*** Note: the purpose of this thread is to hear the opinions of TL'ers as I find the voice of reason often resides in these forums. I don't pretend to know what the future truly holds and am not trying to press any belief or opinion on anyone. ***
Edit: I didn't make it clear enough that I am not trying to make any argument with this post. As I said, the only reason I posted this thread is to see what people think. The quotes are there because I found them interesting. They do not necessarily reflect my opinion in any way.
It seems very real, disturbing trends are developing in the USA that can potentially lead to the government having near total control. Three of the biggest dangers are mass media, data mining, and citizens who not only do little to halt progressions in government control, but unwittingly feed into them. It is common knowledge almost everyone has a cell phone that can be tracked and closely monitored. Likewise, many people have Facebook which can reveal a disturbing amount of information about them. Both of these give us the ability to do things we never could before the rise of electronics, but both can also be used to undermine our freedom. Technological innovation should be at the service of men, and allow men to live better lives, but it can be used against them.
Now, what are some of the primary interests of government? To expand its power? To safeguard itself and its citizens? To control?
What are the primary interests of citizens? To keep government power in check? To protect their rights and liberties?
What happens when the equilibrium shifts in favor of government and it obtains too much power over its citizens, taking protection to the extreme by infringing their rights and liberties little by little in favor of mass control and surveillance? Is the government currently working towards this each and every day? Finally, is this consistent with the USA's interventionist foreign policies and actions, where it feels the need to act as world police?
Below are some intriguing comments to the following article that I feel are apt to include in this thread. (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/08/08/planting-vegetable-gardens.aspx):
"The freedoms we have enjoyed up until now, have been legislated to be violated continually. I base this statement on having read the actual texts of post-911 bills, scanned the congressional voting records, and more. Our media is blacking out the truth. The violations are very dictatorship-like and are legislated to be much worse. Police can break into our homes and obtain a warrant after they are gone, dubbing people "terrorists" based on mere free speech/activism and I am not kidding. This is the Patriot Act at work. The Center for Constitutional Rights and ACLU insist that their clients are unremittingly peaceful activists, nothing like those who smash windows et al. The Patriot Act defines the word "terrorist" in such an "over-broad" way (as agreed unanimously by the CCR, ACLU, National Lawyers Guild, Nat'l Rifle Association, American Freedom agenda, and 12 entities of all stripes/colors joining the ACLU's fight against the Patriot Act) that free speech can be, and is clamped down on.
Again we are kept in the dark, no thanks to our media's black-out of the subject, itself an act which only occurs in dictatorships, as does all the brainwashing et al. Worse yet, we can be shot by the President's own unilateral decree, without any court trial or any legal counsel, based on being DUBBED as terrorists (how convenient) by the Pres himself. Doubt it? go to the ACLU's website and read about extra-judicial killing. It's not a joke and if you think we are a free country, please research further. The ACLU's website is the best political education on the web, check it out.
Our media has us thinking nothing is going on. Because of the gag orders (that's right) in the Patriot Act, FBI and police crackdowns are so secret that even Congress knows nothing about it, let alone the media, which is agenda-based and blacking things out anyway."
"As long as we are on the subject, there is even more.
Yes about the face recognition technology, but it gets deeper than that. According to the ACLU of Northern California, the cameras mounted atop phone poles on the highways, can scan and recognize your pupils at freeway speeds.
For the rest, the Military Comissions Act (torture bill) requires that the tortured person have no day in court, the "trial" is held in their absence, they get no legal counsel, no visits or connection with family/friends. US Citizenship is revoked under the Act...and thus, it is guaranteed that an innocent person can be tortured. Just because a newspaper photo exists, we gullibly believe it! In fact, writes Marjorie Cohn, president of the National Lawyers Guild, the Act is written in such a way that Americans can ourselves be tortured. (I won't defend a real terrorist fyi, never. But the ACLU, Red Cross,many more have protested the innocence of 90+% of the Guantanamo detainees, of whom about 50% were PROVEN innocent in court. The rest slipped through the cracks. Only a few are guilty).
For anyone interested, please see the list of those spied on by the FBI, many among them dubbed terrorists, being represented by the ACLU, You won't believe it. It includes the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Quaker anti-war group, the American Friends Service Committee, and so many more that will shock you into awareness. Check this out, and then talk to me thereafter and let me know if going to the ballot box will be enough to straighten things out this year. Further, this is just the tip of the iceberg. See above, and mark my words, they are sterling accurate. If you doubt me, google the facts (ACLU, National Lawyers Guild, Center for Constitutional Rights, American Freedom agenda all have legal analyses) and then, see the texts of the bills, for yourself.
"How strange is the USA. Here in Europe we can grow what we wish on our own land, front or back gardens - excepting for illegal drugs! In France the French take pride in their vegetable areas, potageres - as indeed do I. I have my own currant bushes and own potagere. I should so loathe to live in America, in fact, I don't want to even visit the place - it seems like a total police state, not too far removed from Stalinism, controlled by mindless robots in the thrall of big pharma and the the agri business like Monsanto. You guys are welcome to the whole plateful of s..t. Sad beginning of the end of what might have been a great and forward nation. Sigh. "
"What on earth is happening to your great country, land of the free? In the UK, where we are desperately short of land on which to grow food, there are ten year waiting lists in cities for allotments on which to grow fruit and vegetables. ''Grow your own' is a national pastime. In the war we were all encouraged to dig up our gardens and plant vegetables and fruit - 'Grow for Victory' it was called. If anyone tried to stop us growing veggies in our front or back gardens there would be howls of laughter (not to mention rage) from citizens everywhere. The only problem with growing veggies in your front garden in Britain is that they are likely to be stolen - people are so desperate for food at the moment.
Objecting to citizens growing their own veg in their own gardens is bureaucracy gone mad. This is suppression of individualism and of all the countries in the world the USA is the flag waver for individualism. I know you will all stand up for yourselves against this madness, I just want you to know that this British gardener is right behind you!"
"The majority didn't believe the evidence of their own eyes, on the 9/11 incident.It is more difficult for them to recognize the reason behind the "false flag" principle which was at work, IN SPITE of the evidence you accurately point out.It worked for the WW2 (the bombing of the German Parliament..blamed on The Jews), and the Vietnam War. Mind you, many also believe that the walls of Jericho could "come tumbling down" as the result of some 'cool' horn playing....although sound weapons do now exist. The "mindlessness" is definitely linked. The "power boys" know that...and perpetuate it. The truth sets you free, the opposite is at work in current times."
"Zizzie123, thank you for your kind and insightful message. You nailed it on the head, it is, as you said, "bureaucracy gone mad".
Where it comes from in this particular instance, as described by Dr Mercola's article, is not from Monsanto per se (though I am not contesting their huge and organized efforts to take away the freedom of something so basic as eating and yes, growing your own, too). Instead, in this particular instance, what's the key influence is visuals and petty neighbors pecking away at each other like little pecking hens. The towns/cities take the ball from there, passing Ordinances which allow this, forbid that, etc....creating ever more strictures and controls....all in the name of pleasing their tax payers and "doing good". Some of this "good-doing" comes from necessities like fire control et al. The problem is, that human freedom is then impinged.
We Americans are so innocent based on centuries of freedom, that many just don't "Get it". As you can see, many on this forum do understand, but alas so many just don't. Ignorance is not always bliss, and where we are headed is something awful. Americans are going to have the nastiest wakeup call, and by then it will be too late!
As it is, our deliberately censored and truncated media (since 9-11-01) is brainwashing people into nationalism, terrorism paranoia, fight fight go go ra ra, "protect yourself from those evil terrorists over there" and so we are all brainwashed and blinded. The media is not reporting things that would wake so many people up and create a civil war, trust me Americans would be up in arms about many things, if they knew all that was happening! Others remain silent and complacent because they/we feel disempowered against our government. And others, out of ignorance, remain silent. They don't see what's coming. Once again, centuries of freedom have caused a blissful ignorance...which will become our misery, and very soon too."
"So we are forced to buy auto insurance and in order to help minimize payouts for the insurance companies who help write the laws that their police enforcers are told to write tickets for, then we're further taxed and penalized if we fail to obey the letter of the drivers license contract and "buckle up" because we're putting the PROFITS OF THE INSURANCE COMPANIES AT RISK Of course the MONEY is all those at the top care about, along with the laughing joke that they're controlling us and forcing us to obey these petty laws all the while they laugh as they force extortion money out of us via insurance premiums, driving taxes called tickets and more.
Dean Clifford - 1 (part 1 of 6) - You, Your Rights, The Trust, Courts, Law and More
It's ALL about control, for those in power are ABSOLUTE CONTROL FREAKS that GET OFF on telling you what to do on your own land, though you don't really own it, you just pay rent in the form of Feudal property taxes. Of course preventing you from growing your own FOOD IS all part of their agenda because they don't want ANYONE to be self sufficient at ALL. That is why they're cracking down on this more and more.
Here are more examples of this control and LIES too.
The Real Reason Hemp Is Illegal
The real reason Cannabis has been outlawed has nothing to do with its effects on the mind and body.
MARIJUANA is NOT DANGEROUS. Pot is NOT harmful to the human body or mind. Marijuana does NOT pose a threat to the general public. Marijuana is very much a danger to the oil companies, alcohol, tobacco industries and a large number of chemical corporations. Various big businesses, with plenty of dollars and influence, have suppressed the truth from the people. The truth is if marijuana was utilized for its vast array of commercial products, it would create an industrial atomic bomb! Entrepreneurs have not been educated on the product potential of pot. The super rich have conspired to spread misinformation about an extremely versatile plant that, if used properly, would ruin their companies.
Where did the word 'marijuana' come from? In the mid 1930s, the M-word was created to tarnish the good image and phenomenal history of the hemp plant...as you will read. The facts cited here, with references, are generally verifiable in the Encyclopedia Britannica which was printed on hemp paper for 150 years:
All schoolbooks were made from hemp or flax paper until the 1880s; Hemp Paper Reconsidered, Jack Frazier, 1974. It was LEGAL TO PAY TAXES WITH HEMP in America from 1631 until the early 1800s; LA Times, Aug. 12, 1981. REFUSING TO GROW HEMP in America during the 17th and 18th Centuries WAS AGAINST THE LAW! You could be jailed in Virginia for refusing to grow hemp from 1763 to 1769; Hemp in Colonial Virginia, G. M. Herdon.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers GREW HEMP; Washington and Jefferson Diaries. Jefferson smuggled hemp seeds from China to France then to America. Benjamin Franklin owned one of the first paper mills in America and it processed hemp. Also, the War of 1812 was fought over hemp. Emperor Wears No Clothes, Jack Herer. For thousands of years, 90% all ships' sails and rope were made from hemp. The word 'canvas' is Dutch for cannabis; Webster's New World Dictionary.
80% all textiles, fabrics, clothes, linen, drapes, bed sheets, etc. were made from hemp until the 1820s with the introduction of the cotton gin. Oldest known records of hemp farming go back 5000 years in China, although hemp industrialization probably goes back to ancient Egypt. www.420magazine.com/forums/hemp-facts-information/69780-real-reason-he.."
etc. etc. etc.
Poll: Will the USA ever become a totalitarian state?
Seems likely. (202)
46%
Ha! Yea right... (77)
18%
Doubt it. (64)
15%
You betcha! (56)
13%
Possibly, who knows??? (41)
9%
440 total votes
Your vote: Will the USA ever become a totalitarian state?
(Vote): You betcha! (Vote): Seems likely. (Vote): Possibly, who knows??? (Vote): Doubt it. (Vote): Ha! Yea right...
i won't comment on whether or not that's the case but i do have some questions. what's the point/purpose of this control?, why does it happen?; and since it's stretched out over generations (this need for control), is it passed on from father to son(like an agenda)?, it's institutionalized?, it's compulsive?, why would X care if people are still controlled 100 years from now?.
I don't think totalitarian is the right word, but oppressive to even its own people. My opinion on the future of America, is that a majority of the American people will simply not care enough/endorse govt policy at the expense of other Americans who are termed as "fanatical" and "extremist". It used to be blacks, then communists, then muslims, and now there seems to be an increasing trend of attacks by the media and think-tanks on what they refer to as right-wing "extremists". It is generally the media and think-tanks which first show signs of which group is to be persecuted next in America.
The right-wing "extremists "are also slightly mis-categorized because they aren't exactly right-wing or even extremist. From what i've seen it more-or-less resembles the Ron Paul type of think of independents which is generally anti-govt, anti-interventionist. I guess we'll find out within the next 5-10 years but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if civil war breaks out in America within my life time.
Another point is that Americans increasingly don't care that they are murdering children/women at an alarming on a daily basis with their drone warfare program. One day this indifference for killing is going to come back and haunt america.
On February 05 2013 19:16 xM(Z wrote: i won't comment on whether or not that's the case but i do have some questions. what's the point/purpose of this control?, why does it happen?; and since it's stretched out over generations (this need for control), is it passed on from father to son(like an agenda)?, it's institutionalized?, it's compulsive?, why would X care if people are still controlled 100 years from now?.
The very nature of any system is self-preservance. Any system (or group, or individual) will try to stay alive as much as possible and, in most cases, try to make itself more stable and stronger in the future.
That usually implies making real (or perceived) enemies of said system weaker, it implies gaining more power and control over things it doesn't have power or control over currently. Any collective emotion can be used as a mechanism of control, it's just that things like fear, anger or hatred are more easily directable than e.g. love or joy. Should probably ask historians as to how this usually ends up. =P
tl;dr: Machiavellis "The Prince" makes understanding some of those politics mentioned in the OP much easier to understand.
