Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Armed insurrection

2456710

Posts

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    It's the boiling water problem. If you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will jump out and escape. But if you put the frog in a pot of tap water, and gradually increase the heat, it will be dead before it realizes what happens.
    Pretty sure that's actually not true.

    Spoiler:
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    It's the boiling water problem. If you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will jump out and escape. But if you put the frog in a pot of tap water, and gradually increase the heat, it will be dead before it realizes what happens.
    Pretty sure that's actually not true.
    Its common sense!

    steam_sig.png
    If faith is just a silent tribute, mine is just a desperate act.
  • SynthesisSynthesis Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    I mean, Russians vote Stalin as their 3rd best leader of all time (I may be wrong on this - I'm somewhat drunk at the moment).
    It's worth noting that Stalin's policies screwed over Ukranians and other non-Russian Soviets way, way more than Russans.

    Depends on which Russians (some people, like Buryats, live almost entirely in the geographic area of Russia, and consider themselves Russians--but aren't by other views), but yes, Ukrainians are a good example of that.

    Georgians, ironically, on the other side--many suppose that Stalin's policies benefited Georgia, particularly the Georgian elites, on the issue of Ossetia and Abkhazia, etc., over that of Russians--which led to the Tsibilsi leadership enjoying more independence from Moscow for the time following the war. Though there is dispute on that as well.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • MorninglordMorninglord Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Synthesis wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Going by Hollywood movies, Poncho Villa and William Wallace took up arms after the government messed with important women in their lives.

    Rob Roy, too.

    And Anakin Skywalker.

    :whistle: One of these things is not like the other! One of these things does not belong! :whistle:

    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Barcardi wrote: »
    I think I would lean twords less of an armed insurrection and more of a build up of riots like what we see in Europe on occasion, followed much later by some eventual fundamental changes to the government brought on by sheer popular appeal and force. Widespread anger and rioting leading to corrupt politicians stepping down and policy change seems more plausible.

    Yeah, this is much, much more likely in the US. Any real armed rebellion I think would have to involve some sort of minority group, ethnic or religious. Which is certainly possible, but even then I think it would still take the form of rioting and civil unrest. I don't think the countryside would see much action here. Its the cities that burn.

    ragesig.jpg

  • SynthesisSynthesis Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Synthesis wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Going by Hollywood movies, Poncho Villa and William Wallace took up arms after the government messed with important women in their lives.

    Rob Roy, too.

    And Anakin Skywalker.

    :whistle: One of these things is not like the other! One of these things does not belong! :whistle:

    I'll get my coat.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User
    edited December 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Giant robots. Once we have those, it will be the sign to go steal one and join the rebellion.

    It is post-World War III. War is outlawed. In its place, are matches between large Robots called Robot Jox.

    the GOP shouldn't give a rats ass about them since they won't vote for them. If someone won't vote for you they might as well not exist.
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    It's the boiling water problem. If you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will jump out and escape. But if you put the frog in a pot of tap water, and gradually increase the heat, it will be dead before it realizes what happens.
    Pretty sure that's actually not true.
    It's a metaphorical story that's been used to describe people's inability to recognize large changes that happen at a gradual pace for hundreds of years now.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

    h1DI1.jpg
    All my fuckin life I lived a normal fuckin life
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Going by Hollywood movies, Poncho Villa and William Wallace took up arms after the government messed with important women in their lives.

    Rob Roy, too.

    And Anakin Skywalker.

    :whistle: One of these things is not like the other! One of these things does not belong! :whistle:

    I'll get my coat.

    I think the Skywalker you where thinking of was Luke Skywalker.

    Okay, the girl they messed with was his twin sister, but he had the hots for her so the point still stands.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • DrukDruk Registered User
    edited December 2010
    Star Wars fail. The motivation was that Luke's aunt/uncle were massacred because they purchased the wrong computers on the black market.

    edit: I guess you could count Beru as an "important woman in his life".

  • MorninglordMorninglord Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    This is not appropriate or on topic.

    I mean yes it is funny, but it was a throwaway line. Time to throw it away.

    Personally, I'm of the opinion that the people talking about armed insurrection on television are just mouthing off stuff they don't really understand the full implications of because it sounds nice.
    Same as talking about heroism or honor, stuff like that. It's what my father would have delicately called "a bunch of bullshit"

    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • BarcardiBarcardi All the Wizards Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Barcardi wrote: »
    I think I would lean twords less of an armed insurrection and more of a build up of riots like what we see in Europe on occasion, followed much later by some eventual fundamental changes to the government brought on by sheer popular appeal and force. Widespread anger and rioting leading to corrupt politicians stepping down and policy change seems more plausible.

