Breaking news 
"Vaping ban in San Francisco"
"Vaping ban in San Francisco"
Become a Patron!
Breaking "Vaping ban in San Francisco"
- Thread starter Ashley vapor
- Start date
lordmage
The Sky has Fallen. the End is Here.
Staff member
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Gold Contributor
ECF Refugee
Member For 5 Years
news link added https://www.npr.org/sections/health...francisco-poised-to-ban-sales-of-e-cigarettes
It is a total sale ban from what i read both Brick and mortar and online sales
quote "
Two San Francisco ordinances would prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes in brick-and-mortar stores and also online, if the products are being shipped to addresses in the city.
San Francisco Mayor London Breed will now have 10 days to sign the legislation, which she has said she will do. The law would begin to be enforced seven months from that date, in early 2020."
@5150sick in case you already posted it i left it here (edit out if you move)
To all San fran vapers Meanwhile, Juul is collecting signatures for a November ballot initiative to override the ban, perhaps before it goes into effect.
It is a total sale ban from what i read both Brick and mortar and online sales
quote "
Two San Francisco ordinances would prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes in brick-and-mortar stores and also online, if the products are being shipped to addresses in the city.
San Francisco Mayor London Breed will now have 10 days to sign the legislation, which she has said she will do. The law would begin to be enforced seven months from that date, in early 2020."
@5150sick in case you already posted it i left it here (edit out if you move)
To all San fran vapers Meanwhile, Juul is collecting signatures for a November ballot initiative to override the ban, perhaps before it goes into effect.
Last edited:
That city's gone to shit in more ways than one. Although I suppose if someone wanted to buy stuff bad enough they could get a po box in Oakland or San Jose. Probably cheaper than a box in Sausalito (just guessing since it's kind of a $$ area). Plus it would avoid making a trip across the bridge all the time and there's bart that runs to both Oakland/SJ. So maybe more accessible. Hopefully they won't follow suit.
In no vape products get FDA approval then the ban will stand and is kind of a moot point.
However if the FDA approves some vape products then the ban on those products may get lifted, for those products only.
just my nsho
I really do not expect Juul to get approved because of the high nic content and high teen appeal.
Unless perhaps they go a different route an pursue the Prescription only NRT route.
However if the FDA approves some vape products then the ban on those products may get lifted, for those products only.
just my nsho
I really do not expect Juul to get approved because of the high nic content and high teen appeal.
Unless perhaps they go a different route an pursue the Prescription only NRT route.
A few weeks ago I watched like 2 hours of testimony from Frisco citizens and local business owners begging for this not to take place and all of the really good reasons why it would be misguided at best and disastrous at worst.
Just goes to show how much the politicians care what the citizens think.
Just goes to show how much the politicians care what the citizens think.
We have the best government that money can buy.
On all levels.
SnapDragon NY
Senior Moderator
Staff member
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
Press Corps
Member For 5 Years
VU SWAT
How would this ban affect Juul since its headquarters are in San Francisco?
JUUL Labs Overview
Websitewww.juul.com
HeadquartersSan Francisco, CA
Size1001 to 5000 employees
Founded 2007
Type Company - Private
Industry Consumer Products Manufacturing
Revenue Unknown / Non-Applicable
We’re an exceptional team with backgrounds in technology, healthcare, CPG and biotech, and we’re growing rapidly to deliver on our mission. We’re actively looking to hire the world’s best scientists, engineers, designers, product managers, supply chain experts, customer service and business professionals." class="margTop empDescription"> JUUL is the number one US-based vapor product. Headquartered in San Francisco and backed by leading technology investors including Tiger Global, Fidelity Investments and Tao Invest LLC, JUUL Labs is disrupting one of the world’s largest and oldest ... Read more
Mission: Improve the lives of the world’s one billion adult smokers by eliminating cigarettes.
JUUL Labs was founded by former smokers, James and Adam, with the goal of improving the lives of the one billion adult smokers by eliminating cigarettes. We envision a world where fewer people use cigarettes, and where people who smoke cigarettes have the tools to reduce or eliminate their consumption entirely, should they so desire." class="tightBot">Mission: Improve the lives of the world’s one billion adult smokers by eliminating cigarettes.
