Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war

1. 60

   Doug Hughesposted 12 years ago

   I was thinking about a web site that needs to be written.
   
   “WHERE-TO-RIOT.COM”.
   
   Consider history. Back in the 60s angry disenfranchised urban blacks rioted, stupidly burning their own neighborhoods as a response to the rage and sense of  futility they felt.
   
   Contrast that to the revolutions of France or Russia. They went directly after the nobility, executing the royal families even the children, to prevent their return to power.  It worked.
   
   Technology allows a site to identify the geographic region of the PC on the web. I see lots of web advertising tuned to my city. This software can just as easily direct the mob to the richest, most elite neighborhoods in any area.
   
   When you can’t get unemployment insurance, or food stamps or Medicaid, and you are ready to riot, THOSE are the neighborhoods to torch. A half-ton truck will take out the gates. The rent-a-cops will flee at the first shots.
   
   I would love to target advertising for the site to righte web sites. I want the advertising to use geo-software and NAME the local posh subdivision. The point is not that I want to see neighborhoods of multi-million dollar homes burn. I don’t.
   
   But when things get bad enough, people WILL get violent. It’s time to create uncertainty among the millionares who are determined not to pay taxes, that the brunt of the rage will fall on them and their families in their homes. The assumption that the rich can insulate themselves from the starving masses needs to be challenged at an emotional level.
   
   The Arab Spring proves that no government can suppress a mass uprising. The French and Russian revolutions are happening again in the Mid-east. Sadat and sons will stand trial. Eventually, there aren’t enough cops or soldiers, when the underclass is large enough and desparate.
   
   Lets do the country a favor and NOT get to that point.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      "When you can’t get unemployment insurance, or food stamps or Medicaid, and you are ready to riot, THOSE are the neighborhoods to torch. A half-ton truck will take out the gates. The rent-a-cops will flee at the first shots."
      
      ... and you call me loony.
      
      Why should we start murdering the rich because government promised more than it could deliver?
      
      "You rich bastards!!! You hired me!!! GRRrrr!!"
      
      Remember, everyone, this is a call from a liberal to enact violence.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Doug Hughesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I think I was directing, not advocating, anarchy. Starving people will riot. My opinion is that it's appropriate to direct that anger at the people who are responsible for that misery.
         
         Serious discussion of that may cause some rich people to reconsider a I-want-to-keep-it-all philosophy. Otherwise,  in the end, it may mean you loose it all.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            You're right - forcefully stealing that which isn't yours DOES tend to make people scared and give away their money.
            
            That's why IT'S AN IMMORAL THING TO DO.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Doug Hughesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Evan- the Declaration of Independence does not reference "life, property, and the pursuit of happiness".
               
               Ask a real historian about the US Constitution vs the Articles of the Confederation - one of the main differences and objectives was to create a central government with the ability and the authority to raise tax revenue so the government could pay bills.
               
               In the days of the founding fathers, almost ALL those taxes were paid by the rich alone.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  All too typical of the liberal to distort history just enough to obscure the truth.  The rich were not taxed for being rich.  The taxes collected by the Federal government were not income taxes or property taxes.  The funding of the Federal government came, primarily, from a import tariff.  Jefferson asserted that those who wanted imported luxury items and could afford them had paid for the operation of the government in Washington.
                  
                  What you refuse to accept is that there was no distinction between rich and poor if the rich did not consume imported goods.  There was no effort to redistribute wealth.  There was no federal income tax.  The founders all balked at deficit spending.  There was no welfare state.  Almost all functions of government were taken care of by localities and states.  One's sole contact with the distant Federal government was the Post Office. 
                  
                  The liberals elevation of the central, national government as the reasonable replacement for the "old fashioned" federal system places the national government in our daily lives to an extent that would have shocked all the Founding Fathers including Alexander Hamilton and the most dedicated federalists.
                  
                  I cannot imagine Jefferson actually admiring the direction that the Democrats have taken in supplanting the federal system with a centralized system.  Jefferson was a staunch anti-federalist, not the kind of man who would love the current welfare state and its destruction of the individual - something Jefferson would have considered a sin against nature.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Texasbetaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     "The founders all balked at deficit spending. "
                     Deficit spending comes from Keynes, who was born in 1883, long after ALL of the founders had died. You have the nerve to actually spew this ignorance? Are you getting your history from Palin's history class?

