free.