JUUL Labs was founded by former smokers, James and Adam, with the goal of improving the lives of the one billion adult smokers by eliminating cigarettes. We envision a world where fewer people use cigarettes, and where people who smoke cigarettes have the tools to reduce or eliminate their consumption entirely, should they so desire.
JUUL Labs Overview
Websitewww.juul.com
HeadquartersSan Francisco, CA
Size1001 to 5000 employees
Founded 2007
Type Company - Private
Industry Consumer Products Manufacturing
Revenue Unknown / Non-Applicable
We’re an exceptional team with backgrounds in technology, healthcare, CPG and biotech, and we’re growing rapidly to deliver on our mission. We’re actively looking to hire the world’s best scientists, engineers, designers, product managers, supply chain experts, customer service and business professionals." class="margTop empDescription"> JUUL is the number one US-based vapor product. Headquartered in San Francisco and backed by leading technology investors including Tiger Global, Fidelity Investments and Tao Invest LLC, JUUL Labs is disrupting one of the world’s largest and oldest ... Read more
Mission: Improve the lives of the world’s one billion adult smokers by eliminating cigarettes.
JUUL Labs was founded by former smokers, James and Adam, with the goal of improving the lives of the one billion adult smokers by eliminating cigarettes. We envision a world where fewer people use cigarettes, and where people who smoke cigarettes have the tools to reduce or eliminate their consumption entirely, should they so desire." class="tightBot">Mission: Improve the lives of the world’s one billion adult smokers by eliminating cigarettes.
JUUL Labs was founded by former smokers, James and Adam, with the goal of improving the lives of the one billion adult smokers by eliminating cigarettes. We envision a world where fewer people use cigarettes, and where people who smoke cigarettes have the tools to reduce or eliminate their consumption entirely, should they so desire.
Not at all unless they sell their products in SF.
At least that is my take on things.
Even the FDA does not ban vape stuff made in the USA for export to outside of the USA only.
For example as I understand it a juice company might have to become a tobacco products manufacturer and even though their products are not approved under the PMTA process they could still export their product. But it could not be sold here or re-imported to be sold here.
democrats vote for them.....SF is about 9% GOP voters...nuff said.
SnapDragon NY
Senior Moderator
Staff member
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
Press Corps
Member For 5 Years
VU SWAT
San Francisco has a long history of using ordinances to push progressive causes, imposing bans on plastic straws, the sale of fur products and facial recognition technologies, to name a few. The city has taken a leading role in tobacco control, banning flavored tobacco and cigarette sales at pharmacies.
The leading manufacturer of e-cigarettes, Juul, is based in San Francisco and politicians in the city have been openly hostile to the company.
“I would not lose any sleep at all if Juul left,” Mr. Walton said. “I would help them pack up.”
The board of supervisors passed a separate bill on Tuesday that would bar any e-cigarette company from renting space on company-owned land, a measure that would not affect Juul.
After years of steady but modest declines, cigarette sales are plummeting as e-cigarette sales soar. In March, the latest month for which federal data are available, cigarette sales fell around 10 percent from a year earlier.
“We have this very big increase in quitting in the U.S.,” Professor Warner said. “We need to keep our eye on the prize — which is the reduction in cigarette smoking. That’s what’s killing people.”
Neal L. Benowitz, one of the world’s leading experts on nicotine and a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, described the decision by the board of supervisors as “terrible.”
“On the face of it, it’s ludicrous that we would ban e-cigarettes, but permit the sale of tobacco and cannabis,” said Dr. Steven A. Schroeder, a professor of health at the University of California, San Francisco. “It’s really smart politics but dubious public health.”
The whole article link on San Francisco Ecigarette Ban
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/25/us/juul-ban.html
The leading manufacturer of e-cigarettes, Juul, is based in San Francisco and politicians in the city have been openly hostile to the company.
“I would not lose any sleep at all if Juul left,” Mr. Walton said. “I would help them pack up.”
The board of supervisors passed a separate bill on Tuesday that would bar any e-cigarette company from renting space on company-owned land, a measure that would not affect Juul.