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Deficit spending as a national economic policy originates with Keynes. The word deficit predates Keynes. Jefferson complained about how much money Congress was spending during his administration. Apparently your dic tionary doesn't define deficit.
                        
                        http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deficit
                        
                        On does not incur debt without spending at a deficit. Adam Smith decried household deficits and the resulting debt.  Jefferson was upset over the nations debt( a consequence of deficit spending - in a real world definition) when he borrowed money for the Louisiana Purchase providing cover for future Democrat double talk.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Texasbetaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           What world do you possible live in? The concept of a deficit existed before Keynes, but you said, AND I QUOTE:
                           "The founders all balked at deficit spending."
                           Deficits and deficit spending are two different things. Deficit spending didn't exist until Keynes, which was born long after the Founders were gone. SO, explain yourself?
                           You do know what deficit spending is don't you? I am sure I am expecting too much from you to actually know the words you are using.
                           The logic you are attempting to use is like saying that the Founders were against personal handheld computer devices based upon the existence of hands.
                           You do understand that deficits/debt is not deficit spending right? This is ridiculous.
                           You are 100% incorrect in stating that the founders balked at deficit spending, as it didn't exist at the time. Debt and deficit spending are two different things. Be a man and admit you were talking out of your arse.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Texasbetaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Not going to man up and admit you were wrong? Figures.

                              replyreport
                  2. 0

                     Texasbetaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     You are right though on the main point, personal income tax didn't come into America until the Civil War. What DID occur though were taxes in general...in fact, Washington's 1st act was to impose a tax on spirits in order to fund the debt accumulated during the Revolutionary War, which led to the Whiskey Rebellion and Washington commanding troops to slaughter our own people, the very people who helped fight a few years earlier.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        The income tax assessed during the Civil War was discontinued, a unique event in the history of taxation.  It was resurrected later, ruled unconstitutional requiring an amendment, introduced in 1913, to finally make it legal.
                        
                        So, complete history?  Nice.  The income tax doesn't enter our economy permanently until after the 16th Amendment is adopted.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Texasbetaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Very true. I mentioned that a bit lower a few days ago, but right on. Now are you going to man up on the thread above this one and admit you were wrong, or what?

                           replyreport
               2. 60

                  uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  The Virginia Declaration, written by George Mason states, "That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
                  
                      The Virginia Declaration was the documentary template for the Declaration of Independence and admired by Jefferson.
                  
                      John Locke wrote of the natural rights of "life, liberty and property."
                  
                      More than any other Enlightenment figure, Locke inspired not only Jefferson, but Franklin and Edmund Burke.  Jefferson references Locke and imitates Locke's position on natural rights. It is natural law that forms the basis of the Declaration and personal property is an essential natural right.
                  
                       "Pursuit of Happiness" comes from a broader interpretation of natural rights to include good health, learning, spiritual development, etc....  The other two "life" and "liberty" are not necessarily material things and therefore less restrictive than "property."  The "Pursuit of Happiness" therefore includes other natural rights including private property.

                  replyreport
               3. 60

                  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  The Constitution does indeed expand the role of the federal government compared to the Articles of Confederation.
                  
                  But this has next to nothing to do with what you said.
                  
                  You said that when things start to hit the fan, be sure to mob the rich people's houses because -- apparently -- they owe everyone else their money.
                  
                  Which is utter nonsense. I'm shocked to hear someone's morals so out of whack.
                  
                  "The richest people paid the most taxes" - yeah, that's probably true... BECAUSE THEY WERE PROPERTY OWNERS. Back then, shipping things overseas was a big deal, and that's where the taxes were.
                  
                  NONE of the taxes were Income Taxes. That power wasn't granted to Congress until 1913. Thus, all taxes were collected when people bought things.
                  
                  But, once again, none of this has any bearing to the forum at hand: Stealing is wrong. You were born knowing this information.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     But so is lying...

                     replyreport
                  2. 0

                     Texasbetaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     EVAN! You know better dude! This is YOUR topic. Income taxes started after the Civil War...not in 1913. They were taken away a bit afterwards, but they didn't begin in 1913. I expect more from you dude.

                     replyreport
            2. 60

               John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Unless of course you are one of the rich and then it becomes perfectly acceptable, even incumbent, to rob.

               replyreport
   2. 60

      Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Sadat?

      replyreport
   3. 61

      34th Bomb Groupposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Let's see now - I have no idea how I came upon this "How to stage a proper riot" page, but now that I have, here ya go.
      Advocating violence isn't going to help anyone - especially those layabouts you apparently like and/or are telling how to riot more effectively.
      I don't have a lot - but I'll be dammed if I'm going to sit around and let the folks on the other side of Main Street to come to my house - steal my TV, etc. then burn it down. (It's cut stone so there might be a problem there.)
      Nope - ain't gonna happen. I'll bet you're all in favor of gun control, too. By "gun control," in your case "take the pistols and shot guns from people like me and do nothing to people who steal them, buy them on the street and/or use them to hold up and/or kill people like me for the $20 in my pocket and my engagement ring."
      