They'll obviously try their best to enforce the laws they have, that's the whole theory behind the law. What's worrisome are the possible misuses of the initially legitimated technology in an uncertain future.
Usually a law is released along with a technology but with a multitude of holes in the law that have to be closed once the first technology abuses and grey areas appear and already caused damage.
If the technology is secretly being abused by the government for its own purposes and secretly, who is going to notice that to push a new law?Not the government.
Other than that, it seems like OP has a problem with the laws of the US and not the technology behind it, so it's not a problem of being a big brother state, it's a problem of having unjust laws.
On February 05 2013 19:39 sekritzzz wrote: I don't think totalitarian is the right word, but oppressive to even its own people. My opinion on the future of America, is that a majority of the American people will simply not care enough/endorse govt policy at the expense of other Americans who are termed as "fanatical" and "extremist". It used to be blacks, then communists, then muslims, and now there seems to be an increasing trend of attacks by the media and think-tanks on what they refer to as right-wing "extremists". It is generally the media and think-tanks which first show signs of which group is to be persecuted next in America.
Just to give an example of what Machiavelli believed for one of his scenarios:
Assume you have power over a country, similar to a monarch in a constitutional monarchy. Assuming (for whatever reason) political parties grow stronger and the question comes up as to how said monarch can best establish more control over the current system. Machiavellis idea in this case would be to actively fund the right- and leftwing extremists to the point where they're able to threaten the general population. Suddenly you have a situation you wouldn't have if those "evil parties" had less power and also a situation which can be resolved with force (in extension of the monarchs power himself, not by the parties) and at the same time you can cut the freedom of the general population in the name of protecting them.
The idea isn't that you force people into giving away their liberties (that's called trying to be a dictator), the idea is to encourage threats to your population which makes them ask you to take away their liberties. That's called being protective of your nation and your people.
It's about what threats are perceived to be real, that's the only thing that matters. It doesn't matter for example if a crime rate in a city is going down or not. It only matters how many of those crimes get reported via the media and in which intervals they're being talked about compared to other content.
I don't think it is likely that it becomes a totalitarian state, but that really depends on the people to keep electing officials who vote against things that infringe on our freedoms. Fortunately most people are still strong supporters of the 2nd amendment, which is in my opinion the most important to keeping us safe from dictatorship.
On February 05 2013 20:11 kmillz wrote: I don't think it is likely that it becomes a totalitarian state, but that really depends on the people to keep electing officials who vote against things that infringe on our freedoms. Fortunately most people are still strong supporters of the 2nd amendment, which is in my opinion the most important to keeping us safe from dictatorship.
I agree with this. I don't think the second amendment will ever be repealled or changed though for one main reason. The United States has to most armed citizens on the planet. A majority of these gun owners are super adamant about their rights to own guns. I believe if guns were banned entirely removing them from the hands of the population would be an utter bloodbath and most likely would spawn a civil war
Now, what are some of the primary interests of government? To expand its power? To safeguard itself and its citizens? To control?
What are the primary interests of citizens? To keep government power in check? To protect their rights and liberties?
Thoughts?
The primary interest of a citizen is to survive, which is done via obtaining property.
The primary interest of the government is to protect property rights from foreign and domestic threats. In doing so, the government must provide a bear minimum existence to the poor, because if they don't the poor will kill, steal and possibly revolt in order to survive, and then the government will not be able to protect property rights. Also, the government must maintain an army so that other nations cannot simple invade and take property. No government has survived without protecting property rights and providing a bear minimum existence to the poor.
All government stems from there.
This thread is ridiculous. The notion that we are "free" or ever were in America is a fallacy. We aren't free. The only time humans were ever "free" was in the state of nature. We are born into some binding contract with the government that we did not sign, and regulates what we can and cannot do. And it goes beyond more than wanting to scream fire in a crowded theater. I can't go into business as a doctor, unless I jump through all these hoops and get all these certain papers, even if I am 100% qualified to be a doctor by training myself.
You are free the moment you want to be. It has nothing to do with the rights given or taken by any government.
I'll go into it more later, but individualism is inconsistent with the interests of a government, and thus inconsistent with the interests of a citizen. People need to band together, work together, and sacrifice together to ensure that our nations remains competitive with other nations, both economically and militarily. If we fail, then we cannot protect our property, and without our property, we cannot survive.
JFK wasn't kidding when he said "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can for your country."
One doesn't have to smoke weed to think USA is fucked up. I mean, torture? Really? Exporting war? Or the "we are on the security council so you can't touch us"? Jailing a company's spokesperson going to a conference, because Adobe gets butthurt? Or basically everything DHS does? From the European/post communist viewpoint, the US is very "police state-y". The "terrorist threat" is the uniting outside enemy. Now there's some talk about "domestic terrorism" = inside enemy (like Jews and commies to the Reich). All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.
On February 05 2013 20:28 3772 wrote: One doesn't have to smoke weed to think USA is fucked up. I mean, torture? Really? Exporting war? Or the "we are on the security council so you can't touch us"? Jailing a company's spokesperson going to a conference, because Adobe gets butthurt? Or basically everything DHS does? From the European/post communist viewpoint, the US is very "police state-y". The "terrorist threat" is the uniting outside enemy. Now there's some talk about "domestic terrorism" = inside enemy (like Jews and commies to the Reich). All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.
And as a counterpoint to this. The US today started its case against big investment firms about the GFC. Namely them giving AAA ratings to mortgage backed securities which were CLEARLY not AAA rated.
Honestly anyone that believes the government is removing freedoms is probably correct because freedoms are changing all the time. You aren't free to speed wherever you like, the government sets rules and people will follow them. The best part is nowadays you are probably MORE free in America 100 years ago. More people have the right to vote, more equality among sexes. There is probably even more freedom regarding the courts and freedom of speech due to the existence of the internet.
I really wanted to read this post! But sorry when I reached cell phone I had to stop! You don't have to fear a totalitarian state! You guys have your guns!!!
It's very surprising that the highest chosen option is 'seems likely'. You have got to be kidding me.
The USA PATRIOT act is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever created in the western world...I'll give you that. And so much of the legislative has clearly been compromised, and the CJs of the Supreme Court are clearly politically compromised. However you're very very far away from a totalitarian state and you will never get there.
By the way everyone talks about how hemp is supposed to be this wonder material but it's legal to grow here in the UK and it's not like we live in a hemp-based economy.
Also, I can't believe you have a problem with people being forced to put their seatbelts in. It will save your god damned life, who the hell cares how or why you are forced.
On February 05 2013 21:05 sc4k wrote: It's very surprising that the highest chosen option is 'seems likely'. You have got to be kidding me.
The USA PATRIOT act is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever created in the western world...I'll give you that. And so much of the legislative has clearly been compromised, and the CJs of the Supreme Court are clearly politically compromised. However you're very very far away from a totalitarian state and you will never get there.
By the way everyone talks about how hemp is supposed to be this wonder material but it's legal to grow here in the UK and it's not like we live in a hemp-based economy.
Also, I can't believe you have a problem with people being forced to put their seatbelts in. It will save your god damned life, who the hell cares how or why you are forced.
I think you misunderstood, those are all quotes not his outright opinion himself, he may have found them interesting or agrees in some way and put them there for us to read as snippets of the comments in the article posted but never said these are my opinions on them.
And to me im kind of a conspiracy theorist guy so it wouldn't surprise me if america became a totalitarian state at some point just not anything that I believe id see in my own life time the false flags and illuminati so far haven't been enough to sway America into an internal war yet, just drive them deeper into ignorance of whats going on around us.
Yeah, the way the USA handled 9/11 is very different from the europeans country. But then again, a large part of americans don't bother to vote so .. My train of thoughts is that the basic american doesn't really care about who govern and what they do with it
wut, some people should read a bit about what totalitarism really was and how it was set up before putting stupid polls online. Tho the results show that the people answering the poll don't know a lot either ^^
Well at the moment the USA seem like the only country where 1984 may actually ever happen, possibly even be on the way. While I deem it possible I could not say under any circumstances how high/low the chances of that actually ever happening are, never having been to the states.
PS: I would find it hilarious if the US became a dictatorship though, simply due to the fact that some people are so sure that the second amendment will protect them from just that...
You know you live in a good time in history when one of the key examples of the "big brother" government coming to get you is when a couple dumb local governments have funny garden laws.
OP quotes a lot of Liberal sites and agendas to back up his arguments (some not even viable) and then claims the media (which is slight liberal leaning in America) is hiding the truth. Does that not suggest that maybe the claims being made are inaccurate or wrong? That logic seems backwards to me. If the media backs the Liberal position and the liberal position states it's okay, then why would the Media lie about it?
I dunno about any of this except the Department of Homeland Security gets 60 billion dollars in annual funding and 240,000 employees, contrast this to the FBI which "only" gets 8.1 billion dollars and 36,000 employees. Where the hell is all that money going? In the media I see the FBI all over the place but the DHS?
People who make threads like these have never lived in countries that can actually be described as totalitarian, and if they had, they wouldnt be making threads like this.
The majority didn't believe the evidence of their own eyes, on the 9/11 incident
and you quote it as a reference... Dude, you should never post on politics or any other complicated topic you don't know shit about. I'm actually living in the totalitarian state in the making right now and your blubbering about how bad US is at that offends me.
The whole world is heading in that direction. Maybe it will stop at some point, but we've most definitely not seen the end of it yet. I mean, when stores started introducing cameras people were complaining, now its the most natural thing in the world. Maybe in 100 years we'll get one of those chips you see in future movies implanted as we're born and we'll be totally ok with it, who knows.
The US is a country that is theoretically built on the ideas of freedom, liberty, and equality. However, in practice it seems that fear and distrust runs the country instead. Even people's love of freedom has become ruled by fear; fear that the government will take it away, fear that others are infringing on freedoms. As a result, instead of viewing the gov't as a service to the people and a public good, it is viewed as a necessary evil that must constantly be kept in check lest it destroy everything. What you end up with is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy. When you are so focused on keeping the government in check as opposed to keeping the government focused on its mandate of serving its populace. When the people constantly focus on fighting the government and trying to limit its power, the government does the same thing in trying to protect its power.
Of course the US government is nowhere near a 'totalitarian state.' It's just a culture of fear.
No, there will not be a totalitarian state. No it won't happen, yes we can hypothesize what could drive us to it, but no it will never happen. The constitution, and all the rest of our original documents were made to prevent that. I really think this is completely out of left field.
On February 05 2013 23:18 PassiveAce wrote: People who make threads like these have never lived in countries that can actually be described as totalitarian, and if they had, they wouldnt be making threads like this.
Difference in living in rich totalitarian country and a poor one is what you spoke off, and is obvious to naked eye, but the regime and the rules that apply are the same.
I hesitate to dust off my tin foil hat, I am sorry but I used to work for a governor's office and this kind of, for lack of a better term, conspiracy laden stuff would come in all the time. None of OP is completely exclusive to the US, the 21st century will have an unprecedented decline in privacy, that much is certain. It doesn't follow that authoritarian rule is quick on its heels. You'll have to work harder to maintain some semblance of anonymity the more, and better data is volunteered by the public.
On February 05 2013 21:32 sAsImre wrote: wut, some people should read a bit about what totalitarism really was and how it was set up before putting stupid polls online. Tho the results show that the people answering the poll don't know a lot either ^^
Totalitarianism can actually be very quiet and peaceful.
On February 05 2013 22:58 Potatisodlaren wrote: I dunno about any of this except the Department of Homeland Security gets 60 billion dollars in annual funding and 240,000 employees, contrast this to the FBI which "only" gets 8.1 billion dollars and 36,000 employees. Where the hell is all that money going? In the media I see the FBI all over the place but the DHS?
It's going towards billions of bullets. And yet, the government asks why the average American needs to be armed...
To answer the OP, yes, I do believe we are headed towards tyranny, because our financial situation is terrible and is not getting better any time soon. During the Great Depression, government expanded immensely, so I expect the same to happen when we go into our full blown depression.
On February 05 2013 21:32 sAsImre wrote: wut, some people should read a bit about what totalitarism really was and how it was set up before putting stupid polls online. Tho the results show that the people answering the poll don't know a lot either ^^
What is this "totalitarism" you speak of, statist?
On February 05 2013 21:32 sAsImre wrote: wut, some people should read a bit about what totalitarism really was and how it was set up before putting stupid polls online. Tho the results show that the people answering the poll don't know a lot either ^^
What is this "totalitarism" you speak of, statist?
something that has been defined but the likes of Arendt/Neumann/Lefort/etc... (those are the one I know a bit about, but it was a heated debate back then and you can have multiple authors) which include the fact that the state lose almost all its power in favor of another entity which isn't bind by law like the party or a movement depending on which author you like the most. All the transparency business going on (and state issues are waaaaaay less opaque than they used to be) is just the contrary of a totalitarian policy which apply transparency to everything in everyone life (big brother) but not to the state (or whatever you want to call it since it's just the same type of power applied by a similar institution) .
However we can argue about the degree of authoritarianism and the impact of common interest on the US (or any other western countries) policy and it becomes interesting because things are going in both directions and you can plead for one way or the other.
On February 05 2013 21:42 TotalNightmare wrote: Well at the moment the USA seem like the only country where 1984 may actually ever happen, possibly even be on the way. While I deem it possible I could not say under any circumstances how high/low the chances of that actually ever happening are, never having been to the states.
PS: I would find it hilarious if the US became a dictatorship though, simply due to the fact that some people are so sure that the second amendment will protect them from just that...
France is extremely protectionistic, the economy is shaky, far right wing is almost presidential strong, political discourse is particularly nasty and turnout is plummeting very fast! None of those factors are encouraging for stability of democracy and it certainly is pointing towards increased surveillance!