After years of steady but modest declines, cigarette sales are plummeting as e-cigarette sales soar. In March, the latest month for which federal data are available, cigarette sales fell around 10 percent from a year earlier.
“We have this very big increase in quitting in the U.S.,” Professor Warner said. “We need to keep our eye on the prize — which is the reduction in cigarette smoking. That’s what’s killing people.”
Neal L. Benowitz, one of the world’s leading experts on nicotine and a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, described the decision by the board of supervisors as “terrible.”
“On the face of it, it’s ludicrous that we would ban e-cigarettes, but permit the sale of tobacco and cannabis,” said Dr. Steven A. Schroeder, a professor of health at the University of California, San Francisco. “It’s really smart politics but dubious public health.”
The whole article link on San Francisco Ecigarette Ban
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/25/us/juul-ban.html
just don't go....those days are long gone, They traded hippies for google Brownshirts and MS13 gang members. But if you must go Please defecate only on the assinged sidewalks.
Last edited:
if this banning causes more people back to smoking?
This came up over on Reddit with regard to the oppressive vape tax in Massachusetts. A fella was yelling
"THEY WANT EVERYBODY TO DIE OF CANCER!!."
As much as I don't like it, this is what I told him which happens to be the case. I've scraped things off my shoe with greater morel character and conviction than the average American politician of either party.
It's like this.
Men who win wars do not win them by surrounding themselves with optimists. They do not say:
"Bring me my most optimistic and positive thinking generals and field commanders."
No, they win by surrounding themselves with competent personnel who will bring them the truth about a given theater and an accurate sit-rep so that they can make command decisions that are most likely to provide the outcome they want.
We are fighting the wrong war. Lobbying politicians from a position of profound weakness has been and will continue to get us exactly nowhere. What has to happen is for a sufficient number of voters, not just citizens, but citizens who actually vote, to both believe the truth about vaping and cast their vote with that issue as a motivation.
Anybody who understands American politics will instantly recognize what an Everest mountain that is to climb.
That may not be very optimistic, at least in the short term, but it is an accurate sit-rep.
Men who win wars do not win them by surrounding themselves with optimists. They do not say:
"Bring me my most optimistic and positive thinking generals and field commanders."
No, they win by surrounding themselves with competent personnel who will bring them the truth about a given theater and an accurate sit-rep so that they can make command decisions that are most likely to provide the outcome they want.
We are fighting the wrong war. Lobbying politicians from a position of profound weakness has been and will continue to get us exactly nowhere. What has to happen is for a sufficient number of voters, not just citizens, but citizens who actually vote, to both believe the truth about vaping and cast their vote with that issue as a motivation.
Anybody who understands American politics will instantly recognize what an Everest mountain that is to climb.
That may not be very optimistic, at least in the short term, but it is an accurate sit-rep.
Last edited:
for that we need an NRA.
people who would shake down juice vendors
people who would demand money from china vendors .
only then would we see publicity campaigns.
we'd also have money to bribe congress.
i'm sure casaa is full of nice people, but nice doesn't work.
people who would shake down juice vendors
people who would demand money from china vendors .
only then would we see publicity campaigns.
we'd also have money to bribe congress.
i'm sure casaa is full of nice people, but nice doesn't work.
I think vaping is just an example....I think we need the voters to come to the realization that the goverment is probablly the greatest enemy the American citizen has faced in 2 generations..it is not a neccessary evil...it's just evil.
Yes, it is an example. It is an application of 25 years of watching American politicians to the the present discussion of vaping.
If a comprehensive prohibition on all things vape related is politically expedient, that's what they'll do, even if it kills millions of people.
If championing the benefits of vaping is politically expedient, then that's what they'll do, saving millions of people.
The lives of the people are irrelevant. What IS relevant is public opinion in their voting district because that's what will win or lose them elections.
Elections are won with money because money buys airtime and influence.That means big special interest donors. We are by comparison, a microscopic special interest lobby.
All of that is just part of the problem. The other part is that people vote with their wallets too. Most people will vote for whoever they are convinced will be most advantageous to their own financial situation. Or least destructive.