    Yeah, this is much, much more likely in the US. Any real armed rebellion I think would have to involve some sort of minority group, ethnic or religious. Which is certainly possible, but even then I think it would still take the form of rioting and civil unrest. I don't think the countryside would see much action here. Its the cities that burn.

    I just hope that the rioters just take the riots out of the poor areas, they dont deserve the riots, the rich suburbs do.

    That and I think it would be fascinating to see a suburban riot, if its even possible.

  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Barcardi wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Barcardi wrote: »
    I think I would lean twords less of an armed insurrection and more of a build up of riots like what we see in Europe on occasion, followed much later by some eventual fundamental changes to the government brought on by sheer popular appeal and force. Widespread anger and rioting leading to corrupt politicians stepping down and policy change seems more plausible.

    Yeah, this is much, much more likely in the US. Any real armed rebellion I think would have to involve some sort of minority group, ethnic or religious. Which is certainly possible, but even then I think it would still take the form of rioting and civil unrest. I don't think the countryside would see much action here. Its the cities that burn.

    I just hope that the rioters just take the riots out of the poor areas, they dont deserve the riots, the rich suburbs do.

    That and I think it would be fascinating to see a suburban riot, if its even possible.

    Rather hard to picture.

    Actually, just imagine one of those crazy US shopping days, the one after Thanksgiving, whatever its called. Picture that in a suburban strip mall, but those people don't get to shop. Bam, suburban riot.

    ragesig.jpg

  • BarcardiBarcardi All the Wizards Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Barcardi wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Barcardi wrote: »
    I think I would lean twords less of an armed insurrection and more of a build up of riots like what we see in Europe on occasion, followed much later by some eventual fundamental changes to the government brought on by sheer popular appeal and force. Widespread anger and rioting leading to corrupt politicians stepping down and policy change seems more plausible.

    Yeah, this is much, much more likely in the US. Any real armed rebellion I think would have to involve some sort of minority group, ethnic or religious. Which is certainly possible, but even then I think it would still take the form of rioting and civil unrest. I don't think the countryside would see much action here. Its the cities that burn.

    I just hope that the rioters just take the riots out of the poor areas, they dont deserve the riots, the rich suburbs do.

    That and I think it would be fascinating to see a suburban riot, if its even possible.

    Rather hard to picture.

    Actually, just imagine one of those crazy US shopping days, the one after Thanksgiving, whatever its called. Picture that in a suburban strip mall, but those people don't get to shop. Bam, suburban riot.

    Basically that and the Pier One is also on fire.

  • shrykeshryke Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Barcardi wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Barcardi wrote: »
    I think I would lean twords less of an armed insurrection and more of a build up of riots like what we see in Europe on occasion, followed much later by some eventual fundamental changes to the government brought on by sheer popular appeal and force. Widespread anger and rioting leading to corrupt politicians stepping down and policy change seems more plausible.

    Yeah, this is much, much more likely in the US. Any real armed rebellion I think would have to involve some sort of minority group, ethnic or religious. Which is certainly possible, but even then I think it would still take the form of rioting and civil unrest. I don't think the countryside would see much action here. Its the cities that burn.

    I just hope that the rioters just take the riots out of the poor areas, they dont deserve the riots, the rich suburbs do.

    That and I think it would be fascinating to see a suburban riot, if its even possible.

    Can't be done. Riots are done on foot and suburbs don't accommodate pedestrian traffic.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    Barcardi wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Barcardi wrote: »
    I think I would lean twords less of an armed insurrection and more of a build up of riots like what we see in Europe on occasion, followed much later by some eventual fundamental changes to the government brought on by sheer popular appeal and force. Widespread anger and rioting leading to corrupt politicians stepping down and policy change seems more plausible.

    Yeah, this is much, much more likely in the US. Any real armed rebellion I think would have to involve some sort of minority group, ethnic or religious. Which is certainly possible, but even then I think it would still take the form of rioting and civil unrest. I don't think the countryside would see much action here. Its the cities that burn.

    I just hope that the rioters just take the riots out of the poor areas, they dont deserve the riots, the rich suburbs do.

    That and I think it would be fascinating to see a suburban riot, if its even possible.

    Can't be done. Riots are done on foot and suburbs don't accommodate pedestrian traffic.

    This is in many respects how I'd think a modern "rebellion" in a democracy might work though. Trying to force riots to start in the wealthy suburbs, or strategically planning your protests so that they end up on top of them.