USA has a choice between a right wing president and a conservative/extreme right president, making the votes unimportant to a certain degree. electronic voting is pretty common (that is a negative for trust in democracy, mind you), strong biased economic interests have almost deciding power, there is a structurally shaky economy and a general dissatisfaction with all politicians. USA is looking more like a government run by conglamorations of interest, which ironically is close to the 1984 idea of communism (Orwells vision, not even close to what Marx envisioned)... However surveillance in USA is always gonna be tricky to some extend because of political paranoia about several of the direct methods. To compensate there is an even bigger increase in indirect surveillance and therefore indirect right erosion. That people are becoming more aware because of the overreach to stop holes for terrorists is a reason for why USA is not gonna turn into a 1984!
Edit: As for canabis being illegal for some random reason. You are paranoid! Canabis is illegal in most of the rest of the world too and especially in Europe...
I really don't think so. As long as we have the power to elect our leaders, and people are smart enough to not elect crazy people and put them in charge the USA will always be a democracy. Our government has a checks and balances system. The supreme court is suppose to keep the laws passed in check by ruling them constitional, and the president keeps congress in check or vice versa. THe point is the PResident isn't 100% in control.
On February 05 2013 23:18 PassiveAce wrote: People who make threads like these have never lived in countries that can actually be described as totalitarian, and if they had, they wouldnt be making threads like this.
I wouldn't be making threads like this anyway, but hey: I have lived in a totalitarian state, and most of it looked very similar to the US actually.
Yea, once you got to the hemp crap, you lost most credibility. Yes, this country is pretty fucked up. There are a lot of things wrong with it, a lot of corruption, etc. But totalitarian dictatorship? Ridiculous. Our system is built to be so anti-dictatorship that it would take a constitutional amendment to allow it to happen legally, or you'd just need an illegal, forceful takeover. Either of those are incredibly unlikely and would be seen from a mile and a half away. You would need an incredibly corrupt system where a majority of all three branches of government were in on the whole thing, and if it ever gets to that point, it's the public's fault (and a lot of problems already are the public's fault).
If anything, the U.S. is heading towards modernized civilization. We are woefully behind a lot of European countries by sticking to our archaic cultural beliefs that require guns to be cheap and easily accessible to anyone, a horrific healthcare system, almost non-existent consumer protection when compared to "business rights", a horrific education system marred by skyrocketing costs, horrible social mobility, and all of this (and more) in the name of "individual freedom". It's right-wing, hypocritical BS that also gets us stuff like the Patriot Act.
On February 05 2013 21:42 TotalNightmare wrote: Well at the moment the USA seem like the only country where 1984 may actually ever happen, possibly even be on the way. While I deem it possible I could not say under any circumstances how high/low the chances of that actually ever happening are, never having been to the states.
PS: I would find it hilarious if the US became a dictatorship though, simply due to the fact that some people are so sure that the second amendment will protect them from just that...
France is extremely protectionistic, the economy is shaky, far right wing is almost presidential strong, political discourse is particularly nasty and turnout is plummeting very fast! None of those factors are encouraging for stability of democracy and it certainly is pointing towards increased surveillance!
The far right wing is going nowhere in a short term and if it really wants to have a legitimate shot at the presidential election it'll need to make compromises with center-right voters at the very least, which mean they will basically a conservative party. But yeah in France the state always had a big role and the fear of a big state basically doesn't exist among the population. People might be more afraid of less state lol. (which is kinda not understable for most US citizens :p)
On February 05 2013 20:11 kmillz wrote: I don't think it is likely that it becomes a totalitarian state, but that really depends on the people to keep electing officials who vote against things that infringe on our freedoms. Fortunately most people are still strong supporters of the 2nd amendment, which is in my opinion the most important to keeping us safe from dictatorship.
This is one of the most ridiculous reasons to support the 2nd amendment, if the government decided to take over completely the army, navy and air force would be on their side.... no matter how many guns you have, they have more, bigger and better ones. The 2nd amendment was written in a time before modern armies, modern weapons and modern military tactics were even a glint in someones eye. It was written before the police were invented, in a time when citizens could rise up against the government and have a fighting chance to win. You spend more on your military than the next 17 biggest spending countries in the world combined, if you think you would have any chance against them, you are deluded.
If you seriously believe that "the people" owning guns is ever going to stop the government doing whatever they want, you are cuckoo. There would be nothing to stop them. The part of your constitution that protects you from tyranny is the part about elections and a government of the people, you stop the problem before it becomes a problem by ousting those who wish to oppress you. I like in the UK and we have no guns (or very few) in the hands of the citizens and we certainly do not fear our government in any way, if we don't like something as a country we vote them out.
The US isn't heading for totalitarianism or big brother, just the march of modern technology. If as a country you aren't vocal enough about not wanting certain laws then the failure would be on the people, not on the government, if a totalitarian state emerged. You have all the tools to stop it within your legal system and elections, but if people become too disengaged with politics to stop it, then you only have yourselves to blame.
On February 05 2013 23:18 PassiveAce wrote: People who make threads like these have never lived in countries that can actually be described as totalitarian, and if they had, they wouldnt be making threads like this.
I wouldn't be making threads like this anyway, but hey: I have lived in a totalitarian state, and most of it looked very similar to the US actually.
That's just because we sold them their furniture. Unless you're talking about Germany, with its "feudal property taxes" (one of the most ridiculous and indicative lines in the OP people have seemed to miss.)
Also, the doctor he's citing is an anti-vaccine guy. Just sayin'.
That's not to say the unprecedented amount of access the NSA has isn't problematic, but the main problems facing the country aren't due to weed and car insurance. That's just absurd. I figured this would be on the newly leaked DoJ justifications for drone strikes on US citizens but instead it's on seatbelt laws (which are awesome, btw.)
How anyone forgotten the Supreme court could easily shoot down these unconstitutional bills? They did it many times in the pass and I won't be surprise if they do it now no matter how corrupt congress is.
On February 05 2013 23:18 PassiveAce wrote: People who make threads like these have never lived in countries that can actually be described as totalitarian, and if they had, they wouldnt be making threads like this.
I wouldn't be making threads like this anyway, but hey: I have lived in a totalitarian state, and most of it looked very similar to the US actually.
I am really confused by this, the blog you wrote explicitly talks about all of the things citizens are not free to do, like practice their religion if they arnt muslim. I have never been to this country but what you wrote does not sound anything like america to me.
I see what you mean if you are talking about appearances, but thats not really the spirit of what I was talking about.
On February 05 2013 22:58 Potatisodlaren wrote: I dunno about any of this except the Department of Homeland Security gets 60 billion dollars in annual funding and 240,000 employees, contrast this to the FBI which "only" gets 8.1 billion dollars and 36,000 employees. Where the hell is all that money going? In the media I see the FBI all over the place but the DHS?
It's going towards billions of bullets. And yet, the government asks why the average American needs to be armed...
To answer the OP, yes, I do believe we are headed towards tyranny, because our financial situation is terrible and is not getting better any time soon. During the Great Depression, government expanded immensely, so I expect the same to happen when we go into our full blown depression.
Billions of bullets aren't going to cost billions of dollars,
That's where it's going, it looks like the DHS's responsibility is to support some of the terribly underfunded organizations charged to actually defend our borders and help us after natural disasters. Plus some other stuff, don't have time to read all of it.
"State and Local Grants: The FY 2012 request sustains federal funding for state and local preparedness grants totaling over $3.8 billion, highlighting the Department’s commitment to moving resources out of Washington, D.C. and into the hands of state and local first responders who are often best positioned to detect and respond to terrorism, other threats, and natural disasters."
"The total request for U.S. Coast Guard Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements is $1.4 billion."
I'm not actually sure that list adds up to as much as they say it does, I would expect some confidential funding but I am pretty impressed by a lot of their initiatives even if they look like another bureaucracy charged with supporting the other parts of the bureaucracy.
Okay, after looking at their "enhancing security" section, airports have just retarded amounts of money thrown atthem for security, but we kind of knew that already.
On February 05 2013 23:18 PassiveAce wrote: People who make threads like these have never lived in countries that can actually be described as totalitarian, and if they had, they wouldnt be making threads like this.
I wouldn't be making threads like this anyway, but hey: I have lived in a totalitarian state, and most of it looked very similar to the US actually.
That's just because we sold them their furniture. Unless you're talking about Germany, with its "feudal property taxes" (one of the most ridiculous and indicative lines in the OP people have seemed to miss.)
Also, the doctor he's citing is an anti-vaccine guy. Just sayin'.
Oh, the doctor's a hack, always good to know.
Also Zatic did you mean "look" as in on the surface, similar cars and franchises, or did you mean it in a more figurative sense as in "oppressive feel" kind of thing?
The op is a total clusterfuck, holy shit. Certain parts of the PATRIOT Act are pretty fucked, and that is well established. It's also why we have powerful groups like the ACLU. Politics here—like every country on Earth—are a push and pull between extremes on both sides.
The rest of it, I don't even understand.
How in the fuck is making mandatory drivers insurance a bad thing? I don't feel like being on the hook for repairs to my car if I get into an accident with some asshole who doesn't have it.
Zoning laws = totalitarian state? Consider me a card carrying Pinko then, since I like having ordinances that prevent some libertarian weirdo from regularly strolling outside ass naked to take a shit on his compost heap that he uses to fertilize his orchid of righteous and free apple trees.
Zoning laws are completely necessary in environements where there are more than 10 people to a town. Otherwise you'd get people who would happily let their front lawns grow to 3 feet tall, littered with dog shit, rusted broken down cars and trash from their house.
Now, what are some of the primary interests of government? To expand its power? To safeguard itself and its citizens? To control?
What are the primary interests of citizens? To keep government power in check? To protect their rights and liberties?
1) To serve the people as a body by organising and structuring the country. Like providing education, building roads and protect the people (both from dangers inside the country and abroad).
2) To live happy lives.
Now ofcourse a person in power that's too greedy has to be kept in check, to prevent a democracy turning into a totalitarian state, which is why certain laws are in place. I don't think your Amercan government is an evil organisation working towards total control.
On February 05 2013 22:58 Potatisodlaren wrote: I dunno about any of this except the Department of Homeland Security gets 60 billion dollars in annual funding and 240,000 employees, contrast this to the FBI which "only" gets 8.1 billion dollars and 36,000 employees. Where the hell is all that money going? In the media I see the FBI all over the place but the DHS?
It's going towards billions of bullets. And yet, the government asks why the average American needs to be armed...
To answer the OP, yes, I do believe we are headed towards tyranny, because our financial situation is terrible and is not getting better any time soon. During the Great Depression, government expanded immensely, so I expect the same to happen when we go into our full blown depression.
Billions of bullets aren't going to cost billions of dollars,
Missing the point though, if you read the article, "Major General Jerry Curry, (Ret) offered up a good point when the 750 million order became public last fall saying that number of bullets was more than 10 times what U.S. troops used in a full year of Iraqi combat."
What is DHS planning for that they require 10 times the amount of bullets that were used in a warzone? If there's no credible/forseeable threat, then it sounds like they're wasting a lot of money. And if there is a threat, then why are they so averse to allowing the public to be well armed?
On February 06 2013 01:11 Jibba wrote: Or they just got a good deal and with the economy improving and people worried about gun registration, they're predicting prices will go up?
You clearly didn't get the memo. This is a mandatory tinfoil hat zone. Please exit the premises, or the Illuminati security guards will escort you out of the thread
On February 06 2013 01:11 Jibba wrote: Or they just got a good deal and with the economy improving and people worried about gun registration, they're predicting prices will go up?
You clearly didn't get the memo. This is a mandatory tinfoil hat zone. Please exit the premises, or the Illuminati security guards will escort you out of the thread
On topic: I think that while the US may be going a little screwy at times, I don't see anything drastic happening in my lifetime. And if it looks like it will, make room Canadians!
On February 05 2013 22:58 Potatisodlaren wrote: I dunno about any of this except the Department of Homeland Security gets 60 billion dollars in annual funding and 240,000 employees, contrast this to the FBI which "only" gets 8.1 billion dollars and 36,000 employees. Where the hell is all that money going? In the media I see the FBI all over the place but the DHS?
It's going towards billions of bullets. And yet, the government asks why the average American needs to be armed...
To answer the OP, yes, I do believe we are headed towards tyranny, because our financial situation is terrible and is not getting better any time soon. During the Great Depression, government expanded immensely, so I expect the same to happen when we go into our full blown depression.
Billions of bullets aren't going to cost billions of dollars,
Missing the point though, if you read the article, "Major General Jerry Curry, (Ret) offered up a good point when the 750 million order became public last fall saying that number of bullets was more than 10 times what U.S. troops used in a full year of Iraqi combat."
What is DHS planning for that they require 10 times the amount of bullets that were used in a warzone? If there's no credible/forseeable threat, then it sounds like they're wasting a lot of money. And if there is a threat, then why are they so averse to allowing the public to be well armed?
I would think they provide them to police forces and they use them in their firearm training courses. Seems in line with giving grants to firefighters and the like, just instead of cash, they get bullets.
Reedit: After realizing those headlines were just conspiracy nutjob websites and gun nut forums (not everyone with a gun is a gun nut, but the people I saw posting were). Who is the "they" that's so averse to the public being well armed?
On February 06 2013 01:11 Jibba wrote: Or they just got a good deal and with the economy improving and people worried about gun registration, they're predicting prices will go up?
So enough ammunition to fight 13 years of war in Iraq the previous year wasn't enough? So they bought an additional 10 years worth just because they want to save money?