Even if most of the voting populous were to become convinced that vaping was a good thing, (which we are a couple hundred thousand light years away from) most are not going to vote against their own financial self interest in order to see vaping thrive. It's just not important to most of them.
If you are formally advocating the political ideology of "anarchy," I'm sorry my friend, but I won't be able to go along with you there.
Last edited:
The problem there though Suzie, is that there are tens of millions more gun owners than there are vapers and even the NRA doesn't wield the influence she once did.
It's a different world now Suzie. Yes, the 2nd amendment was for the purpose of the citizenry being able to protect themselves from an overreaching tyrannical government. Denying that doesn't pass the snicker test and I agree with that principle.
The trouble is, the pinnacle of weapons technology in the 18th century was sabres, non-repeating small arms and cannons. A well armed citizenry could repel a well armed state military because they were more or less equally equipped.
Never in their wildest ***** induced nightmares could the statesmen of the day have foreseen the weapons technology in the world today. Do you really want some of the people you know to have artillery pieces and guided missile systems at their house? Even if they could afford it?
With today's weaponry, if the state military were turned on the citizens in earnest, there is NO way the private sector could win. That doesn't pass the snicker test either.
Last edited by a moderator:
That is what happens when one has the best government that money can buy.
You really don't know how much I sympathize with what you're saying, but I would urge two things.
Ask the military people here, active, reserve or prior service, how likely they think it is that a citizen's uprising could succeed in commandeering a U.S. arsenal. With all due respect, I don't think you realize what you're saying.
Also, it would be wise to watch what you say on public forums like this or you may find yourself face to face with some of these officials sooner than you think. Yes, big brother is watching.
I say all this as a friend. Not to make you angry.
National guard arsenals are one thing but military bases are another...
And the US military has called in airstrikes on us soil against US citizens before.
Once to fight a miners unionization strike...
The airstrike did not happen due to bad weather and such, but it was ordered and launched.
citizens seizing an arsenal would be considered an act of terrorism or treason or somesuch and would get a swift military response.
And the US military has called in airstrikes on us soil against US citizens before.
Once to fight a miners unionization strike...
The airstrike did not happen due to bad weather and such, but it was ordered and launched.
citizens seizing an arsenal would be considered an act of terrorism or treason or somesuch and would get a swift military response.
Last edited:
In this world, he or they with the biggest gun wins. That's the way it's always been. Every privately owned weapon of every private citizen on this continent combined wouldn't represent a slingshot compared to what our military has now.
It's been well over a century since that hasn't been the case.
Yep those 5,000 rounds of ammo someone has hoarded will do little good if you do not live past the first hundred or so rounds.
In the case of an armed insurrection in the USA there would be lots of cold dead fingers being pried from their guns.
Last edited:
Keep in mind that the largest single military force ever raised in the USA up to that point was to subdue the Whiskey Rebellion. And was against US citizens.
And that was just over taxes. And was led by George Washington if I recall correctly on who led it.
And that was just over taxes. And was led by George Washington if I recall correctly on who led it.
I guess I would have to depend on our military's individual reluctance to fire on our own citizens. Some guys would mow us down and other guys would stand down. I would just hope the majority would be in the latter, but I'm not overly confident.
But there is more than one way to skin a cat. I recall in my youth there was a U.S. entanglement called Viet-Fucking-Nam (most of the guys I've known who were there use that kind of nomenclature). We won every battle but lost the war. We fought men who wore sandals and carried an AK and a days worth of rice. We killed a hundred for every one of us they killed. We had F-104's and they had punji sticks. They were guerrillas and they were at home. We had draftees who were 10,000 miles from home. Guess who won? Being the biggest guy doesn't always mean a victory. And remember - we will be at home.
I was involved with the drug culture way back in the day. That means I committed at least 1 felony a day just by accident. That never slowed me down a bit and my stash box was always full. Guns - I lost all of them when my boat sank awhile back. No need to worry about my arsenal being a public nuisance. As for vaping supplies - I'm preparing for the vapocalypse. I fully intend to have everything I need to last me for the rest of my life soon and I believe deeply in DIY anyway. Stock up people.