      Would you prefer that we take all the freebies we're paying for away from the layabouts so they die slow, painful deaths due to starving and/or NO health care...
      This is just obscene. Did you go to school with O's buddies the anarchists or are you going to pretend this is just an "exercise" for your Master's (which I'm SURE I'm paying for) ?

      replyreport
2. 80

   earnestshubposted 12 years ago

   An interesting idea Doug. Are things getting that crook in the States?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Doug Hughesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Republicans are demanding a balanced budget without any tax increases. The cut-off for state assistance is changing in some cases from 20K down to 5K. Republicans want to privatize Medicare, and reduce funding.
      
      Either this country will fund services with tax increases on the wealthy, or the US will become a banana republic with two classes. Rich and poor.

      replyreport
3. 59

   recommend1posted 12 years ago

   I normally like to see your posts Doug - but this is pure bulls!t.
   
   How can you begin to compare a few west funded would-be presidents trying to oust the legitimate - LEGITIMATE -  rulers of their countries so that they re-institute their colonial rule and grab the resource, with the US.
   
   You don't even realise that you are being shafted by whatever government alignments you get, never mind understand that it is well past time for an uprising

   replyreport
4. 61

   dutchman1951posted 12 years ago

   That 60's mentality got us into this mess, and The Generation that fell into it, just finished raising the new generation of grand Kids following along in eclectic confusion.
   
   How many more riots are needed to colapse this country. You are to late and to taken in by the Parties and their social manipulation for votes.  Be carefull.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Well the 60's mentality of protest movements got the laws changed for the near-slave black population, it contributed to getting America out of Vietnam, and got many laws changed in regard to female discrimination as I recall - not a bad result for a 'generation'.
      
      Where are the protests now, where is even the protest music ?  freedom is a word I rarely use without thinking u huh !

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Texasbetaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, that post is just ignorant.

      replyreport
5. 61

   Tom Koeckeposted 12 years ago

   Doug, despite what others are saying, you hit it on the head! This is the natural consequence if too many people feel their needs are not being met, whether it is justifiable or not.
   
   Rioting will not occur because it is just; it will occur when there becomes too wide a gap between those who have and those who don't, even if it is unjust.
   
   Humans will never live on a conscience level. It is the flaw in all philosophies that result in utopia.
   
   Though I may draw some heat for suggesting this, it is the truth: redistribution benefits the rich much more than it benefits the poor. The poor get a small stipend. The rich get to live without the masses killing them and taking their wealth.

   replyreport
6. 56

   C.J. Wrightposted 12 years ago

   Doug, are you advocating violence? I can't believe this.....you ok? Hopefully your just frustrated.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Revolutions are always bloody !   But Doug is only advocating the smell of coffee for those who prey on their fellow human beings.

      replyreport
7. 60

   Moderndayslaveposted 12 years ago

   I think this will help
   http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content … esized.jpg

   replyreport
8. 77

   Shadesbreathposted 12 years ago

   So once your rioters take out the people who own businesses, excecute them and any wealthy cohorts around them, who will run the businesses, maintain the contacts and networks through which those businesses thrive?  The upstart with the pitchfork and stolen TV in his hands?
   
   Your solution is to foment the total destruction of the system, leaving the truly elite (who are in no danger from riots), to grab ALL the wealth, as that is not going to be found in the large homes the riotors are tearing through.
   
   Wait a few years, and you have just re-created Feudalism... and probably Feudalism with lots of Chinese, Mexican, Russian and other nations carving out chunks for themselves.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Doug Hughesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You have described what I wish to avoid. The 'rich' after only a million per year or so have been persuaded to support a philosophy that they have no social or political obligation to pay taxes to financial programs of no direct benefit to them.
      
      I am pointing out the direct benefit of not creating masses of disparate starving people. (The rich get to keep their mansions, Mercedes and their lives.

      replyreport