quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

...in addition he proclaimed that (and I paraphrase here) a little revolution every 20 years or so is a good thing...

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

All great men tend to make assinine statements now and then.He made more than his fair share.

The Declaration was just that...justification for a present action....and even there it went to great pains to point out that the people were driven to and forced into such a rash move by intolerable conditions.Are any of those justifications present today....have fair and open elections been suspended ? Are the peope subject to prosecution with out due process? Taxation without representation ?

The answer to all of those question,despite rightwing dogma is a resounding NO.....

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Hell, all you have to do is look back at some of the things said during the Bush admin to see a lot worse.

Got a few examples of that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

...in addition he proclaimed that (and I paraphrase here) a little revolution every 20 years or so is a good thing...

I know. The exact quote is in the post at the top of the page.  You are actually responding to it. 

You did read it, didn't you?  Before you responded?

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

All great men tend to make assinine statements now and then.He made more than his fair share.

The Declaration was just that...justification for a present action....and even there it went to great pains to point out that the people were driven to and forced into such a rash move by intolerable conditions.Are any of those justifications present today....have fair and open elections been suspended ? Are the peope subject to prosecution with out due process? Taxation without representation ?

The answer to all of those question,despite rightwing dogma is a resounding NO.....

As the Declaration states:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

So, while your argument against insurrection is valid, the issue that the politician in the OP brought up was more in the line of a warning: not a call to actual revolt.  The abuses of government are increasing (and the Democrats are certainly not the only party to blame). Like a live lobster in a pot of cooking water, you can never be sure at what point you pass over from "hot" to "scalding".  At what point are abuses by government to the rights of it's citizens worth the revolt?

I doubt that the majority of dissatisfied citizens believe that we have reached that point (some believe we reached that point decades ago), but I do not doubt that many citizens believe we are heading in that direction.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

The Declaration describes the rights of human being in general terms to illustrate how the monarchy was violating those rights...it is not enough to list a set of grievences without first illuminating that which you find offensive.Once again it was the justification for an action....one can not justify something if one doesn't first declare what one believes one is due.
The founders Declaration was a pronouncement to the world,an attempt to justify to others what they felt was amply justified themselves.....The rights they felt that they should proclaim for all Americans for all time were enumerated later,along with the Constitution,they called that document The Bill of Rights...please show me where that document proclaims the right to revolt against a freely elected represntative gov't

Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
-Ovid

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

The Declaration describes the rights of human being in general terms to illustrate how the monarchy was violating those rights...it is not enough to list a set of grievences without first illuminating that which you find offensive.Once again it was the justification for an action....one can not justify something if one doesn't first declare what one believes one is due.
The founders Declaration was a pronouncement to the world,an attempt to justify to others what they felt was amply justified themselves.....The rights they felt that they should proclaim for all Americans for all time were enumerated later,along with the Constitution,they called that document The Bill of Rights...please show me where that document proclaims the right to revolt against a freely elected represntative gov't

mike,

If you want to see it that way, feel free.  Although you would be going against quite a bit of history.

The Declaration was the general case for independence, based on the general rights that all men have, and then applied to the specific case.

The US Constitution was the second attempt to realize those rights in a specific government within the continent.

Of course, it is "against the law" to revolt against the Constitutional government of the United States.  It is against the law as written in the Constitution, which is only an attempt to realize and protect the higher rights of the people.

But it has been "against the law" to revolt against any government, of any type, at any time in history.  Yet ... yet ... if you accept your argument, then no revolution, anywhere, at any time should have occurred, because "its against the law".

Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
-Ovid

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Thomas Jefferson said that Firm....Jefferson also cheered on the French revolution....even as the heads were falling into the wicker baskets...in addition he proclaimed that (and I paraphrase here) a little revolution every 20 years or so is a good thing...
All great men tend to make assinine statements now and then.He made more than his fair share.
The Declaration was just that...justification for a present action....and even there it went to great pains to point out that the people were driven to and forced into such a rash move by intolerable conditions.Are any of those justifications present today....have fair and open elections been suspended ? Are the peope subject to prosecution with out due process? Taxation without representation ?
The answer to all of those question,despite rightwing dogma is a resounding NO.....

Right of revolution

American Revolution: The right to revolution would play a large part in the writings of the American revolutionaries. The political tract Common Sense used the concept as an argument for rejection of the British Monarchy and separation from the Empire, as opposed to merely self-government within it. It was also cited in the Declaration of Independence of the United States, when a group of representatives from the various states signed a declaration of independence citing charges against King George III. As the American Declaration of Independence in 1776 expressed it, natural law taught that the people were “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and could alter or abolish government “destructive” of those rights.

In modern times, it can be argued that as democratic governments can be overthrown by popular vote, the right of the people to remove the government has become embedded into the political system. However, replacing representatives falls short of changing the actual form of government by altering or rewriting its constitution. The ease of peoples to democratically implement such fundamental changes varies widely across nations and is generally quite onerous, if not impossible, within existing legal and media frameworks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

We must be having a little trouble with our comprehension today....look back a few posts,I specifically asked for some listing of grievences that could purport to justify a rebellion....

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

You have used the Declaration as evidence of the right to rebel....okay,fine I will move off of that for the moment.Now I will ask you to,using that same document,justify in any way shape or form such comments as made by this twit...where is the systematic denial of basic human rights?

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Did the Declaration declare that not likeing the results of freely held elections were justification for rebellion? I do not find it there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Did we not as a country already go thru this? Dissatisfaction with current gov't,or it's policies is not in and of itself justification for any adverse action against that gov't other than at the ballot box....and as long as that option is open to all of it's citizens no gov't should be in danger of armed rebellion.Period end of story

quote:

ORIGINAL: flcouple2009

We shouldn't bring bring things like those up.  It tarnishes the images those on the right like to create.

Basically the new government charged large and unpopular taxes and then sent troops to enforce those taxes when people revolted against them.  They kinda flipped over to the same position the British Government held.

[/quoteStrictly speaking that is not the whole truth...the issue of taxation ,as it applied to Great Britian was one of representation,the new gov't was in fact representative therefor nothing like the old monarchy.

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4

(in reply to flcouple2009)