I guess what I'm saying is I don't care if they outlaw vaping as far as it concerns me. I'm going to do what I want to do no matter what. I am only worried about all you other folks. People have been trying to keep people from smoking **** forever but I have friends who have been smoking that shit for 50 years. I still would be too except I have been completely sober by choice for almost 40 years myself. Where there's a will, there is a way. Does anyone seriously believe that stupid legislation will kill vaping? It will just go underground like so many other things. I do find it ironic that there are laws on the horizon to restrict vaping when cigarettes will never be outlawed in this country. And states are legalizing ****. An amendment was passed once upon a time to outlaw booze and then it bred so much crime that a few years later we passed another constitutional amendment to repeal the other amendment.
Here in flyover country we have a saying - shoot, shovel, and shut up. That means if you have a varmint irritating you, you do what you need to do and you don't go spreading it around. The bunny huggers or whatever won't bother you if they don't know about it.
But there is more than one way to skin a cat. I recall in my youth there was a U.S. entanglement called Viet-Fucking-Nam (most of the guys I've known who were there use that kind of nomenclature). We won every battle but lost the war. We fought men who wore sandals and carried an AK and a days worth of rice. We killed a hundred for every one of us they killed. We had F-104's and they had punji sticks. They were guerrillas and they were at home. We had draftees who were 10,000 miles from home. Guess who won? Being the biggest guy doesn't always mean a victory. And remember - we will be at home.
I was involved with the drug culture way back in the day. That means I committed at least 1 felony a day just by accident. That never slowed me down a bit and my stash box was always full. Guns - I lost all of them when my boat sank awhile back.
No need to worry about my arsenal being a public nuisance. As for vaping supplies - I'm preparing for the vapocalypse. I fully intend to have everything I need to last me for the rest of my life soon and I believe deeply in DIY anyway. Stock up people.I guess what I'm saying is I don't care if they outlaw vaping as far as it concerns me. I'm going to do what I want to do no matter what. I am only worried about all you other folks. People have been trying to keep people from smoking **** forever but I have friends who have been smoking that shit for 50 years. I still would be too except I have been completely sober by choice for almost 40 years myself. Where there's a will, there is a way. Does anyone seriously believe that stupid legislation will kill vaping? It will just go underground like so many other things. I do find it ironic that there are laws on the horizon to restrict vaping when cigarettes will never be outlawed in this country. And states are legalizing ****. An amendment was passed once upon a time to outlaw booze and then it bred so much crime that a few years later we passed another constitutional amendment to repeal the other amendment.
Here in flyover country we have a saying - shoot, shovel, and shut up. That means if you have a varmint irritating you, you do what you need to do and you don't go spreading it around. The bunny huggers or whatever won't bother you if they don't know about it.
Last edited by a moderator:
lordmage
The Sky has Fallen. the End is Here.
Staff member
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Gold Contributor
ECF Refugee
Member For 5 Years
the only way to win a war against the government is with a bigger purse take there contracts away and remove access to the private sector who makes and repairs there systems.
there is no way to win in the short term Big brother is always planning ahead and we should have done the same with are voting and writing campaigns but alas most people will always see themselves as too small to count or they will wright the bills in such a way that to get what they want say cheaper income taxes they must also agree to tax Something else higher. There are no win / loss for the government only win/win.
there is no way to win in the short term Big brother is always planning ahead and we should have done the same with are voting and writing campaigns but alas most people will always see themselves as too small to count or they will wright the bills in such a way that to get what they want say cheaper income taxes they must also agree to tax Something else higher. There are no win / loss for the government only win/win.
I understand what you're saying, but vaping requires equipment that smoking **** does not. Not the least of which is batteries. All they have to do is restrict lithium ion batteries, by size and or power and nothing else will make any difference. It will be multicell AA vaping on home made devices.I was involved with the drug culture way back in the day. That means I committed at least 1 felony a day just by accident. That never slowed me down a bit and my stash box was always full. Guns - I lost all of them when my boat sank awhile back.
I guess what I'm saying is I don't care if they outlaw vaping as far as it concerns me. I'm going to do what I want to do no matter what.
Ban the sale of liquid nicotine as well and there's the other nail. Of course off brand sources will be available, but that doesn't sound all that stable to me. I never was a smoker, but multitudes will just go back to tobacco.