On February 05 2013 22:58 Potatisodlaren wrote: I dunno about any of this except the Department of Homeland Security gets 60 billion dollars in annual funding and 240,000 employees, contrast this to the FBI which "only" gets 8.1 billion dollars and 36,000 employees. Where the hell is all that money going? In the media I see the FBI all over the place but the DHS?
It's going towards billions of bullets. And yet, the government asks why the average American needs to be armed...
To answer the OP, yes, I do believe we are headed towards tyranny, because our financial situation is terrible and is not getting better any time soon. During the Great Depression, government expanded immensely, so I expect the same to happen when we go into our full blown depression.
Billions of bullets aren't going to cost billions of dollars,
Missing the point though, if you read the article, "Major General Jerry Curry, (Ret) offered up a good point when the 750 million order became public last fall saying that number of bullets was more than 10 times what U.S. troops used in a full year of Iraqi combat."
What is DHS planning for that they require 10 times the amount of bullets that were used in a warzone? If there's no credible/forseeable threat, then it sounds like they're wasting a lot of money. And if there is a threat, then why are they so averse to allowing the public to be well armed?
I would think they provide them to police forces and they use them in their firearm training courses. Seems in line with giving grants to firefighters and the like, just instead of cash, they get bullets.
Reedit: After realizing those headlines were just conspiracy nutjob websites and gun nut forums (not everyone with a gun is a gun nut, but the people I saw posting were). Who is the "they" that's so averse to the public being well armed?
Business Insider is a conspiracy nutjob website?
The funny thing is, local police departments are having to do dry fire exercises due to ammo shortages. Meanwhile, a federal agency is sitting on over a billion rounds of ammunition. And the excuse is, they're buying in bulk to get a good deal?
Again, read the article "all the firing in the above courses, and whatever else gets expended, requires about 15 million rounds of ammunition a year."
That means their recent 750 million round order is enough for 50 years worth of training. Must have been one hell of a discount to buy 50 years worth of ammunition for training.
[edit]
The "they" I'm referring to are the politicians during that firearms hearing last week that kept asking "why do people NEED" a particular gun or a particular capacity of magazine. These guys are questioning why someone needs to hold more than 7 rounds of ammunition in their magazine, while a federal agency is buying over a billion rounds of ammunition...
On February 06 2013 01:11 Jibba wrote: Or they just got a good deal and with the economy improving and people worried about gun registration, they're predicting prices will go up?
So enough ammunition to fight 13 years of war in Iraq the previous year wasn't enough? So they bought an additional 10 years worth just because they want to save money?
Yes. If they're anticipating new laws that will drastically change the gun market, you lock up a huge supply before prices increase any further. Someone in the purchasing department is getting a promotion for thinking ahead.
On February 05 2013 19:23 Animzor wrote: Are you one of those guys that smokes weed and watches zeitgeist?
I'm gonna go ahead and guess he's one of those guys that likes Starcraft and watches gomtv.
Oh wow, I never realized before that you can judge everything about a person if you only know 2 details about their lives. Thanks for demonstrating this for us!
On February 05 2013 22:58 Potatisodlaren wrote: I dunno about any of this except the Department of Homeland Security gets 60 billion dollars in annual funding and 240,000 employees, contrast this to the FBI which "only" gets 8.1 billion dollars and 36,000 employees. Where the hell is all that money going? In the media I see the FBI all over the place but the DHS?
It's going towards billions of bullets. And yet, the government asks why the average American needs to be armed...
To answer the OP, yes, I do believe we are headed towards tyranny, because our financial situation is terrible and is not getting better any time soon. During the Great Depression, government expanded immensely, so I expect the same to happen when we go into our full blown depression.
Billions of bullets aren't going to cost billions of dollars,
Missing the point though, if you read the article, "Major General Jerry Curry, (Ret) offered up a good point when the 750 million order became public last fall saying that number of bullets was more than 10 times what U.S. troops used in a full year of Iraqi combat."
What is DHS planning for that they require 10 times the amount of bullets that were used in a warzone? If there's no credible/forseeable threat, then it sounds like they're wasting a lot of money. And if there is a threat, then why are they so averse to allowing the public to be well armed?
I would think they provide them to police forces and they use them in their firearm training courses. Seems in line with giving grants to firefighters and the like, just instead of cash, they get bullets.
Reedit: After realizing those headlines were just conspiracy nutjob websites and gun nut forums (not everyone with a gun is a gun nut, but the people I saw posting were). Who is the "they" that's so averse to the public being well armed?
Business Insider is a conspiracy nutjob website?
The funny thing is, local police departments are having to do dry fire exercises due to ammo shortages. Meanwhile, a federal agency is sitting on over a billion rounds of ammunition. And the excuse is, they're buying in bulk to get a good deal?
Again, read the article "all the firing in the above courses, and whatever else gets expended, requires about 15 million rounds of ammunition a year."
That means their recent 750 million round order is enough for 50 years worth of training. Must have been one hell of a discount to buy 50 years worth of ammunition for training.
No no, no, you must have missed the edit I deleted fairly quickly. I quickly googled "DHS and gun control," to find out who "they" could be. There were a lot of hits about how DHS is pro-gun control, but then I actually clicked on a few of them and found the wackos.
I'm not disputing the article you posted. I'm asking you who "they" are. I'm not totally sure why DHS is buying so many bullets. Possibly they are required to because some congressman has a factory in his district and threw an amendment into some bill to make sure they had good business. (Yay, democracy!) Maybe some mid-level manager was given too much money and wants to spend it all so his budget doesn't get cut next year. (Yay, bureaucracy!) It is weird, but most weird things in life have a normal explanation.
On February 06 2013 00:08 SpeaKEaSY wrote: And if there is a threat, then why are they so averse to allowing the public to be well armed?
Now, who is the "they" that are opposed to an armed public you mentioned earlier?
On February 06 2013 01:11 Jibba wrote: Or they just got a good deal and with the economy improving and people worried about gun registration, they're predicting prices will go up?
So enough ammunition to fight 13 years of war in Iraq the previous year wasn't enough? So they bought an additional 10 years worth just because they want to save money?
Yes. If they're anticipating new laws that will drastically change the gun market, you lock up a huge supply before prices increase any further. Someone in the purchasing department is getting a promotion for thinking ahead.
Ugh, this can't be more wrong. First of all, the interest opportunity cost of buying 13 years worth of Iraqi war bullets for the department of homeland security will outweigh a price increase, even if it doubles or triples in price.
Second of all, no agency, let alone the DHS can speculate and demand upfront money because they suspect a rise in prices. It simply doesn't work that way.
I think the US is definitely heading towards bigger government, especially on the spending front, but I don't see how this translates into a totalitarian state.
On February 06 2013 01:33 Barrin wrote: I know the South are unfortunately going to be the last states to legalize it (lots of religious communities down here)... Florida in particular, where I live (REPRESENT~).
But you know what, the South had something to say about this "big brother" govt. and the more I learn about it the more I realize where my loyalties lie.
don't be obtuse. Slavery wasn't the sole reason for the war by any means, but it was absolutely a huge part of it and there's a damn good reason the the flag is associated with it. A major part of the south's anger over a big brother government was free states not wanting to respect a southerner's property—ie, his slaves—if he moved to a state that outlawed slavery.
just because some naive 18 year old black kid doesn't know a bit of history doesnt mean change the flag's very intertwined history with slavery
On February 06 2013 01:11 Jibba wrote: Or they just got a good deal and with the economy improving and people worried about gun registration, they're predicting prices will go up?
So enough ammunition to fight 13 years of war in Iraq the previous year wasn't enough? So they bought an additional 10 years worth just because they want to save money?
Yes. If they're anticipating new laws that will drastically change the gun market, you lock up a huge supply before prices increase any further. Someone in the purchasing department is getting a promotion for thinking ahead.
The new laws would change the gun market, not the ammunition market. Ammunition suppliers have already been ramping up production due to the numerous wars we're fighting, but even they were shocked by the sudden massive order from DHS that seemed to come out of nowhere.
I mean come on, enough ammunition to train for 50 years, don't you think the market will have adjusted to provide for demand within that 50 year period? It costs money to store ammunition, so having over a billion rounds sit unused taking up space and requiring climate control may end up offsetting or even exceeding the savings.
How many rounds would they have to buy before you felt it was excessive? 100 years? 200?
On February 05 2013 22:58 Potatisodlaren wrote: I dunno about any of this except the Department of Homeland Security gets 60 billion dollars in annual funding and 240,000 employees, contrast this to the FBI which "only" gets 8.1 billion dollars and 36,000 employees. Where the hell is all that money going? In the media I see the FBI all over the place but the DHS?
It's going towards billions of bullets. And yet, the government asks why the average American needs to be armed...
To answer the OP, yes, I do believe we are headed towards tyranny, because our financial situation is terrible and is not getting better any time soon. During the Great Depression, government expanded immensely, so I expect the same to happen when we go into our full blown depression.
Billions of bullets aren't going to cost billions of dollars,
Missing the point though, if you read the article, "Major General Jerry Curry, (Ret) offered up a good point when the 750 million order became public last fall saying that number of bullets was more than 10 times what U.S. troops used in a full year of Iraqi combat."
What is DHS planning for that they require 10 times the amount of bullets that were used in a warzone? If there's no credible/forseeable threat, then it sounds like they're wasting a lot of money. And if there is a threat, then why are they so averse to allowing the public to be well armed?
I would think they provide them to police forces and they use them in their firearm training courses. Seems in line with giving grants to firefighters and the like, just instead of cash, they get bullets.
Reedit: After realizing those headlines were just conspiracy nutjob websites and gun nut forums (not everyone with a gun is a gun nut, but the people I saw posting were). Who is the "they" that's so averse to the public being well armed?
Business Insider is a conspiracy nutjob website?
The funny thing is, local police departments are having to do dry fire exercises due to ammo shortages. Meanwhile, a federal agency is sitting on over a billion rounds of ammunition. And the excuse is, they're buying in bulk to get a good deal?
Again, read the article "all the firing in the above courses, and whatever else gets expended, requires about 15 million rounds of ammunition a year."
That means their recent 750 million round order is enough for 50 years worth of training. Must have been one hell of a discount to buy 50 years worth of ammunition for training.
No no, no, you must have missed the edit I deleted fairly quickly. I quickly googled "DHS and gun control," to find out who "they" could be. There were a lot of hits about how DHS is pro-gun control, but then I actually clicked on a few of them and found the wackos.
I'm not disputing the article you posted. I'm asking you who "they" are. I'm not totally sure why DHS is buying so many bullets. Possibly they are required to because some congressman has a factory in his district and threw an amendment into some bill to make sure they had good business. (Yay, democracy!) Maybe some mid-level manager was given too much money and wants to spend it all so his budget doesn't get cut next year. (Yay, bureaucracy!) It is weird, but most weird things in life have a normal explanation.
On February 06 2013 00:08 SpeaKEaSY wrote: And if there is a threat, then why are they so averse to allowing the public to be well armed?
Now, who is the "they" that are opposed to an armed public you mentioned earlier?
Yeah my bad, I missed it initially, I reedited in response:
[edit]
The "they" I'm referring to are the politicians during that firearms hearing last week that kept asking "why do people NEED" a particular gun or a particular capacity of magazine. These guys are questioning why someone needs to hold more than 7 rounds of ammunition in their magazine, while a federal agency is buying over a billion rounds of ammunition...
I don't even own/use a gun, so such disturbances in the ammo market have no direct effect on me, but I dislike the double standard that some people seem to have. When individuals stockpile ammunition (spending their own money), they are called tinfoil hatters and conspiracy theorists, but when a federal agency spends the people's money on enough ammo to last a decade in Iraq or half a century of firearms training, they are being prudent and you have some people saying promotions are in order.
Usa cant escape the process of globalisation and egalisation. This means that the usa will look a bit more like europe, and that europe will become a bit more like the usa. They will probably meet somewhere in the middle. For the usa this means a bigger goverment and more goverment spending on social securitry, for europe this means a smaller goverment and less spending on social security. The way the markets work and operate will also converge, more regulation in the usa and less regulation in europe, to meet eachoter somewhere in the middle. This is a process wich is now taking place on a verry long timescale,you should think at least 25 years, possibly 50. There will be the natural fluctuations in this whole process, the usa will at times shrink there goverment and europe might at times expand it, the long term trend can not be counterd though and in the end, 50 years from now, the usa will have a bigger government then they have now.
On February 06 2013 01:43 Velr wrote: If anything your on the path to an Oligarchy and not the classic form of boogieman totalitarian dictatorship.
This. We're far more likely to be completely dominated by massive corporations due to the fucked up market regulations in this country than the government itself.
On February 06 2013 01:11 Jibba wrote: Or they just got a good deal and with the economy improving and people worried about gun registration, they're predicting prices will go up?
So enough ammunition to fight 13 years of war in Iraq the previous year wasn't enough? So they bought an additional 10 years worth just because they want to save money?
Yes. If they're anticipating new laws that will drastically change the gun market, you lock up a huge supply before prices increase any further. Someone in the purchasing department is getting a promotion for thinking ahead.
Ugh, this can't be more wrong. First of all, the interest opportunity cost of buying 13 years worth of Iraqi war bullets for the department of homeland security will outweigh a price increase, even if it doubles or triples in price.
Second of all, no agency, let alone the DHS can speculate and demand upfront money because they suspect a rise in prices. It simply doesn't work that way.
What? Of course they do. They make purchasing decisions like any company, and in the case of military suppliers there's some contract established on some ppu. They 100% do forecasting on the price of goods and their future budgets.
