Art Vandelay wrote:I have a morbid curiosity that would love to see an actual revolution--or attempt--the same way that I'd like to see what would happen if any of the volcanoes that I live near erupted, but it won't happen. In the 1770's the revolutionaries had essentially the same military technology and weaponry as those they were fighting. The same can't be said now. Any revolution would have to have the support of another superpower, or come from the military, neither of which is going to happen.
I actually think the military and law enforcement would mostly be behind a revolution. I don't think arming a resistance would be a problem.
I cannot, for the life of me, think of what would lead you to believe this.
Really? It's pretty simple really. First of all, in general members of the armed forces and law enforcement are a conservative-leaning group. It makes sense intuitively when you consider that national defense and law enforcement are big on the conservative agenda (while liberals are usually anti-military and pro-criminal, right Mook? ). Secondly, the people who are willing to put their life on the line on a daily basis typically believe that some American ideal, of which personal liberty is front and center, is worth protecting.
As our personal freedoms are taken from us by the federal government, this is going to piss off many of the people whose job it is to protect us. Two of my very best friends are in law enforcement and I'll just say that they and their respective agency brethren aren't real pumped about where we seem to be heading.
We're not there yet, but if we get to the point where the feds are simply too oppressive to take, I think those that protect us are going to be squarely on the side of freedom and liberty.
Big Pimpin wrote:Really? It's pretty simple really. First of all, in general members of the armed forces and law enforcement are a conservative-leaning group. It makes sense intuitively when you consider that national defense and law enforcement are big on the conservative agenda (while liberals are usually anti-military and pro-criminal, right Mook? ). Secondly, the people who are willing to put their life on the line on a daily basis typically believe that some American ideal, of which personal liberty is front and center, is worth protecting.
As our personal freedoms are taken from us by the federal government, this is going to piss off many of the people whose job it is to protect us. Two of my very best friends are in law enforcement and I'll just say that they and their respective agency brethren aren't real pumped about where we seem to be heading.
We're not there yet, but if we get to the point where the feds are simply too oppressive to take, I think those that protect us are going to be squarely on the side of freedom and liberty.
Does the tinfoil hat ever cover your eyes while you type?
Big Pimpin wrote:Really? It's pretty simple really. First of all, in general members of the armed forces and law enforcement are a conservative-leaning group. It makes sense intuitively when you consider that national defense and law enforcement are big on the conservative agenda (while liberals are usually anti-military and pro-criminal, right Mook? ). Secondly, the people who are willing to put their life on the line on a daily basis typically believe that some American ideal, of which personal liberty is front and center, is worth protecting.
As our personal freedoms are taken from us by the federal government, this is going to piss off many of the people whose job it is to protect us. Two of my very best friends are in law enforcement and I'll just say that they and their respective agency brethren aren't real pumped about where we seem to be heading.
We're not there yet, but if we get to the point where the feds are simply too oppressive to take, I think those that protect us are going to be squarely on the side of freedom and liberty.
Does the tinfoil hat ever cover your eyes while you type?
Big Pimpin wrote:(while liberals are usually anti-military and pro-criminal, right Mook? ).
Two years in the service myself. Artillery. Liberals are not anti-military, we're just particular about what it's used for. And I don't know what you mean by pro-criminal. I'm gangsta..but I don't think that's what you were going for. Being against the death penalty is not pro-criminal.
Big Pimpin wrote: I actually think the military and law enforcement would mostly be behind a revolution. I don't think arming a resistance would be a problem.
I cannot, for the life of me, think of what would lead you to believe this.
Really? It's pretty simple really. First of all, in general members of the armed forces and law enforcement are a conservative-leaning group. It makes sense intuitively when you consider that national defense and law enforcement are big on the conservative agenda (while liberals are usually anti-military and pro-criminal, right Mook? ). Secondly, the people who are willing to put their life on the line on a daily basis typically believe that some American ideal, of which personal liberty is front and center, is worth protecting.
As our personal freedoms are taken from us by the federal government, this is going to piss off many of the people whose job it is to protect us. Two of my very best friends are in law enforcement and I'll just say that they and their respective agency brethren aren't real pumped about where we seem to be heading.
We're not there yet, but if we get to the point where the feds are simply too oppressive to take, I think those that protect us are going to be squarely on the side of freedom and liberty.
Those in control of the military, intelligence, and law enforcement apparatus are not fond of civil liberties protection.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by 
). Secondly, the people who are willing to put their life on the line on a daily basis typically believe that some American ideal, of which personal liberty is front and center, is worth protecting.