I hope I'm wrong, but I think some version of strangling restriction is inevitable. References to the prohibition era have some merit, but this is a different country now and vaping is not alcohol.
Last edited by a moderator:
yeah I'm not so sure...whether it was the Viet cong or the Muhajadin against the Soviets, or even the IRA.....guerilla groups have proven they can withstand empires.It's a different world now Suzie. Yes, the 2nd amendment was for the purpose of the citizenry being able to protect themselves from an overreaching tyrannical government. Denying that doesn't pass the snicker test and I agree with that principle.
The trouble is, the pinnacle of weapons technology in the 18th century was sabres, non-repeating small arms and cannons. A well armed citizenry could repel a well armed state military because they were more or less equally equipped.
Never in their wildest ***** induced nightmares could the statesmen of the day have foreseen the weapons technology in the world today. Do you really want some of the people you know to have artillery pieces and guided missile systems at their house? Even if they could afford it?
With today's weaponry, if the state military were turned on the citizens in earnest, there is NO way the private sector could win. That doesn't pass the snicker test either.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but neither of those was the government upon it's own citizens on it's own soil. The soviet people of the time were not doing well against their own government and Ireland's military, even if the cases were the same, is nothing like ours or the USSR.
The Mujahedin ,if you're referring primarily to the Afghanis, were indigenous forces defending their homeland against a foreign threat. They also had help from us in the form of weapons and ammunition.
Look, I'm not trying to be a killjoy friend, but you can't possibly believe that your neighborhood militia could withstand an earnest effort from the United States Army.
Or air force or marines?
I don't want to belabor this because discussions like this are not why I come to this site.
I missed this last night. Make no mistake, Vietnam was the most stupidly fought war in history. We could have stepped on Ho Chi Minh like a bug if we wanted to, but Johnson was more concerned with "not appearing to be the aggressor" than he was with actually winning that war. He as much as said so in one of his public addresses which is probably on youtube.
In fact Colin Powell, whom George Bush 1 put in tactical command of the first gulf war, used Vietnam as an explicit example of what he would NOT do. The "Powell Doctrine" of "overwhelming force was the result. In Vietnam, Kennedy started our involvement as a "police action," itself quite problematic when it comes to a military deployment.
We cautiously trickled forces in and as they were defeated trickled more. By the time of the Tet Offensive of 68, general Westmoreland, who actually knew what needed to be done, was telling Johnson that if we don't invade the north, all of this will have been for nothing. He wouldn't do it. By the time Nixon was in charge, he had inherited an impossible task over there. Of course in 75 we pulled out.
That is an extremely abbreviated history, but the point is not that the VietCong guerillas were too much for us. Don't forget that the NVA were there all along too and Hanoi had the solid backing of China and by extension Kruschev's Soviet Union. This wasn't a case of some dedicated civilian fanatics defeating the mighty United States. We could have crushed North Vietnam if we actually had the will.
Notice that Hussein's Republican Guard, a well trained, well equipped and respected legit military force lasted exactly 100 hours when Powell sent Schwarzkopf into Iraq in 92. Overwhelming force. You attack with far more than what's needed and withdraw in increments once you get an assessment of what's needed to maintain control. The exact opposite of Vietnam.
There is a point to be made about the will and battle readiness of Hussein's forces at that time, but certainly they were more formidable overall than North Vietnam.
The bottom line is, like it or not, the civilian populous of this country cannot defeat our military in a real fight. The fact that it's unconstitutional to deploy troops against our own citizens is laughable. The constitutional rule of law hasn't meant a thing for decades.
Yes, when push comes to shove, they have you right where they want you and there's nuthin you can do about it. If you believe otherwise, be prepared to die for that belief.
Last edited:
That IS a factor. A situation like this, which we think can only happen somewhere else, would be an unthinkable and world changing mess without historical precedent. Not on this scale.
My main point is, an actual nose to nose live fire showdown between the citizens and the state could not possibly end with farmer Joe waving his 12 gauge in victory with his friends at the foot of the Washington Memorial.
and where did you make the leap of logic that the military would fight against their fellow countrymen.....and not join them.