I don't understand if your argument simply boils down to reckless spending or because you think the US government is going to wage a war on its citizens (which we've just found out they don't need bullets for.)
All you need to do to predict the future is to pay close attention to the posts in this very thread, and on this forum in general. Yes, totalitarianism is coming, because the people don't care about freedom anymore. Every problem has a solution, and that solution is more government. Government is the solution to everything.
On February 06 2013 01:43 Velr wrote: If anything your on the path to an Oligarchy and not the classic form of boogieman totalitarian dictatorship.
This. We're far more likely to be completely dominated by massive corporations due to the fucked up market regulations in this country than the government itself.
The government gets corrupt and grants corporations unfair legal advantages and even direct subsidies from the public treasury. The solution? More government.
On February 06 2013 01:33 Barrin wrote: I know the South are unfortunately going to be the last states to legalize it (lots of religious communities down here)... Florida in particular, where I live (REPRESENT~).
But you know what, the South had something to say about this "big brother" govt. and the more I learn about it the more I realize where my loyalties lie.
don't be obtuse. Slavery wasn't the sole reason for the war by any means, but it was absolutely a huge part of it and there's a damn good reason the the flag is associated with it. A major part of the south's anger over a big brother government was free states not wanting to respect a southerner's property—ie, his slaves—if he moved to a state that outlawed slavery.
just because some naive 18 year old black kid doesn't know a bit of history doesnt mean change the flag's very intertwined history with slavery
If you read the declarations of succession, "huge part" seems an understatement. Sure Georgia says something about tariffs but the overwhelming theme is the fugitive slave act and the bans on expanding slavery as we expanded to new territories in the West. Check the spoiler for their own words on the subject.
My personal favorite... Mississippi: Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.
Texas says: " She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association"
South Carolina: "Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."
Georgia: "Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice."
I hold greater anxiety towards other methods of federal control than many of the ones listed. For example, the income tax. A portion of the income I generate at my job(s) is forcefully taken from me before I even see it and "benevolently" dubbed "withholding." There never had been a tax on income in place until Congress removed restrictions on levying one by ratifying an Amendment in 1913. That sends a clear message to me that the government does not want me to "make too much money," else it will punish me by making me pay more of "my fair share" by placing me in a higher tax bracket. In other words, feel free to listen to my cell phone conversations (mind-numbingly boring as they are), but don't touch my paycheck.
Consider entitlements too, such as Social Security, Medicare, and food stamps. In a sense, they may be considered bribes to the people. These handouts might be looked at as another form of control, as the government then knows very well how much one makes privately, which qualifies them for federal assistance, which in turn lets the government know how much they receive federally too.
My final point may sound conspiratorial, but I suppose it is still a possibility. If the government increases regulation of privately-owned firearms, would one not imagine that the government would have a very accurate idea of which individuals and residences would pose the largest threat should the nation attempt to become a totalitarian regime? Would it not follow logically that the government would seek out those who could fight back against a tyrannical government first and render them incapable of defense?
Basically, I agree that the government is attempting to acquire more control over its citizens through means of surveillance and the like, but I also suggest that it is acquiring additional power by appearing benevolent to the people: through withholding more income on certain individuals; through Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlements; and through stricter gun control. And the latter worries me far more than the former.
Now, what are some of the primary interests of government? To expand its power? To safeguard itself and its citizens? To control?
What are the primary interests of citizens? To keep government power in check? To protect their rights and liberties?
"Interests" aside, I believe it is the purpose of government to provide a general defense from perpetrators both foreign and domestic. Everything that that entails can be called into question, but everything that is not covered in the defense of the people should be criticized even more heavily before implementing.
On February 06 2013 01:33 Barrin wrote: I know the South are unfortunately going to be the last states to legalize it (lots of religious communities down here)... Florida in particular, where I live (REPRESENT~).
But you know what, the South had something to say about this "big brother" govt. and the more I learn about it the more I realize where my loyalties lie.
My favorite politician explains it as well as I could: + Show Spoiler +
Let me be very clear: FUCK YOU Big Brother. Power and freedom to the states and the people. That's what I care about.
Legalize it.
What a joke. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, especially when it comes to popular symbology and the actuality of this cultish love for state governments that Ron Paul neophytes seem to oh so enjoy. You may think that flag means something positive, but many, many people do not share that perspective. Just know who else waves that flag in pride. Furthermore, what have state governments done to impress you so? Is it the gobbling up of federal dollars only to cut their own education budgets, the general handling of money like children, or is it the publishing of state state history books that gloss over Andersonville? Is it the elimination of the teaching of evolution from science classrooms, the partisan seat swapping in the state senate and house in order to further cut public service budgets or the wonderful gerrymandering taking place around the country in predominantly Red states? I guess there's lots to pick from.
The moment popular libertarianism realizes what makes Ron Paul a fucking idiot and Jon Huntsman a reasonable man is the moment that libertarianism actually stands a shot at having a positive impact on this country. In the meantime, go ahead and worship the pork barrel double dealer racist from the good city of Galveston, I'm sure that'll show big brother. If you can actually watch that piece of trash on covering up notions of racism with some Civil War romance novel, then you are already too far gone.
Oh yeah, as a fan of marijuana legalization, I'd like to hereby declare that a vast majority of potheads like myself are not bigoted racists with a poor sense of history like Barrin.
On February 05 2013 23:18 PassiveAce wrote: People who make threads like these have never lived in countries that can actually be described as totalitarian, and if they had, they wouldnt be making threads like this.
Some countries are going in that direction, and when that happens a lot of people really really want to deny it.
Trust me, people who make these kinds of threads don't feel comfortable doing it, but mentioning so can hurt their credibility for those in denial (distinctly counter-productive).
You're right, it's not totalitarian yet... so should we just shut up until it is? no offense but fuck what you just said
You are just going so over the top. In fact this entire thread is full of people who are going over the top. Some stuff in the US is a bit draconic but a lot of it comes down to the Bush era and the reaction to the threat of global terrorism. Which is understandable...and you are not on a slope to a totalitarian government...you really aren't.
I mean come on, England is so much more restrictive than your country...so so so much closer than your country to 'totalitarianism' in terms of the metrics you use. We are the leaders of CCTV everywhere. With the exception of the anti-terrorism laws, where the USA is insane (but we didn't have 9/11).
But still, both our countries on the scale are like:
On February 06 2013 02:31 Catch]22 wrote: Started reading it, then realized OP thought US was a totalitarian facist state because marijuana is illegal, hahahahaha.
LMFAO I'm the OP and you made me laugh so hard with that comment xD xD
On February 06 2013 01:33 Barrin wrote: I know the South are unfortunately going to be the last states to legalize it (lots of religious communities down here)... Florida in particular, where I live (REPRESENT~).
But you know what, the South had something to say about this "big brother" govt. and the more I learn about it the more I realize where my loyalties lie.
My favorite politician explains it as well as I could: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEC68vTQwP8
Let me be very clear: FUCK YOU Big Brother. Power and freedom to the states and the people. That's what I care about.
Legalize it.
What a joke. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, especially when it comes to popular symbology and the actuality of this cultish love for state governments that Ron Paul neophytes seem to oh so enjoy. You may think that flag means something positive, but many, many people do not share that perspective. Just know who else waves that flag in pride. Furthermore, what have state governments done to impress you so? Is it the gobbling up of federal dollars only to cut their own education budgets, the general handling of money like children, or is it the publishing of state state history books that gloss over Andersonville? Is it the elimination of the teaching of evolution from science classrooms, the partisan seat swapping in the state senate and house in order to further cut public service budgets or the wonderful gerrymandering taking place around the country in predominantly Red states? I guess there's lots to pick from.
The moment popular libertarianism realizes what makes Ron Paul a fucking idiot and Jon Huntsman a reasonable man is the moment that libertarianism actually stands a shot at having a positive impact on this country. In the meantime, go ahead and worship the pork barrel double dealer racist from the good city of Galveston, I'm sure that'll show big brother. If you can actually watch that piece of trash on covering up notions of racism with some Civil War romance novel, then you are already too far gone.
Oh yeah, as a fan of marijuana legalization, I'd like to hereby declare that a vast majority of potheads like myself are not bigoted racists with a poor sense of history like Barrin.
Some truth in this post. I don't get what's so great about state governments over federal government. If anything, states like Florida, Arizona, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi (oh fuck just throw the entire south in there) show us that state governments can be absolutely atrocious. If anything, the federal government would be far better at running those states than their own state legislatures, and Congress is practically useless at the moment.
I mean really, let's take a second and look at some stats.
8 out of the 10 states with the lowest amount of high school graduates (percentage) are from the south.
8 out of the 10 unhealthiest states are from the south.
~8 out of the 10 states with the highest infant mortality rates are from the south.
The south sees the overall highest crime rate in the country, with several of the most crime-ridden states and crime-ridden metro areas in the south.
Southern states contribute far less to the federal budget, compared to what they take from the federal government. The first southern state to pop up on that list is Texas (9), Arkansas (12), North Carolina (15), and Georgia (18). That's 4 in the top 20 of contributors, and 1 in the top 10.
The most well-off states? Almost all of them have more government spending in social services/education, almost all of them have higher taxes, and almost all of them have restrictions on firearms.
And yet these southern states are the states that champion states' rights and libertarian values more than any other. State legislatures aren't magical figures that automatically do right by their residents. They are just as prone to being terrible organizations as the federal government, and several examples show us that some of them are. We need people to stop holding on to this ideal of states' rights as some kind of mystic, all-encompassing good, when plenty of states are managing themselves horribly. The federal government isn't some evil force that always does bad; some (many) things they do for the country are quite good.
On February 05 2013 23:18 PassiveAce wrote: People who make threads like these have never lived in countries that can actually be described as totalitarian, and if they had, they wouldnt be making threads like this.
Some countries are going in that direction, and when that happens a lot of people really really want to deny it.
Trust me, people who make these kinds of threads don't feel comfortable doing it, but mentioning so can hurt their credibility for those in denial (distinctly counter-productive).
You're right, it's not totalitarian yet... so should we just shut up until it is? no offense but fuck what you just said
You are just going so over the top. In fact this entire thread is full of people who are going over the top. Some stuff in the US is a bit draconic but a lot of it comes down to the Bush era and the reaction to the threat of global terrorism. Which is understandable...and you are not on a slope to a totalitarian government...you really aren't.
I mean come on, England is so much more restrictive than your country...so so so much closer than your country to 'totalitarianism' in terms of the metrics you use. We are the leaders of CCTV everywhere. With the exception of the anti-terrorism laws, where the USA is insane (but we didn't have 9/11).
But still, both our countries on the scale are like:
On February 06 2013 01:33 Barrin wrote: I know the South are unfortunately going to be the last states to legalize it (lots of religious communities down here)... Florida in particular, where I live (REPRESENT~).
But you know what, the South had something to say about this "big brother" govt. and the more I learn about it the more I realize where my loyalties lie.
My favorite politician explains it as well as I could: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEC68vTQwP8
Let me be very clear: FUCK YOU Big Brother. Power and freedom to the states and the people. That's what I care about.
Legalize it.
What a joke. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, especially when it comes to popular symbology and the actuality of this cultish love for state governments that Ron Paul neophytes seem to oh so enjoy. You may think that flag means something positive, but many, many people do not share that perspective. Just know who else waves that flag in pride. Furthermore, what have state governments done to impress you so? Is it the gobbling up of federal dollars only to cut their own education budgets, the general handling of money like children, or is it the publishing of state state history books that gloss over Andersonville? Is it the elimination of the teaching of evolution from science classrooms, the partisan seat swapping in the state senate and house in order to further cut public service budgets or the wonderful gerrymandering taking place around the country in predominantly Red states? I guess there's lots to pick from.
The moment popular libertarianism realizes what makes Ron Paul a fucking idiot and Jon Huntsman a reasonable man is the moment that libertarianism actually stands a shot at having a positive impact on this country. In the meantime, go ahead and worship the pork barrel double dealer racist from the good city of Galveston, I'm sure that'll show big brother. If you can actually watch that piece of trash on covering up notions of racism with some Civil War romance novel, then you are already too far gone.
Oh yeah, as a fan of marijuana legalization, I'd like to hereby declare that a vast majority of potheads like myself are not bigoted racists with a poor sense of history like Barrin.
Some truth in this post. I don't get what's so great about state governments over federal government. If anything, states like Florida, Arizona, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi (oh fuck just throw the entire south in there) show us that state governments can be absolutely atrocious. If anything, the federal government would be far better at running those states than their own state legislatures, and Congress is practically useless at the moment.
I really think you should include California in that list. That state's a mess, arguably worse than much of "the South."
I'd prefer state governments over one federal government simply on the basis of letting the states mess up so that they may learn from their mistakes on their own. Simply entrusting the power to one large government at the national level would be too easily tyrannized by the majority if you ask me. Would rather have more direct, community control of my local government.
With technological advances comes increasing automation which would presumably lead to a decreasing number of low level employment opportunities. The government will be responsible for caring for a larger and larger portion of society as this century goes on. I see that as an inevitability, but that's purely a welfare burden.
The 20th Century Big Brother paranoia stemmed from a fear that the government would take control of society to combat the erosion of morality and an increase in crime. Well, the problem with applying that to contemporary times is that morality has long since died, and crime has generally been on a downward trend since the massive flare up due to the Great Society's destruction of the black community.
On February 06 2013 01:33 Barrin wrote: I know the South are unfortunately going to be the last states to legalize it (lots of religious communities down here)... Florida in particular, where I live (REPRESENT~).
But you know what, the South had something to say about this "big brother" govt. and the more I learn about it the more I realize where my loyalties lie.