    Dis' wrote: »
    Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
  • Caveman PawsCaveman Paws Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    Barcardi wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Barcardi wrote: »
    I think I would lean twords less of an armed insurrection and more of a build up of riots like what we see in Europe on occasion, followed much later by some eventual fundamental changes to the government brought on by sheer popular appeal and force. Widespread anger and rioting leading to corrupt politicians stepping down and policy change seems more plausible.

    Yeah, this is much, much more likely in the US. Any real armed rebellion I think would have to involve some sort of minority group, ethnic or religious. Which is certainly possible, but even then I think it would still take the form of rioting and civil unrest. I don't think the countryside would see much action here. Its the cities that burn.

    I just hope that the rioters just take the riots out of the poor areas, they dont deserve the riots, the rich suburbs do.

    That and I think it would be fascinating to see a suburban riot, if its even possible.

    Can't be done. Riots are done on foot and suburbs don't accommodate pedestrian traffic.

    This is in many respects how I'd think a modern "rebellion" in a democracy might work though. Trying to force riots to start in the wealthy suburbs, or strategically planning your protests so that they end up on top of them.

    Maybe if everyone drove to a suburban area and took all the parking spots. Nothing gets people in suburbs more upset than a stranger parking in front of their house!

  • King RiptorKing Riptor Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Tejs wrote: »
    The only instance I can think of is where the government becomes so mired in inefficiency and corruption that basic services break down, and where nothing gets done.

    The question seems almost ridiculous on face; basically, we'd have to get really close to the government of North Korea or to the state of anarchy before I'd consider anything that drastic.

    It's why I'm interested in it.

    The people of North Koreas haven't revolted. There doesn't seem to be any general pattern to what kicks off these things. Their success is almost predetermined - you have to convince security services to either not get involved or switch sides (the latter being preferable).

    Well strictly speaking they don't revolt because of years of brainwashing ,malnourishment and the people that do revolt become decorative lawn ornaments in town square.

    However I think the american attitude is different enough that a similar situation would result in some sort of armed revolt.

  • Shepard2000Shepard2000 Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Personally, I'm of the opinion that the people talking about armed insurrection on television are just mouthing off stuff they don't really understand the full implications of because it sounds nice.
    Same as talking about heroism or honor, stuff like that. It's what my father would have delicately called "a bunch of bullshit"

    This. The political commentators who actually throw these ideas around have this romanticized idea of rebellion. Plus, there's the fact that they themselves couldn't be bothered to actually revolt - they just want to have other people do their work for them.

    The situation would have to be seriously effed up for people to voluntarily turn their life to shit just to revolt. Living without basic services, hunted by government forces, possibly being turned in by family or friends - and why? Because Glenn Beck didn't get the election result he wanted?

    Commentators mentioning rebellion shows how far out of touch with reality the people who claim to be in touch actually are.

  • SmokeStacksSmokeStacks License Number 137596Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    The reason why the first American Civil War was possible while the second isn't is because there weren't a lot of things standing in the way of a large group of farmers with guns in the 1860s. As in, there wasn't a large, unified police force, or a National Guard or Army that can be armed and anywhere in the country within an hour.

    Massive Epic History Fail


    There were all of those things in mid nineteenth century America. The reason the Civil War lasted as long as it did was because huge elements of the military and political structure defected to the south en masse, not because those institutions were absent. In fact one of the main problems the north had in the early stages of the war is that they essentially had to build a command and control structure from scratch as the majority of the officers in the US army defected. It was only after they found competent people like Grant to take charge that the north was able to use its advantages in production and manpower to overwhelm the southern armies.

    Massive Epic Reading Comprehension Fail

    There was no national communications and transportation infrastructure in 1881 other than telegrams and railroads. I didn't say there was no police force or army, I said there was no police force or army that can show up in Blackhawks within an hour.
    Octoparrot wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Giant robots. Once we have those, it will be the sign to go steal one and join the rebellion.

    It is post-World War III. War is outlawed. In its place, are matches between large Robots called Robot Jox.

    robotjox.jpg

    CRASH AND BURN

  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    I think the biggest key to successfully mounting an insurrection, not saying anything of being able to win one, is funding.

    The American Revolution would have never succeeded if it hadn't actually be orchestrated by a bunch of rich white dudes who borrowed more resources from France. It was a war of the Rich v. the Rich, and we had homefield advantage. Tens of thousands of people still died.


    And that's another thing. We've gotten really apprehensive about getting people killed for political cause. Between Iraq and Afghanistan combined we've lost less than a 1/100th of the troops we lost in Vietnam or the Civil War, and we're losing our shit over it.


