Comments on: The Case for Revolution…non violent of course.

By: birdmojo

birdmojo — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:01:20 +0000

The biggest problem is that the people who tend to run are the people who want the power… and the reason they want the power is, in the best cases, because they think that they can do good with it (in the worst cases, it’s about gold, or chicks (or dudes, sure), or the pure enjoyment of hearing people say “how high?”).

The people who get power tend to think that the problem with last time was that the wrong people were wielding it. Look at the left with regards to Bush. It wasn’t that the Federal Government failed, it’s that Bush, or his appointees, or whatever it was, failed. With different folks in charge (good ones, of course, not like the previous ones), it would turn out differently.

And then we see “Compassionate Liberalism” to replace “Compassionate Conservativism” and, again, it’ll fail.

And the leaders on the other side of the aisle will take the attitude that there were two things wrong with the previous attempts. The first is that they were conservative/liberal when they should have been liberal/conservative. The second is that they just weren’t compassionate *ENOUGH*.

And the folks who say “the problem is that the government has too much power!” tend to not do as well in the organization as the folks who say “the problem is that the other guys had the power and we didn’t!”

To sum up: if a revolution is going to change anything, it’s not going to be non-violent.

By: icbm

icbm — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:57:45 +0000

some extent, which is why you were bombarded a bit with replies.)

have a double bourbon (i recommend blanton’s, but old grandad’s will do). that always sets me aright.

By: Aaron Gardner

Aaron Gardner — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:55:42 +0000

By: Aaron Gardner

Aaron Gardner — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:55:02 +0000

By: icbm

icbm — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:55:00 +0000

if i do, though, i hope you and many others would immediately correct me.

By: Aaron Gardner

Aaron Gardner — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:53:40 +0000

I thought icbm was saying that the regulations of the early 20th century i.e Wilson’s administration were the results of Conservatives….sorry if I misread…I am a bit out of sorts today…probably should just not bother commenting.

By: icbm

icbm — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:53:18 +0000

i am discussing the conservatives who were on the court and how they went too far in calling state legislation by reformers unconstitutional.

i am making a judicial point, not a political one. the justices were too fast to call certain things unconstitutional. i don’t care whether you and i would agree or disagree with the state legislation. agreement with policy isn’t the point. the point is whether the policy is constitutional. and the supreme court justices at the time, from the 1890′s into the 1920′s, too frequently confused what was constitutional with what their policy preferences were.

and since the court kept doing this and knocking down measures that were broadly popular in most states, eventually it was the national government that took action.

the court was both imprudent and constitutionally incorrect. if they had shown more restraint, the national government’s actions might have been less drastic.

By: Achance

Achance — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:50:09 +0000

Conservatives, mostly Republicans, were opposed to the state regulation of labor and industry, even the most minimal regulation. Business and industry, led by the railroads, went to war against state law regulation and the courts all but made it impossible for a state to set standards for a foreign corporation’s behavior within its borders.

The “progressives” of the era were the proponents of such legislation. The net result of conservative attacks on often moderate state regulation was a flood of draconian federal regulation during WWI followed by permanent implementation of much of that federal regulation in the New Deal.

By: Aaron Gardner

Aaron Gardner — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:40:06 +0000

By: Rod_Patrick

Rod_Patrick — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:34:42 +0000

in my neighborhood and in my office, in a non-violent way!!!!

By: icbm

icbm — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 02:00:32 +0000

murkowski’s senate seat.

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 01:42:04 +0000

By: Achance

Achance — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 01:22:02 +0000

By: Aaron Gardner

Aaron Gardner — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:27:07 +0000

That is where my frustration comes from…..we have turned the collectivist corner and haven’t looked back.

By: Achance

Achance — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:12:08 +0000

I’ll just tell you that you’ll have a hard time convincing 50% +1 that it is OK to let the old people in MS starve no matter what argument you make. The question really isn’t whether you’ll have programs like SS, just what they’ll look like and who has how much control.

By: Aaron Gardner

Aaron Gardner — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:09:37 +0000

By: Aaron Gardner

Aaron Gardner — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:08:01 +0000

in order to ensure they don’t starve?

By: Achance

Achance — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:01:23 +0000

but not in MN or MO or MT because either the people of MS can’t afford to take care of the old folks or all genuinely believe that the old folks and their families should have provided for themselves? There my friend you find the precipice of the “slippery slope.

By: olsmithie

olsmithie — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:55:35 +0000

You stop when the bear stops,
unless we can some up with some incredible footwork…

Regards

Maybe, just maybe…

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:43:12 +0000