I would not, no.
And so here you actually do acknowledge that there was no revolution-- which we all know, including you.
You’re not here for honest debate, so save yourself the effort of responding to any of my posts in the future, because I won’t be responding to any of yours. I encourage the rest of the posters here to do the same.
Ho-hum. The ***"à la … " ***not in your vocabulary, John?
It was touch and go. I was there too - in the second row - in front of you.
I guess your computer virus DID drop the quotation marks and replaced them with obscenities. Tsk-tsk. Or perhaps you’re referring to my striped burro out in the yard? 
The level of absurd comments here is astounding! Is it ignorance? Is it lack of reading comprehension? Maybe nobody knows.
Ah, I love DEMOCRACY! Don’t you? Freedom of speech is not a right but our obligation.
That’s not antagonistic, that’s instructive. Instruction you appear to be ignoring.
I’m issuing you a warning for this post for failing to follow a moderator’s instruction. Continuing along these lines may bring your posting privileges into question.
If you think that revolution “was in the air” in the 1960s, then I can only conclude that you were either too young to appreciate what was really going on or that you were involved with some protesting groups in a way that caused you to hear only their rhetoric while failing to see the rest of the country.
You mention Kent State. Do you not recall that of the three deaths, there, only one was of a protester? Two of those killed were students ignoring the demonstration to go to class who were hit by wild shots and one was a pro-police watcher who was similarly hit buy a stray. Protests and even riots by some thousands of students simply did not rise to the level of causing millions of Americans to consider rising up in rebellion. As I already noted, there were more people that age who supported the war than who opposed it and none of the groups who actually sought to see the government overthrown ever amounted to more than a few hundred people.
What you “remember” is a level of cultural turmoil that did exist, but never in a way that remotely threatened actual revolution.
You can stick your warning where the sun don’t shine. If you think that you can speak to another human being by saying “knock it off. Now.” and they will just cower - then you’re out of your mind.
Learn some manners and how to speak with dignity. It’s called diplomacy - and it’s an essential component in dealing with people.
Did you actually say something here? All you really are saying is that you know more than anyone else (even if you don’t) and it makes no difference what I know and what I experienced … you will ridicule it as long as it doesn’t support your own.
I know what I know. No more, no less. But it really doesn’t make any difference, and it’s no use telling you what I know (and why), because you’ve got your search engine fired up red hot to find anything and everything (from any source) that will contradict both truth and fiction - if you don’t like the result.
[QUOTE=Adolf Stalin]
That’s it! You’re out of here!!!
[/QUOTE]
Aw, come on man! We were just beginning to get to be such good friends. I was even going to invite you over for dinner next Sunday to meet my wife and kids too!
:(:(
Indeed it is. And so is following the rules of the Straight Dope Message Board.
This, and the absolutely baffling Adolf Stalin comment, have earned you another warning. Your ability to post here is now in jeopardy.
Um, OK. So if “banana republic” means “social upheaval of the sort that we saw in the 1960s”, then, yeah, I can possibly see that happening again in my lifetime. :rolleyes:
This is what, the 6th tortuously-redefined definition of the term?
And “revolution was in the air” only among a certain segment of the young. There was no thought, discussion, or action for “revolution” on behalf of the people over 30 who were actually the ones in control of the military-industrial-entertainment complex. Those are the people who have to start talking revolution for it to actually take place, and, trust me, they weren’t. In response, they elected Richard Nixon.
Twice.
nm
Only a warning!? Holy shit! I misjudged you completely. From now on you’re the boss. I was certain you’d can me. I mean, whether you agree (or not) that I’ve been the innocent party up until now I think I deserved to get a permanent ban for those last two posts of mine.
It turns out that you’re a much better man than I could have imagined - and my hat is off to you.
See ya. It’s been…interesting.
I only mean that a change was in progress during the 60’s and it was a serious one. And yes, revolution was in the air but I think it went deeper than you say it did. I’m sure the White House was on pins and needles over the protest marches and the counter-protesters thinking that we were somehow desecrating the memory of the already dead. Those people just didn’t get that we were protesting for the benefit of the dead … in their honour so to speak, from our own experience. After all, we were there when their sons took their last breath. But that’s not the point or the issue. The issue is that with all of that happening at once the government must have felt the strain. And Nixon didn’t take flight only because of Water Gate. There was much more to it.
But as far as I can tell the U.S. was reaching the same sort of level of concern with the Bush Jr. regime and it seemed (ooops!) to be growing. Veterans of the Irak thing were coming home with the same stories and dismay as we did in the 60’s. Irak Vets were also organizing “Against the War” too.
Nixon was just another man in line with the Vietnam thing with Kennedy and Johnson before him. Bush Jr. was the herald to Irak but even in that short span of time Americans were getting wise.
Well, it’s not like you brought much to the argument fact-wise. Sorry you had to flame-out like this, but to tell the truth I always have my doubts about newbies who, 3 days into their membership, understand the report post function better than I do.
Even if we accept the above as being true (:dubious:), how does this equate to the US becoming a banana republic? Can you name some banana republics that have followed a similar trajectory as the above?
There is no one definition of a Banana Republic. Only popular usage and obscure prejudiced add-ons. Unrest. Turmoil. Violent dissatisfaction at the citizenry level. The glaring point against it applying to the U.S. is the single resource theory. Other than that it is not impossible that it could, depending upon developments, fit the description.
As has been pointed out several times, there are definitions of what a banana republic actually is. But that’s not what I’m asking you. Can you define some countries who are banana republics (in your opinion naturally) that have followed similar trajectory to our supposed near rebellions in the '60’s and during Bush II’s reign of terror?