Revolution or Reform?  Which do you think is more effective?
965335
I don't neccessarily support a violent uprising, but I'm glad somebody has actually READ the "Declaration of Independence," wherein it describes it as our DUTY to abolish an overly-corrupt government. Our founding fathers were not the bunch of pansies we see in Washington today. They spoke out against the idiocies of religion, patriotism and various things that today's politicians would squeal and run away from.\n\nIf the newly-empowered democrats don't fix the extreme idiocy and lack of education on the homefront (concentrated primarily in the South) then it won't matter much what they do with international policy because our nation will sufficiently disembowel itself. I guess that means education reform, which means the South better come to terms with science, philosophy, linguistics and about a hundred other things that expose religion.
880610
If a gov't is corrupt, then new young leadership must step up and clean house.\n\nIndia is full of corruption. It's time for a change!
1052550
Yes "The French Revolution brought many changes among all four social classes" is an excellent thesis. It clearly states what your paper will be about. The only thing i would change is the fact that you need to be more specific, for example state what the four social classes are.
202142
Eliminate corruption and politicians. Put taxes to legitimate use.  It's a simple formula but i think it will work.
335672
History has proven pure communism or socialism doesn’t work. Humans are free thinkers and eventually demand access to individual freedoms and rights. History has also proven pure democracy and capitalism doesn’t work either.\n\nThe answer is a balance between the two. In a perfect society there would be enough social programs to support the poor, sick, and needy while providing opportunity for those “go getters” who wish to pursues wealth and success.
285901
Where and when did that revolution happen?\n\nDO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK!
1131071
The original change from feudalism was done thru revolution. The same goes for Russia. The change to quasi-capitalism is made thru choice and a realizaton that pure socialism does not work. It is a wonderful consept on paper but due to human nature it does not work.
675209
It is your constitution right to protest this.  You can organize and stage a protest but unless you have a large contingent, the success rate will be minimal.  You could petition your congressmen as well, but again, unless you have a well organized group, it will be merely discarded.  One way that would most likely get you views heard would for you to run for office.  Changing anything from the outside is diificult, especially taxes, but on the inside, you have a better chance.  Even if you lose, your issues would be heard during the campaign and you would see whether your ideas have mass appeal.\nThe final way is to form a revolutionary army and overthrow the government.  I would recommend highly against that idea since such an act is treason and carries a hefty prison sentence, unless you are successful.\nYou should probably do a little more research on your hypothesis first, get your facts on how money is raised, where it goes and have a very detailed, well-thought out plan for change.  Otherwise, your just another crackpot complaining about taxes.
458898
I would say both.  Things don't get worse without some things getting better.
279304
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/TT/qdt1.html  try this site, although you should really delve into the revolution more thoroughly...it's amazing history!
577841
I think people naturally want to improve their efforts, and that is what is being done to serve the clients better. However, there are those who have a hard time with change. It sounds as though you do. Actually, I have used both formats and find them equally well-done, although if I had to choose, I would choose the original.
1043169
what are you reformating?
176783
I would think history would prove that yes, assassination, has been a real problem in our world - that people who are not in agreement with democracy use would be more likely to use assassination to bring about whatever their ideals are about.\n\nSo I would choose a case based on history, examples from history, where democratic leaders have been killed to prevent them from bringing about reforms that the people want.
667938
Are you talking a system of government or which political party should be in power?  If the former, then it should return to the way it was when the government was founded - a republic.  If the latter, then I would say whatever direction an enlightened citizenry (unlike we are today) wants to take it.
628138
Yes, knowing what we know now, this wasn't the solution.\nMuch more could have been achieved with less loss of lives and resources.\nThe real problem with Iraq is yet to emerge. This country is in complete disarray, there is nothing left. the moment the Americans leave, a civil war will break out, because there is no dominating or controlling force. In a normal revolution there is an organization, a plan, a people movement. Ideals, a bigger picture. But here?\nA better way would have been to work from the inside,to start up a movement, to feed them money, structure. To let that movement gain momentum, and so on. In the case of Iraq, maybe try to split up the country?
535695
They are completely different and both are very important for progress of a country. They were interdependent to much extent in historical times, now that's not the case.
1097076
I don't think it was revolution!\n\nIt was evolution.\n\nEven if there was some creation involved (which I highly doubt), it still has to come down to evolution. Otherwise, how do the creator come to be? Anwser: it evolved.\n\nmale, 45, Louisiana