On a side note, Bush 1 made a grave error by allowing our troops to go to war under United Nations resolutions, which included the prohibition of us taking out Saddam Hussein. Schwarzkopf told the president that he knew which bunker he was in and we can eliminate him today if you give the order.
Had we killed him then, like we should have, we could have saved ourselves, and the civilized world, a WHOLE lot of trouble.
Had we killed him then, like we should have, we could have saved ourselves, and the civilized world, a WHOLE lot of trouble.
Last edited:
I wasn't making that leap. I said IF it were to come to that. However, it is an equal leap to assume that our military would disobey orders and refuse to do so. In all likelihood, there would be some of each. Civil war in other words.
Do you really believe that in a show of force, the state is not going to have it's way with you?
Again. I'm not trying to get on anybody's bad side or just be a doomsayer for the sake of it. I'm just not going to kid myself either.
I believe the future is unwritten and that history has many examples of turning on a dime.
As do I, but history has no examples of a superpower or empire being defeated in a decisive action by it's civilian population.
Our own revolution is the closest, but we only threw off the yoke of the English crown as colonies across an ocean. Not as rebels on English soil. We also had plenty of help from France, who was no friend of England at that time either.
both the french and russian revolution......
Neither were superpowers or empires and in the case of France, that was long before the dawn of the industrial/technological age as I addressed above in a comment to Suzie.
If you're talking about the fall of the Soviet Union in 89 and not the Bolsheviks a century earlier, that wasn't a revolution. That was a natural collapse under the weight of it's own disastrous ideology. Which ideology many of our own citizens seem to think will work better over here than it did for them. Another topic, which I am NOT getting into
Last edited:
France was one of two of the most powerfull countries in Europe and it's ruling class had at it's disposal the military might that dwarfed anything the common people could dream of mustering. you made my point for me...almost every empire falls not because of some military logistic, but because they become so decadent, corrupt, and evil that they implode..whether it's the storming of the Bastille or the peasants at the gates of the Winter Palace. or the Irish winning their independence from the empire on which the sun never set... it's just a formality, the final nail in the coffin..these empires fail because they lose the consent, and confidence of the people to govern them.....and all the guns, and all the armies they had were irrelevant to the outcome.Neither were superpowers or empires and in the case of France, that was long before the dawn of the industrial/technological age as I addressed above in a comment to Suzie.
If you're talking about the fall of the Soviet Union in 89 and not the Bolsheviks a century earlier, that wasn't a revolution. That was a natural collapse under the weight of it's own disastrous ideology. Which ideology many of our own citizens seem to think will work better over here than it did for them. Another topic, I am NOT getting into
Last edited:
That "military might" was positively primitive compared to the weaponry of first world countries today. It could be overwhelmed by sheer numbers, cunning and will. That is not the case today. A single Apache helicopter would silence any hint of something akin to a modern American Bastille Day. You simply must see this.
Quite so.
Anyway, I don't know why I'm doing this to myself, but I tentatively think I'm going to get one of those dual mesh Slatra RDAs next, when I can.
you cannot goveren with terror and death it don't work..it's been tried over and over and over again and always ends in disaster..you must have the consent of the goverened or else you are fighting a running battle which you will eventually lose. that is why our ruling elite use propoganda and media control of brain washing the masses over the Chavez/Maduro approach of roaming gangs of uniformed thugs...it is much better to get your slaves to embrace their chains rather than chasing down fires.That "military might" was positively primitive compared to the weaponry of first world countries today. It could be overwhelmed by sheer numbers, cunning and will. That is not the case today. A single Apache helicopter would silence any hint of something akin to a modern American Bastille Day. You simply must see this.
Quite so.
Anyway, I don't know why I'm doing this to myself, but I tentatively think I'm going to get one of those dual mesh Slatra RDAs next, when I can.
as for the slatra....I wouldn't know what to say... I never ever was able to develop a taste for vaping on cotton
Last edited:
My only contention in the context of this conversation is that any attempted violent civilian resistance against our astronomically funded and technologically advanced United States armed forces of today, if met with a meaningful response, would end in hours with a massacre of those civilian combatants being the result. To believe otherwise is to engage in pure fantasy.