    The reason dictators or oligarchies come to power generally is due to a cabal disguising themselves as populists during a time of economic depression, and once they're in power, strip the means of substantial threat from the population. Look at China, look at South America, look at North Korea; these places are very poor, and the population very undereducated. What are the citizens of these places going to rebel using? Sticks and rocks?

  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    I think the line for me would be when the judiciary is taken over, whether by a totalitarian dictatorship or a totalitarian democracy.

  • ResRes __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2010
    Personally, I'm of the opinion that the people talking about armed insurrection on television are just mouthing off stuff they don't really understand the full implications of because it sounds nice.
    Same as talking about heroism or honor, stuff like that. It's what my father would have delicately called "a bunch of bullshit"

    This. The political commentators who actually throw these ideas around have this romanticized idea of rebellion. Plus, there's the fact that they themselves couldn't be bothered to actually revolt - they just want to have other people do their work for them.

    The situation would have to be seriously effed up for people to voluntarily turn their life to shit just to revolt. Living without basic services, hunted by government forces, possibly being turned in by family or friends - and why? Because Glenn Beck didn't get the election result he wanted?

    Commentators mentioning rebellion shows how far out of touch with reality the people who claim to be in touch actually are.

    Who is doing this, now?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Dr Mario KartDr Mario Kart Registered User
    edited December 2010
    A few off the top of my head:

    Joyce Kaufman, radio show Host and former first choice for chief of staff for now Representative Elect Allan West: (There is a shocking video of more of this)
    If ballots don't work, bullets will. I've never in my life thought the day would come that I would tell individual citizens that you are responsible for being the militia the Founding Fathers designed. They were very specific: you need to be prepared to fight tyranny.

    Sharon Angle:
    You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.

    I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.

    Michelle Bachman: She wanted people "armed & dangerous" about the cap and trade bill.

  • SynthesisSynthesis Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Octoparrot wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Giant robots. Once we have those, it will be the sign to go steal one and join the rebellion.

    It is post-World War III. War is outlawed. In its place, are matches between large Robots called Robot Jox.

    I wonder if that's where they got the concept for the game Wargasm.

    ...I'll get my coat.

    (I've never heard of 'Robot Jox', that's the closest thing I know of.)

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    I do not believe any kind of insurrection is possible on ideological grounds in the US.(dictatorship? so what? executions? so what? etc....)
    Maybe(and it's a big maybe) mass food shortages and lack of electricity could get some sort of localized riots, but it still won't be an actual insurrection.

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    I think the biggest key to successfully mounting an insurrection, not saying anything of being able to win one, is funding.

    The American Revolution would have never succeeded if it hadn't actually be orchestrated by a bunch of rich white dudes who borrowed more resources from France. It was a war of the Rich v. the Rich, and we had homefield advantage. Tens of thousands of people still died.

    Funding? They revolted over a tea tax. A TEA TAX!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iQ7ZDUutU4

    FrenchCat2.jpg
  • Dr Mario KartDr Mario Kart Registered User
    edited December 2010
    If you're talking about the Tea Act of 1773 which spurred the Boston Tea Party, it wasn't about taxes in the way that most people think. It was about a tax cut for a particular transnational corporation, the East India Company.

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    I thought the boston tea party was just a bunch of rich entitled white guys throwing a fit because they were rich entitled white guys


    Oh shit... current day tea party is kind of a historical analog

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Oh man, that commercial made me throw up in my mouth a little.

  • ResRes __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2010
    zeeny wrote: »
    I do not believe any kind of insurrection is possible on ideological grounds in the US.(dictatorship? so what? executions? so what? etc....)
    Maybe(and it's a big maybe) mass food shortages and lack of electricity could get some sort of localized riots, but it still won't be an actual insurrection.

    What if Obama leaves office only to be replaced by another black guy

    I think that might be the Tea Party's tipping point

    All mounting 240's on their Rascals

    Having Obamacare pay for them

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • ResRes __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2010
    Honestly I think the greatest impediment to an armed rebellion under any political circumstances in the US is that it would require Americans to do stuff

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    The revolution may have been astroturfed?
    J. L. BELL wrote:
    But why did tea become such a galvanizing issue outside Boston as well, spawning a continent-wide mass movement? “Tea and Antipathy” acknowledges the answer: that “The tea tax had become a symbol, and it infuriated the populace. . . . Indeed, for consumers, anger over the tea tax had never made much economic sense.” In other words, for Americans there was a political issue at stake, even if some rich men had money at stake as well.

