• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

July 4

:3oops: Sorry Paul, irreconcilable differences I'm afraid ....

Its hard to know because you wont make an argument. You just make statements. If you want to have a debate then back it up with facts, examples, logic, reasoning.
 
Its hard to know because you wont make an argument. You just make statements. If you want to have a debate then back it up with facts, examples, logic, reasoning.

oh please jonny ... it's the same with every poster who doesn't have much to say ... pretend you make well supported arguments and say the other poster doesn't ...:yawn:
 
Oh, he did.
He made a completely absurd and unsupportable one.

It was a useless bourgeois revolution. Wealth and power did not shift all that much in the colonies.
 
:lamo What?

Representative democracy existed in Britain before it did in America. It wasn't exactly revolutionary. So America wasn't subservient to the Crown anymore. So what. The citizens were still by and large subservient to people with more wealth.
 
Representative democracy existed in Britain before it did in America. It wasn't exactly revolutionary. So America wasn't subservient to the Crown anymore. So what. The citizens were still by and large subservient to people with more wealth.

So what? :roll: I don't even know how to BEGIN to respond to that.
 
So what? :roll: I don't even know how to BEGIN to respond to that.

You'd think with something labeled a "revolution" that something more, I dunno, revolutionary would have taken place.
 
You'd think with something labeled a "revolution" that something more, I dunno, revolutionary would have taken place.

We gained independence from England when the cards were stacked against us. I think that's pretty revolutionary. A LOT of people lost their lives too. It seemed to be pretty important and "revolutionary" to them.
 
Eleven score and 17 years ago, our founders signed a document that started out the greatest experiment in self governance the world had ever known.

Now, 237 years later, how has that experiment changed, for better or worse?

For better: In 1776 "all men" meant "all white males". Today, it means "all mankind"
or does it? Perhaps it just means "all Americans." At least, the meaning has expanded.

but, "all men are created equal", meaning equal in opportunity, equal before the law still rings true.

For worse: "that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men" has come to include a whole lot more than securing rights. People seem more interested in security than in rights 237 years after the signing of the declaration.

What might this experiment in self governance produce in another 237 years?

Wild speculation is acceptable for that last one.

I agree with the bulk of your post so i won't debate it. I wil offer a speculation.

I think we'll see a transition from a representative form of government to a Corporate controlled society, with each acting as a sovereign power with loyalty bases among various segments of the population who depend on the corporation for their livelyhood. Government would simply be a rubber stamp for the most powerful of these corporate entities, if it even still existed.
 
We gained independence from England when the cards were stacked against us. I think that's pretty revolutionary. A LOT of people lost their lives too. It seemed to be pretty important and "revolutionary" to them.

So power and wealth moved from a group of wealthy white landowning men to... wealthy landowning white men

Very revolutionary

And of course it was important to them. They were told it should be important to them. They were probably very slightly better off after than they were before.
 
So power and wealth moved from a group of wealthy white landowning men to... wealthy landowning white men

Very revolutionary

And of course it was important to them. They were told it should be important to them. They were probably very slightly better off after than they were before.

Oh I just noticed your lean. Not surprising. People were much better off and happier, until the government got too big and greedy like it is today. We still celebrate our independence to this day. Sorry if you don't get it.
 
oh please jonny ... it's the same with every poster who doesn't have much to say ... pretend you make well supported arguments and say the other poster doesn't ...:yawn:

Well then get out of the herd and act differently.
 
So what? :roll: I don't even know how to BEGIN to respond to that.

I suppose we could review the "all men are created equal" phrase, the writing of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, the dream of Manifest Destiny, the copycat revolutions that followed, but, then it was still a capitalist economy and so doesn't count as a real Marxist sort of revolution.

which is a good thing, IMO, but then, others may have other opinions on that score.
 
I agree with the bulk of your post so i won't debate it. I wil offer a speculation.

I think we'll see a transition from a representative form of government to a Corporate controlled society, with each acting as a sovereign power with loyalty bases among various segments of the population who depend on the corporation for their livelyhood. Government would simply be a rubber stamp for the most powerful of these corporate entities, if it even still existed.

There does seem to be a move in that direction.
 
I suppose we could review the "all men are created equal" phrase, the writing of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, the dream of Manifest Destiny, the copycat revolutions that followed, but, then it was still a capitalist economy and so doesn't count as a real Marxist sort of revolution.

which is a good thing, IMO, but then, others may have other opinions on that score.

When a 'real' Marxist revolution actually suceeds we will have something to compare with. Until then it's just the usual whining of a wanna be 'revolutionary'.
 
Back
Top Bottom