>There are no revolutionaries in the u.s because -- surprise, surprise -
>there are no revolutionaries in the u.s.
I'm confused. While you're criticizing others for allegedly dealing in tautology, you traffic in the same thing yourself. You're describing something, not explaining anything. Everyone knows there are very few revolutionaries in the U.S. Why is that, and can anything be done about it? If you don't address those questions, who cares what you think?
Doug