My favorite politician explains it as well as I could: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEC68vTQwP8
Let me be very clear: FUCK YOU Big Brother. Power and freedom to the states and the people. That's what I care about.
Legalize it.
What a joke. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, especially when it comes to popular symbology and the actuality of this cultish love for state governments that Ron Paul neophytes seem to oh so enjoy. You may think that flag means something positive, but many, many people do not share that perspective. Just know who else waves that flag in pride. Furthermore, what have state governments done to impress you so? Is it the gobbling up of federal dollars only to cut their own education budgets, the general handling of money like children, or is it the publishing of state state history books that gloss over Andersonville? Is it the elimination of the teaching of evolution from science classrooms, the partisan seat swapping in the state senate and house in order to further cut public service budgets or the wonderful gerrymandering taking place around the country in predominantly Red states? I guess there's lots to pick from.
The moment popular libertarianism realizes what makes Ron Paul a fucking idiot and Jon Huntsman a reasonable man is the moment that libertarianism actually stands a shot at having a positive impact on this country. In the meantime, go ahead and worship the pork barrel double dealer racist from the good city of Galveston, I'm sure that'll show big brother. If you can actually watch that piece of trash on covering up notions of racism with some Civil War romance novel, then you are already too far gone.
Oh yeah, as a fan of marijuana legalization, I'd like to hereby declare that a vast majority of potheads like myself are not bigoted racists with a poor sense of history like Barrin.
Some truth in this post. I don't get what's so great about state governments over federal government. If anything, states like Florida, Arizona, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi (oh fuck just throw the entire south in there) show us that state governments can be absolutely atrocious. If anything, the federal government would be far better at running those states than their own state legislatures, and Congress is practically useless at the moment.
I really think you should include California in that list. That state's a mess, arguably worse than much of "the South."
I'd prefer state governments over one federal government simply on the basis of letting the states mess up so that they may learn from their mistakes on their own. Simply entrusting the power to one large government at the national level would be too easily tyrannized by the majority if you ask me. Would rather have more direct, community control of my local government.
So when the states mess up at the cost of the mobility and quality of life of minorities and the poor, then what? Well at least its at the state level, amirite? The point is that state governments have and currently are showing exactly how they'd operate in the event of a lessening of the structure of the union; that is, cut public services, actively shape education to match an agenda, and play around in the state congress like children for votes.
On February 06 2013 01:33 Barrin wrote: I know the South are unfortunately going to be the last states to legalize it (lots of religious communities down here)... Florida in particular, where I live (REPRESENT~).
But you know what, the South had something to say about this "big brother" govt. and the more I learn about it the more I realize where my loyalties lie.
My favorite politician explains it as well as I could: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEC68vTQwP8
Let me be very clear: FUCK YOU Big Brother. Power and freedom to the states and the people. That's what I care about.
Legalize it.
What a joke. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, especially when it comes to popular symbology and the actuality of this cultish love for state governments that Ron Paul neophytes seem to oh so enjoy. You may think that flag means something positive, but many, many people do not share that perspective. Just know who else waves that flag in pride. Furthermore, what have state governments done to impress you so? Is it the gobbling up of federal dollars only to cut their own education budgets, the general handling of money like children, or is it the publishing of state state history books that gloss over Andersonville? Is it the elimination of the teaching of evolution from science classrooms, the partisan seat swapping in the state senate and house in order to further cut public service budgets or the wonderful gerrymandering taking place around the country in predominantly Red states? I guess there's lots to pick from.
The moment popular libertarianism realizes what makes Ron Paul a fucking idiot and Jon Huntsman a reasonable man is the moment that libertarianism actually stands a shot at having a positive impact on this country. In the meantime, go ahead and worship the pork barrel double dealer racist from the good city of Galveston, I'm sure that'll show big brother. If you can actually watch that piece of trash on covering up notions of racism with some Civil War romance novel, then you are already too far gone.
Oh yeah, as a fan of marijuana legalization, I'd like to hereby declare that a vast majority of potheads like myself are not bigoted racists with a poor sense of history like Barrin.
Some truth in this post. I don't get what's so great about state governments over federal government. If anything, states like Florida, Arizona, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi (oh fuck just throw the entire south in there) show us that state governments can be absolutely atrocious. If anything, the federal government would be far better at running those states than their own state legislatures, and Congress is practically useless at the moment.
I really think you should include California in that list. That state's a mess, arguably worse than much of "the South."
I'd prefer state governments over one federal government simply on the basis of letting the states mess up so that they may learn from their mistakes on their own. Simply entrusting the power to one large government at the national level would be too easily tyrannized by the majority if you ask me. Would rather have more direct, community control of my local government.
There is far, far more tyranny by the majority in individual southern states (see the plethora of pro-Christian and anti-liberal laws out there in the south) than done by the federal government. Furthermore, de-centralization doesn't magically protect you from tyranny of the majority; that's (partially) what the Bill of Rights does. Finally, no one is saying that we should give all of the power to the federal government, but it's long past time to stop looking at the federal government as the boogey-man and state legislatures as mystical forces for good. They aren't.
Oh, and letting states mess up doesn't just let them "learn from their mistakes". It comes at a huge cost, usually paid by the poor, non-white, and non-Christians in these southern states. Furthermore, it inevitably saps more federal dollars and resources that initially come from well-off and well-managed states from the Pacific Northwest, Upper Midwest, and Northeast.
The U.S. will never become a totalitarian state. Checks and balances insure it. The closest we have gotten to a king/totalitarian government is FDR during WW2. Our only 4 term president, who after him we capped the term limit at two. When FDR tried to stack the supreme court in order to get his way, checks and balances were there to stop him.
The rise in the seeming control of government might just be the illusion created by this information age we are in. We are giving out more and more information online, and the government can monitor the internet for security purposes. The right to privacy was never in the bill or rights or the constitution (thats france), however recently an ethical debate has arose about it.
3 wings of government, independent and each power hungry makes certain that the government will never become totalitarian. Conspiracy theories will be conspiracy theories, it will never come into fruition tho.
I'm shocked that as of now Seems likely is at 93, way more then Ha! yeah right at 40. People need to calm down. The information age has presented us with challenges towards keeping a balanced government, however we will figure them out.
If the U.S. becomes a totalitarian state, it will have George Orwell's face everything with his quotes warning us against totalitarianism.
Also,
“We are approaching a new authoritarian society. It will not be the old style fascism. It will be like Terry Gillian’s Brazil. Society that will be openly hedonistic and half crazy. Italy’s Berusconi came pretty close to this in my opinion.” –Slavoj Zizek
This makes more sense in my opinion given how in 1984, you were expected to pledge loyalty to the state and show it while in modern society, it seems more apathetic.
On February 06 2013 01:33 Barrin wrote: I know the South are unfortunately going to be the last states to legalize it (lots of religious communities down here)... Florida in particular, where I live (REPRESENT~).
But you know what, the South had something to say about this "big brother" govt. and the more I learn about it the more I realize where my loyalties lie.
My favorite politician explains it as well as I could: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEC68vTQwP8
Let me be very clear: FUCK YOU Big Brother. Power and freedom to the states and the people. That's what I care about.
Legalize it.
What a joke. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, especially when it comes to popular symbology and the actuality of this cultish love for state governments that Ron Paul neophytes seem to oh so enjoy. You may think that flag means something positive, but many, many people do not share that perspective. Just know who else waves that flag in pride. Furthermore, what have state governments done to impress you so? Is it the gobbling up of federal dollars only to cut their own education budgets, the general handling of money like children, or is it the publishing of state state history books that gloss over Andersonville? Is it the elimination of the teaching of evolution from science classrooms, the partisan seat swapping in the state senate and house in order to further cut public service budgets or the wonderful gerrymandering taking place around the country in predominantly Red states? I guess there's lots to pick from.
The moment popular libertarianism realizes what makes Ron Paul a fucking idiot and Jon Huntsman a reasonable man is the moment that libertarianism actually stands a shot at having a positive impact on this country. In the meantime, go ahead and worship the pork barrel double dealer racist from the good city of Galveston, I'm sure that'll show big brother. If you can actually watch that piece of trash on covering up notions of racism with some Civil War romance novel, then you are already too far gone.
Oh yeah, as a fan of marijuana legalization, I'd like to hereby declare that a vast majority of potheads like myself are not bigoted racists with a poor sense of history like Barrin.
Some truth in this post. I don't get what's so great about state governments over federal government. If anything, states like Florida, Arizona, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi (oh fuck just throw the entire south in there) show us that state governments can be absolutely atrocious. If anything, the federal government would be far better at running those states than their own state legislatures, and Congress is practically useless at the moment.
I really think you should include California in that list. That state's a mess, arguably worse than much of "the South."
I'd prefer state governments over one federal government simply on the basis of letting the states mess up so that they may learn from their mistakes on their own. Simply entrusting the power to one large government at the national level would be too easily tyrannized by the majority if you ask me. Would rather have more direct, community control of my local government.
So when the states mess up at the cost of the mobility and quality of life of minorities and the poor, then what? Well at least its at the state level, amirite? The point is that state governments have and currently are showing exactly how they'd operate in the event of a lessening of the structure of the union; that is, cut public services, actively shape education to match an agenda, and play around in the state congress like children for votes.
Point to those states and say, "See? They messed up big time. Here's why. We shouldn't be like that." Other states will let their bad policies fail and learn from the mistakes. Improvement is not ideal; sometimes you have to let others implement a bad policy in a different state in order to see why it would be terrible for the state/country. That said, we should be wise to not repeat the failures that history exposes to us.
On February 06 2013 01:33 Barrin wrote: I know the South are unfortunately going to be the last states to legalize it (lots of religious communities down here)... Florida in particular, where I live (REPRESENT~).
But you know what, the South had something to say about this "big brother" govt. and the more I learn about it the more I realize where my loyalties lie.
My favorite politician explains it as well as I could: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEC68vTQwP8
Let me be very clear: FUCK YOU Big Brother. Power and freedom to the states and the people. That's what I care about.
Legalize it.
What a joke. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, especially when it comes to popular symbology and the actuality of this cultish love for state governments that Ron Paul neophytes seem to oh so enjoy. You may think that flag means something positive, but many, many people do not share that perspective. Just know who else waves that flag in pride. Furthermore, what have state governments done to impress you so? Is it the gobbling up of federal dollars only to cut their own education budgets, the general handling of money like children, or is it the publishing of state state history books that gloss over Andersonville? Is it the elimination of the teaching of evolution from science classrooms, the partisan seat swapping in the state senate and house in order to further cut public service budgets or the wonderful gerrymandering taking place around the country in predominantly Red states? I guess there's lots to pick from.
The moment popular libertarianism realizes what makes Ron Paul a fucking idiot and Jon Huntsman a reasonable man is the moment that libertarianism actually stands a shot at having a positive impact on this country. In the meantime, go ahead and worship the pork barrel double dealer racist from the good city of Galveston, I'm sure that'll show big brother. If you can actually watch that piece of trash on covering up notions of racism with some Civil War romance novel, then you are already too far gone.
Oh yeah, as a fan of marijuana legalization, I'd like to hereby declare that a vast majority of potheads like myself are not bigoted racists with a poor sense of history like Barrin.
Some truth in this post. I don't get what's so great about state governments over federal government. If anything, states like Florida, Arizona, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi (oh fuck just throw the entire south in there) show us that state governments can be absolutely atrocious. If anything, the federal government would be far better at running those states than their own state legislatures, and Congress is practically useless at the moment.
I really think you should include California in that list. That state's a mess, arguably worse than much of "the South."
I'd prefer state governments over one federal government simply on the basis of letting the states mess up so that they may learn from their mistakes on their own. Simply entrusting the power to one large government at the national level would be too easily tyrannized by the majority if you ask me. Would rather have more direct, community control of my local government.
There is far, far more tyranny by the majority in individual southern states (see the plethora of pro-Christian and anti-liberal laws out there in the south) than done by the federal government. Furthermore, de-centralization doesn't magically protect you from tyranny of the majority; that's (partially) what the Bill of Rights does. Finally, no one is saying that we should give all of the power to the federal government, but it's long past time to stop looking at the federal government as the boogey-man and state legislatures as mystical forces for good. They aren't.
Oh, and letting states mess up doesn't just let them "learn from their mistakes". It comes at a huge cost, usually paid by the poor, non-white, and non-Christians in these southern states. Furthermore, it inevitably saps more federal dollars and resources that initially come from well-off and well-managed states from the Pacific Northwest, Midwest, and Northeast.
I would rather have a majority tyranny relegated to the state level than drag the whole country into it. I would also rather not see states sap so many federal dollars in the first place.
State governments are far from perfect, but I still see them as preferable to one centralized government that thinks it better knows what's "better" for me. Citizens have a proportionally stronger voice at the local level, so that they can more strongly discuss the issues that more closely matter to them; that's why I espouse stronger state and city governments as opposed to a larger federal one.
On February 06 2013 03:06 Jisall wrote: The U.S. will never become a totalitarian state. Checks and balances insure it. The closest we have gotten to a king/totalitarian government is FDR during WW2. Our only 4 term president, who after him we capped the term limit at two. When FDR tried to stack the supreme court in order to get his way, checks and balances were there to stop him.
What does a king have to do with totalitarianism? Also (since I am pretty sure many people here do not understand this), totalitarianism is not the opposite to democracy. Historically, totalitarianism is due to political extremism.
I chose to quote your post (rather than the many others) because you mentioned a king. Ironically in the case of the USA, having a king would reduce the chance of talking pigs taking over. The thing that could potentially push the USA towards political extremism is the distrust that people have for politicians from the other party, which means that roughly half the population distrusts the head of state and are therefore pushed towards the far right (when there is a democrat president) or the left (when there is a republican president).
