Has anyone got their $600 check from the Gov

i think it was all a myth

I for one, will spend the money, before it becomes devalued and worthless.  Trading pieces of paper in exchange for some kind of valuable good seems like the best option here.

>>80
Wow you've accused me of a lot of things.

>>41 wasn't me.

My argument is nothing like >>30's. You can hardly accuse me of denial if you consider an argument like "Revolutions rarely achieve the social objectives they promise and such things take decades of social evolution to achieve, assuming they are possible at all", to be the same as "damn commies".

As for your accusation that my entire argument is about semantics I have now both clearly defined "revolution" to the bone and provided facts to back up my statements which remain undiscussed.

I am willing to accept the idea that a revolution can speed up social evolution, I even said so earlier, but you seemed to ignore that.

Even if you won't even look at the facts I will, since you don't want to I'll just make a start.

Slavery did not end until 90 years after the American revolution, last time I presented this fact you dismissed it as "well, those are just opinions you have".

"glaring over the American Civil War, which for all intensive perpurses was a revolution- it resulted in the end of slavery"
If I remember correctly the south supported slavery and they were the ones who seceded from the union.

As for the french revolution, if you don't believe it resulted in decades of tyrannt maybe you will believe a source you consider trustworthy.
http://www.marxists.org/history/france/revolution/timeline.htm

I believe the burden on proof is on you to prove that the Russian revolution resulted in a communist utopia.

>>82

"As for your accusation that my entire argument is about semantics I have now both clearly defined "revolution" to the bone and provided facts to back up my statements which remain undiscussed."

You don't seem to understand. Let me repeat this, again, for the third time. You "clearly defining 'revolution' to the bone" EQUALS you reducing the argument to semantics. You said that you understood that a semantical argument is one centered around the definition of words. Now that you spent the 89% of this argument on the "definition of revolution", can you explain how your argument is NOT semantical?

"Slavery did not end until 90 years after the American revolution, last time I presented this fact you dismissed it as "well, those are just opinions you have"

So because Slavery ended 90 years afterwards the American Revolution wasn't a revolution? This is what I meant by "opinions you have". You're in this frame of thought that because a revolution doesn't result the way you'd like it to, that 'LOL well it's not a revolution then!' Well, I'm sorry, but that is invalid.

"If I remember correctly the south supported slavery and they were the ones who seceded from the union."

EXACTLY!! They "revolted". It was a "revolution". In the same way- you could say that North actually revolted socially and culturally against the status quo of slavery represented by "the South". This led to a violent revolution to overthrow the status quo of the American government. Which precisely goes with my point that revolution can't be boiled down to *JUST* social or *JUST* violent overthrowing of government. They usually work in concert. You've already proven that point *for me*. 

"As for the french revolution, if you don't believe it resulted in decades of tyrannt maybe you will believe a source you consider trustworthy."

"I believe the burden on proof is on you to prove that the Russian revolution resulted in a communist utopia."

You're not getting it. I'm not arguing for the results that you desire here. The only result that matters can be expressed as such: IF: People are oppressed by a reign - THEN: People revolt. This all-encompassing revolution that I speak of is either brought about by recent social/cultural revolution or the recent violent overthrow of a government. I'm not arguing for a communist utopia, I'm not arguing for peace in the middle east and I'm not arguing for democratic free market.

My point has been and still remains that if people want to revolt: THEY WILL. Even in this day and age. It's possible. It can happen...and whatever the results are they are "better" in the sense that they are not the status quo.

Are we done here?

>>83

Yes.

Got $1200, bought a new TV

I will use the money to purchase a negro to slave my fields.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/25120815