    Boston’s merchants certainly drove the opposition to Parliament’s new laws back in the early 1760s, when James Otis, Jr., as their lawyer first came up with the “no taxation without representation” argument. But that wasn’t a mass movement. In fact, I’ve read that no newspaper in any other colonial port covered the case. It took what Crain calls “the universally unpopular Stamp Act” to start sensitizing the populace to imperial taxation policy. With more new taxes in 1767 and then soldiers in the streets, the political movement grew beyond the merchants’ direction and issues.

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    I could see it happening if the federal government tried to take away my slaves.

    Oh wait.

  • GoslingGosling Team Monica Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Most likely, I'd probably have hopped the border well before I got to that point. For something to get me to the point of insurrection within my own country would have to be a thunderbolt out of a clear blue sky, something that beats me to the border. If I CAN get out, that's my option, not the least reason of which is because I'm a godawful shot and I know it. Were I to actually take up arms, I'd last about fifteen minutes before getting plugged in the head.

    What it would probably take, though, for me is something that caused me to believe that I could no longer theoretically vote my way out of a problem. A suspended election without an explanation that satisfies me. A blatantly corrupted vote total at the Presidential level. A coup. Minority voters having bad things happen to them en masse (though I'd probably be one of those people and wouldn't even get the chance to rebel). Something like that.

    I'm trying, through my blog, to break into the journalism industry. Any eyes and ears that pick up on any leads towards that end are greatly appreciated. PM me if you happen to hear anything.
  • DrakeDrake Blow it all up ForeverRegistered User regular
    edited December 2010
    It seems to me that armed insurrection really only happens when the people have no other recourse, when day to day details of living become intolerable. Something like routine home invasions by the authorities is a good example. That's one of the big things that kicked off the Islamic Revolution in Iran. The Shah's police forces were basically terrorizing the people of Iran in their own homes. This kind of opression doesn't have to go hand in hand with a closed, totalitarian society though. Whether or not you can actually boil a frog by gradually raising the heat, incremental changes in society become the new normal rather easily. Rights and freedoms can be curtailed without jackboots and baklava. As a society closes up, most people are going to withdraw, finding what solace and refuge they can in what ever privacy they scrape together. The company of a few friends and family can do a lot to alleviate living in what most people on the outside would see as intolerable circumstances.

    So really, in order for me to feel the necessity of taking up arms, it would probably take multiple personal tragedies directly at the hands of the authorities. Things like family members becoming nonpersons. Otherwise, I'd do what the majority of people down through the ages have done. I'd keep my head down and try to slip through the cracks.

  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User
    edited December 2010
    Americans throw up revolts over the wierdest reasons

    1) Minor taxes

    2) Right to own black people

    I mean, there is really no connection between those two. The next revolt could be about the Mexicans or the color blue, who knows.

    Either way, once they start imprisoning groups of people without due process would be my breaking point. I mean, of course there would be other things too. If our cabinet declared war on Russia tomorrow I would probably be ready to take up arms to remove them from the government.

  • MyDcmbrMyDcmbr Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    I will stand for the denigration of the color blue no longer! Too long as blue been beholden to other less colors such as green and red.

    NO MORE I SAY!!

    *grabs gun*

    Google+ | Steam
    So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
  • DrakeDrake Blow it all up ForeverRegistered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Americans throw up revolts over the wierdest reasons

    1) Minor taxes

    2) Right to own black people

    I mean, there is really no connection between those two. The next revolt could be about the Mexicans or the color blue, who knows.

    Either way, once they start imprisoning groups of people without due process would be my breaking point. I mean, of course there would be other things too. If our cabinet declared war on Russia tomorrow I would probably be ready to take up arms to remove them from the government.

    There have been some isolated incidences of actual popular revolt against oppressive circumstances in the United States. Stuff like the Battle of Blair Mountain.

    These incidences do not get much press though.

  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User
    edited December 2010
    Drake wrote: »
    Americans throw up revolts over the wierdest reasons

    1) Minor taxes

    2) Right to own black people

    I mean, there is really no connection between those two. The next revolt could be about the Mexicans or the color blue, who knows.

    Either way, once they start imprisoning groups of people without due process would be my breaking point. I mean, of course there would be other things too. If our cabinet declared war on Russia tomorrow I would probably be ready to take up arms to remove them from the government.

    There have been some isolated incidences of actual popular revolt against oppressive circumstances in the United States. Stuff like the Battle of Blair Mountain.

    These incidences do not get much press though.

    Umm, wow. 1921? One million rounds fired? Second largest insurrection after the Civil War? Hundred people killed? An actual battle involving tens of thousands of people?

    Yeah, uhh...why haven't I heard of this before? The hell, history? o_O

Sign In or Register to comment.