Talking from experience, those who tend to be so confident in what they say is the truth and realizing it will wake you up are often the ones who tend to be the most brainwashed. This is pretty universal for all ideologies.
I think a better way to approach the notion of truth is being damn sure that the red pill you swallowed was not a blue bill dyed red.
I feel like it should the the other way around, americans should take more attention and control over their government that seems to act by and for big companys, control their finance world and military actions. USA seem to be under the influence of big lobbys instead of the will and interest of the people.
But i do agree with gun control, it's not freedom to have heavy machine guns with more then 10000 bullets in your home. It's stupidity and asking for trouble.
I'm "ok" with people owning guns, specially in a country that is so "into" guns and where they take such a importance in it's culture, but to have whatever war weapons you want and thousands off bullets it's stupid and dangerous.
TLDR: gun control OK! Instead of more government control there should be more people controling the state, big enterprise and wallstreet
On February 06 2013 03:20 Barrin wrote: I'm not a bigoted racist you little shit, I literally called slavery one of the most detestable things we can do. You have no idea how much effort I've put into denying racism with people I know in my culture, or of my success, but this isn't about that so what the fuck?
---
FYI the state I've lived my whole life is one of the relatively few that actually pays more than it gets. But of course I understand you... if Big Brother wasn't so big there wouldn't be so much money to gobble up!
If the people don't like the way it is in a certain state then they can just move to a new state no big deal. The problem is when Big Brother messes around with too much within every single state. I personally think most of these problems would be well on their way to being solved if it weren't for the overabundant of resources spent on the military-industrial complex.
P.S. And no I do not claim to have a "great sense of history", but I do claim that I try very hard to learn every day.
If I have no idea how much effort you've put into denying racism with people you know in your culture, than it is entirely due to you putting a flag before the ideas that you want it to represent. If you were truly so concerned with the image of your culture, you would not so slavishly adhere to some outdated relic that meaningfully only stands for racism and historical denialism, when in turn you could be, you know, defending actual people instead of flags or ideologies.
Also, I am not a little shit, I am a rather large man.
On February 06 2013 03:30 Shiragaku wrote: Talking from experience, those who tend to be so confident in what they say is the truth and realizing it will wake you up are often the ones who tend to be the most brainwashed. This is pretty universal for all ideologies.
I think a better way to approach the notion of truth is being damn sure that the red pill you swallowed was not a blue bill dyed red.
And how does one approach that?
In your case, I would question the notion of what is means to be a cult member by watching other cult members. Since I assume you are anti-communist, listen to Maoists and Stalinists. A good start would be MaoistRebelNews.
On February 06 2013 03:30 Shiragaku wrote: Talking from experience, those who tend to be so confident in what they say is the truth and realizing it will wake you up are often the ones who tend to be the most brainwashed. This is pretty universal for all ideologies.
I think a better way to approach the notion of truth is being damn sure that the red pill you swallowed was not a blue bill dyed red.
And how does one approach that?
In your case, I would question the notion of what is means to be a cult member by watching other cult members. Since I assume you are anti-communist, listen to Maoists and Stalinists. A good start would be MaoistRebelNews.
I have questioned what it means to be a cultist for years, and I have indeed started listening to such people.
---
If I were you I would question the notion of whether or not what symbols someone chooses to express their thoughts completely reflects their actual thoughts.
I was hoping for more of a general approach btw.
I try, but self-examination is one of the hardest things to do in the world.
The method I try to do is what Avital Ronnel said which is generally, when people claim to know, such as calling someone a fascist, communist, or the Axis of Evil, you are ready to kill them. Basically, be careful with "knowing."
Also, I am aware of the potential comments about this post.
On February 06 2013 03:30 Shiragaku wrote: Talking from experience, those who tend to be so confident in what they say is the truth and realizing it will wake you up are often the ones who tend to be the most brainwashed. This is pretty universal for all ideologies.
I think a better way to approach the notion of truth is being damn sure that the red pill you swallowed was not a blue bill dyed red.
And how does one approach that?
In your case, I would question the notion of what is means to be a cult member by watching other cult members. Since I assume you are anti-communist, listen to Maoists and Stalinists. A good start would be MaoistRebelNews.
I have questioned what it means to be a cultist for years, and I have indeed started listening to such people.
---
If I were you I would question the notion of whether or not what symbols someone chooses to express their thoughts completely reflects their actual thoughts. Indeed if you were to take your own advice I think you'd think twice before "assuming" I was anything - it seems like you who claims to know so much tbh.
I was hoping for more of a general approach btw. That's how Socrates would've wanted it.
It is not intellectually expedient to ask "second guess" questions before taking a first guess, and what else is someone to do when faced with a giant Confederate flag image, a Ron Paul video entitled "The South was Right", and a bunch of "FUCK BIG BROTHER" quips that do not amount to constructive criticism? You entered into the discussion with symbols and ideology, and now we are to actively second guess the very things you put forward why? If your perspective is more about people and culture, then the onus is on you to make that clear to other posters, and you probably ought to focus on using language instead of symbols if you want to avoid misunderstandings. THAT is what Socrates would have wanted.
On February 06 2013 03:30 Shiragaku wrote: Talking from experience, those who tend to be so confident in what they say is the truth and realizing it will wake you up are often the ones who tend to be the most brainwashed. This is pretty universal for all ideologies.
I think a better way to approach the notion of truth is being damn sure that the red pill you swallowed was not a blue bill dyed red.
And how does one approach that?
In your case, I would question the notion of what is means to be a cult member by watching other cult members. Since I assume you are anti-communist, listen to Maoists and Stalinists. A good start would be MaoistRebelNews.
I have questioned what it means to be a cultist for years, and I have indeed started listening to such people.
---
If I were you I would question the notion of whether or not what symbols someone chooses to express their thoughts completely reflects their actual thoughts. Indeed if you were to take your own advice I think you'd think twice before "assuming" I was anything - it seems like you who claims to know so much tbh.
I was hoping for more of a general approach btw. That's how Socrates would've wanted it.
It is not intellectually expedient to ask "second guess" questions before taking a first guess, and what else is someone to do when faced with a giant Confederate flag image, a Ron Paul video entitled "The South was Right", and a bunch of "FUCK BIG BROTHER" quips that do not amount to constructive criticism? You entered into the discussion with symbols and ideology, and now we are to actively second guess the very things you put forward why? If your perspective is more about people and culture, then the onus is on you to make that clear to other posters, and you probably ought to focus on using language instead of symbols if you want to avoid misunderstandings. THAT is what Socrates would have wanted.
As an observer/reader, I actually don't care as much for being expedient as I do about being thorough tbh. As a forum poster (and aspiring writer) however, I understand the value of being concise.
I stated that my partial intention was to remove the connotation - the "first guess" - that so many people apply to that particular symbol.
Whether or not you found the post constructive is rather up for debate; okay you don't like Ron Paul (that's cool, I think he's wrong about a lot too, I haven't denounced Jon Huntsman and I am going to learn more about him), but I do understand why - beyond the video and without critical thought - why that post would initially be considered non-constructive.
IIRC Socrates died due to being unable to avoid these misunderstandings... and this is where I'll come back to this convo later I guess.
Socrates was brought in for corrupting the youth and creating new gods, he coulda avoided the whole trail but he didnt want to leave the state. (i mean thats the how the story goes, its all 2nd hand and been translated a dozen times)
This is old news, but it's stories like this guy which make me pretty confident there will never be a time where it's total totalitarianism or oppression. There are to many good men and just as the first revolution happened, many would die in defense of a long standing tradition to defend their nation. We have to realize, the government isn't this big body of evil Dr. Evil's rubbing their cats... YES politics gets in the way and YES it affects their ability to serve their nation at times but never to any extent that would cause suspicion of totalitarian ideologies. To support that agenda you need a military that would follow suit, I dare say it's an insult to the men and women of the armed services to insinuate they're anything comparable to indoctrinated cattle to do as commanded.
The only fear, as always, is people like Henry Kissenger who can influence mass amounts of politics under the nose of administrations and congress, this is where we must first worry but totalitarian and big brother? No more than any other nation, America for all it's faults, still stands for values that, as a Canadian, makes me jealous at times but generally envious.
On February 06 2013 04:34 Mefano wrote: lol the government should represent the people not be a different entity. In a democracy this shouldn't be a problem.
the people ain't an entity (it is formed by several entities tho) while the government is one (it's not monolithic and you can argue a shitlot about the intern competition going on between different government sectors, and then between different levels of administration but it's still relatively united in front of the exterior).
I didn't see this link posted on here, and I'd say its pretty relevant to this conversation. Is this power too much for an "informed high-ranking official" to have?
P.S. I played the OP in sc2 before, and he's on my friends list for some reason, so he must be a cool dude lol
On February 06 2013 01:33 Barrin wrote: I know the South are unfortunately going to be the last states to legalize it (lots of religious communities down here)... Florida in particular, where I live (REPRESENT~).
But you know what, the South had something to say about this "big brother" govt. and the more I learn about it the more I realize where my loyalties lie.
My favorite politician explains it as well as I could: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEC68vTQwP8
Let me be very clear: FUCK YOU Big Brother. Power and freedom to the states and the people. That's what I care about.
Legalize it.
What a joke. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, especially when it comes to popular symbology and the actuality of this cultish love for state governments that Ron Paul neophytes seem to oh so enjoy. You may think that flag means something positive, but many, many people do not share that perspective. Just know who else waves that flag in pride. Furthermore, what have state governments done to impress you so? Is it the gobbling up of federal dollars only to cut their own education budgets, the general handling of money like children, or is it the publishing of state state history books that gloss over Andersonville? Is it the elimination of the teaching of evolution from science classrooms, the partisan seat swapping in the state senate and house in order to further cut public service budgets or the wonderful gerrymandering taking place around the country in predominantly Red states? I guess there's lots to pick from.
The moment popular libertarianism realizes what makes Ron Paul a fucking idiot and Jon Huntsman a reasonable man is the moment that libertarianism actually stands a shot at having a positive impact on this country. In the meantime, go ahead and worship the pork barrel double dealer racist from the good city of Galveston, I'm sure that'll show big brother. If you can actually watch that piece of trash on covering up notions of racism with some Civil War romance novel, then you are already too far gone.
Oh yeah, as a fan of marijuana legalization, I'd like to hereby declare that a vast majority of potheads like myself are not bigoted racists with a poor sense of history like Barrin.
Some truth in this post. I don't get what's so great about state governments over federal government. If anything, states like Florida, Arizona, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi (oh fuck just throw the entire south in there) show us that state governments can be absolutely atrocious. If anything, the federal government would be far better at running those states than their own state legislatures, and Congress is practically useless at the moment.
I really think you should include California in that list. That state's a mess, arguably worse than much of "the South."
I'd prefer state governments over one federal government simply on the basis of letting the states mess up so that they may learn from their mistakes on their own. Simply entrusting the power to one large government at the national level would be too easily tyrannized by the majority if you ask me. Would rather have more direct, community control of my local government.
If it does become a totalitarian state the government will only be a front. It'll be the lobbyists and big corporations who lobby the government who are really pulling all the strings.
Honestly, though I think it's more likely that the U.S. will socially implode/explode, causing a breakdown of government and a skyrocket of crime, before the Big Brother shows up.
On February 06 2013 01:33 Barrin wrote: I know the South are unfortunately going to be the last states to legalize it (lots of religious communities down here)... Florida in particular, where I live (REPRESENT~).
But you know what, the South had something to say about this "big brother" govt. and the more I learn about it the more I realize where my loyalties lie.
don't be obtuse. Slavery wasn't the sole reason for the war by any means, but it was absolutely a huge part of it and there's a damn good reason the the flag is associated with it. A major part of the south's anger over a big brother government was free states not wanting to respect a southerner's property—ie, his slaves—if he moved to a state that outlawed slavery.
just because some naive 18 year old black kid doesn't know a bit of history doesnt mean change the flag's very intertwined history with slavery
I'm not denying that it wasn't a part of it - or even the only part of it for some people.
But seriously, a lot of people really have dropped that connotation and I am only trying to encourage others to do so as well.
And no, not "just because" - that's a bit of a straw man, you should've done the whole quote.
Those people are called revisionists.
There were many factors at play, but slavery was absolutely a main one. A major part of the state rights you're going on about was intertwined with that.
I don't know about now, but it's definitely going to happen later if we don't get a big culture change. Democracy only works if the people are smart, hard-working and educated.
On February 05 2013 20:11 kmillz wrote: I don't think it is likely that it becomes a totalitarian state, but that really depends on the people to keep electing officials who vote against things that infringe on our freedoms. Fortunately most people are still strong supporters of the 2nd amendment, which is in my opinion the most important to keeping us safe from dictatorship.
I agree with this. I don't think the second amendment will ever be repealled or changed though for one main reason. The United States has to most armed citizens on the planet. A majority of these gun owners are super adamant about their rights to own guns. I believe if guns were banned entirely removing them from the hands of the population would be an utter bloodbath and most likely would spawn a civil war
Yeah yeah, gun owners really love their second amendment so nothing will come of it.
Nevermind the fact that the governement is already violating the first as well as the fourth through eighth amendment, as long as you can carry guns around with you. Officials can search or wiretap anyone at anytime as long as they say it's in the nation's best interest. People are getting detained indefinitly without getting charged for anything, imprisoned without due process. Oh, and let's not forget about the countless cases of torture carried out by american officials in american run "prisons" or "camps" or what you wanna call them.
You are already getting fucked, you just haven't realized it because it didn't affect you yet.
Six pages in and not a single poster has gotten himself banned yet, good work and keep it up TL'ers. Dunno why people make threads asking questions that can be answered with a simple NO though
Also people have no sense of historical perspective Jesus Christ
On February 06 2013 03:20 Barrin wrote: P.S. And no I do not claim to have a "great sense of history",
your laws do somewhat prevent totalitarism of a party, or an indivicual, but not of corporates. ruling party changes every 8 year but big companies been getting their ways for around 60 years now.
democracy if executed properly can run by the book and in benefit of a police state.
Most of the doomsday talk of Big Brother and the Orwellian future is mostly whine and people who WISH they were living in persecution from the government.
On February 06 2013 05:48 Shiragaku wrote: Most of the doomsday talk of Big Brother and the Orwellian future is mostly whine and people who WISH they were living in persecution from the government.
It's not "doomsday talk" or an Orwellian future when oppressive regimes have existed throughout our entire history, and exist even now in places like North Korea. It is one of the realities of life, which is why it is so important to be vigilant against it.
On February 06 2013 05:48 Shiragaku wrote: Most of the doomsday talk of Big Brother and the Orwellian future is mostly whine and people who WISH they were living in persecution from the government.
It's not "doomsday talk" or an Orwellian future when oppressive regimes have existed throughout our entire history, and exist even now in places like North Korea. It is one of the realities of life, which is why it is so important to be vigilant against it.
You call it whining...
And what exactly are you doing to fix north korea or to prevent future totalitarian regimes?? Reading the banality of evil and declaring ones vigilance is alot easier then actually doing anything.
Whatever... I, for one, will rest easier knowing that the people understand the importance of vigilance.
On February 06 2013 01:33 Barrin wrote: My favorite politician explains it as well as I could: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEC68vTQwP8
Let me be very clear: FUCK YOU Big Brother. Power and freedom to the states and the people. That's what I care about.
Legalize it.
Like Ron Paul, I admire Lysander Spooner. His position on the the secession of southern states, however, was one that was inconsistent with the logic of his magnum opus. The state governments, like the federal government, were, to paraphrase Spooner, based on documents that were never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as contracts, and therefore never bound anybody, and were therefore binding upon nobody.
Had Spooner been consistent, he would have come to the conclusion that state governments had no legitimate authority to do much of anything including seceding.
On February 06 2013 05:48 Shiragaku wrote: Most of the doomsday talk of Big Brother and the Orwellian future is mostly whine and people who WISH they were living in persecution from the government.
It's not "doomsday talk" or an Orwellian future when oppressive regimes have existed throughout our entire history, and exist even now in places like North Korea. It is one of the realities of life, which is why it is so important to be vigilant against it.
You call it whining...
The fact that everyone on every single political spectrum uses the Orwellian analogy for everything from school lunches to cameras, to attack socialists and capitalists, to complain about a political leader who you do not like, and then compare this to North Korea shows that most of this talk is whine.
And I honestly believe that Orwell is irrelevant at this point since everyone idolizes him and to the point that if an Orwellian future does arrive, his language will be just as bastardized as this statement
The way Orwell is used is kinda like Ronald Reagan using "Born the U.S.A." for his campaign theme song
edit: look, the whole point of the book is what happens when the enemy is "over there" and the good guys are "right here," it turns out that the enemy is everywhere. If you say "we must watch out for totalitarian regimes like North Korea, thanks Orwell for warning us" you are PRECISELY missing the point!
On February 06 2013 01:33 Barrin wrote: I know the South are unfortunately going to be the last states to legalize it (lots of religious communities down here)... Florida in particular, where I live (REPRESENT~).
But you know what, the South had something to say about this "big brother" govt. and the more I learn about it the more I realize where my loyalties lie.
don't be obtuse. Slavery wasn't the sole reason for the war by any means, but it was absolutely a huge part of it and there's a damn good reason the the flag is associated with it. A major part of the south's anger over a big brother government was free states not wanting to respect a southerner's property—ie, his slaves—if he moved to a state that outlawed slavery.
just because some naive 18 year old black kid doesn't know a bit of history doesnt mean change the flag's very intertwined history with slavery
Slavery was the sole reason of the Civil War, through and through, read the history, figure out what happened in Congress. The South revolted because they knew the North wanted to outlaw slavery, and would have the votes to back it.
I strongly suggest you read an accurate historical representation of what led to the war and you'll come to the same conclusion.
This was a key point that highlights what happened: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise): The Missouri Compromise was passed in 1820 between the pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in the United States Congress, involving primarily the regulation of slavery in the western territories. It prohibited slavery in the former Louisiana Territory north of the parallel 36°30′ north except within the boundaries of the proposed state of Missouri. To balance the number of "slave states" and "free states," the northern region of what was then Massachusetts was admitted into the United States as a free state to become Maine. Prior to the agreement, the House of Representatives had refused to accept this compromise, and a conference committee was appointed.
The House of Representative had more anti-slavery members because the North had a higher population, and the number of seats a state gets is based on population and Northerners opposed slavery generally.
Now, Senate representation is not based on population, every state gets 2 Senators regardless of size, but whether a state was to be a slave state or free state was decided by Congress, and thus the Northerners wanted no new slave states and had the votes to force this due to have a higher population. Without new slave states, the Northerners would begin to control the Senate too as new free states entered the Union, ensuring the demise of slavery.
The Missouri compromise delayed this, allowing Maine to be a free state, but made Missouri a slave state to keep the 50-50 balance in the Senate (ensuring slavery would live on, as the Northerners didn't have the votes in the Senate to denationalize slavery), but was agreed upon by Northerners with the restrictions that all new states in territory north of the parallel 36°30′ north would be free states. Since north of that line was a majority of the US territory, it meant that free states would outnumber slave states in time, and the anti-slavery movement would have a majority in the Senate as more and more states were allowed in the Union and thus slavery would be abolished eventually. In effect, the Missouri compromise delayed the Civil War.
When Free States began to outnumber slave states, combined election of Lincoln (who wasn't even allowed on the ballot in most Southern states) who was anti-slavery, prompted the South to revolt, as the South knew they had no chance through the democratic process to ensure the survival of slavery. Now, the North could not outlaw slavery directly, but there is significant evidence of Republican plans to starve out slavery, and most Democrats admitted at the time [and of course the South did actually secede because of it], that it would have worked (check out the article linked below, or the passage from it I put in the spoiler text).
Here is a cool graphic showing the balance through the years:
You can see how the balance in the Senate is shifting toward the anti-slavery movement, the South knew that it was only a matter of time before the North would have the votes to extinguish slavery. So they revolted. And the only reason they revolt, regardless of what they say, is slavery.
Slavery was intrinsically weak, Republicans said. By denationalizing it, they could put it on a course of ultimate extinction. Surrounded on all sides, deprived of life-giving federal support, the slave states would one by one abolish slavery on their own, beginning with the border states. Each new defection would further diminish the strength of the remaining slave states, further accelerating the process of abolition. Yet because the decision to abolish slavery remained with the states, Republican policies would not violate the constitutional ban on direct federal interference in slavery.
The South would simply have to accept this. And if it couldn’t tolerate such a federal policy, it could leave the Union. But once it seceded, all bets would be off – it would lose the Constitutional protections that it had previously enjoyed. The Republicans would then implement the second policy: direct military emancipation, immediate and uncompensated.
Republicans said this openly during the secession crisis. And that’s what they were saying in Congress as they debated the Confiscation Act. It’s time to start rethinking our fundamental assumptions about the causes as well as the trajectory of the Civil War. And we can start by taking the perceptions of its contemporaries a great deal more seriously.
As you can see, Republicans in Congress wanted slavery gone, and they planned to do through either by denationalizing it, or through military force if the South revolted. The South choose military force. And they got what they had coming.
That flag, the "rebel flag", is a representation of slavery and disregard for the democratic process.
Now, what are some of the primary interests of government? To expand its power? To safeguard itself and its citizens? To control?
What are the primary interests of citizens? To keep government power in check? To protect their rights and liberties?
Thoughts?
After reading this^, my thought was that you were probably an American. Europeans don't view government in the same way, nor the citizens interest. Sometimes to my horror, tho sometimes to my liking, we are more interested in having the government work for the people, and the interest of the citizens is to be equal and to be part of the government in one way or another.
Sometimes the quest for individualism and money causes an extreme reaction that leads to lawyers being highly valued, and government needing to exercise massive control -- so that individuality and riches can be protected with 956 layers of paperwork, politicians and lawyers.
In many ways I like the American way better. In this area I do not. If individuality needs so much protection to survive, is it really worth it? And, is it true individualism? In many ways I feel more aware of everything that can possibly go wrong and in how many ways my freedom and individualism can be taken from me, now that I am in America. Back home in Europe I never had to worry much about anything. Now I even gotta watch what I eat, because individualism and capitalism dictates that spraying cows with growth hormones, and genetically engineering food to be poisonous is fully acceptable, and it's the peoples choice if they want to buy these products and have their organs grow. So many weird choices. But imo the crime is that it is impossible to choose to stay COMPLETELY clear of such products and foods; UNLESS ... unless you grow your own...
On February 06 2013 07:05 Cutlery wrote: Now I even gotta watch what I eat, because individualism and capitalism dictates that spraying cows with growth hormones, and genetically engineering food to be poisonous is fully acceptable, and it's the peoples choice if they want to buy these products and have their organs grow.
In America we're free to be deluded by a vast sea of lies and misinformation, to make our own choices in a world that is not our own, to be rational actors in an irrational system.
On February 06 2013 06:31 sam!zdat wrote: The way Orwell is used is kinda like Ronald Reagan using "Born the U.S.A." for his campaign theme song
edit: look, the whole point of the book is what happens when the enemy is "over there" and the good guys are "right here," it turns out that the enemy is everywhere. If you say "we must watch out for totalitarian regimes like North Korea, thanks Orwell for warning us" you are PRECISELY missing the point!
Watch out from becoming is my point sammy. When people act like totalitarianism is some nutjob theory of the future, we only have to point to the numerous past and present examples.
And @shiga, whether or not people over reference Orwell does not render him irrelevant. It sounds like you are the one whining here actually.
Has anyone seen the talks of the NSA whistleblowers at 29. Chaos Communication Congress? The keynote by Jacob Applebaum was also very interesting. I realize both are quite long, but they give you a lot of insight. The very same applies to a talk Frank Rieger and Rop have given a while ago, where they describe how much surveillance technology will influence our daily lives.
We lost the war. Welcome to the world of tomorrow.[/b] This talk basically outlines how things have changed since 9/11. How it swept a lot of reservations towards surveillance technology aside. But it also tries to take a down to earth explanation of how much democracy we really enjoy and how much of it is just show. But the most important is, that they really get into what the reasons are to introduce surveillance. It's pretty scary, especially since this talk was held already several years ago and they've been pretty accurate so far. A summary of the talk is available on Frank Rieger's website. But i recommand you see the vods as well.
On February 06 2013 07:22 Deleuze wrote: Aren't all states totalitarian?
Totalitarianism is a form of Autocracy where the absolute power lies with one man that won't answer to anyone at any point. It's usually achieved through democracy which is then abolished in some form after the fact, ensuring the total power of the leader. So no, it's not a given in a state even though there certainly have been plenty of them over time.
On February 06 2013 07:22 Deleuze wrote: Aren't all states totalitarian?
Totalitarianism is a form of Autocracy where the absolute power lies with one man that won't answer to anyone at any point. It's usually achieved through democracy which is then abolished in some form after the fact, ensuring the total power of the leader. So no, it's not a given in a state even though there certainly have been plenty of them over time.
On February 06 2013 07:22 Deleuze wrote: Aren't all states totalitarian?
Totalitarianism is a form of Autocracy where the absolute power lies with one man that won't answer to anyone at any point. It's usually achieved through democracy which is then abolished in some form after the fact, ensuring the total power of the leader. So no, it's not a given in a state even though there certainly have been plenty of them over time.
You missed the joke..
and i'm interested about chinese and russian democracy pre-totalitarism :p
The US becoming a totalitarian will likely happen eventually. Many things will happen eventually. I think the poll would be better if the question was whether it'd becoming totalitarian within 100 years. Or maybe 200 years.
On February 06 2013 07:22 Deleuze wrote: Aren't all states totalitarian?
Totalitarianism is a form of Autocracy where the absolute power lies with one man that won't answer to anyone at any point. It's usually achieved through democracy which is then abolished in some form after the fact, ensuring the total power of the leader. So no, it's not a given in a state even though there certainly have been plenty of them over time.
You missed the joke..
and i'm interested about chinese and russian democracy pre-totalitarism :p
Did you know that Mao came to power promising a democratic polity to replace the autocratic Guomindang, which had itself come to power as an attempt to create a republic replacing the Qing dynasty? Poor Sun Yat-Sen, he tried
On February 06 2013 07:22 Deleuze wrote: Aren't all states totalitarian?
Totalitarianism is a form of Autocracy where the absolute power lies with one man that won't answer to anyone at any point. It's usually achieved through democracy which is then abolished in some form after the fact, ensuring the total power of the leader. So no, it's not a given in a state even though there certainly have been plenty of them over time.
You missed the joke..
and i'm interested about chinese and russian democracy pre-totalitarism :p
Did you know that Mao came to power promising a democratic polity to replace the autocratic Guomindang, which had itself come to power as an attempt to create a republic replacing the Qing dynasty? Poor Sun Yat-Sen, he tried
yeah I know a bit about the chinese revolution (a tiiiiiiiiny bit, but god, 1850-1950 is such an interesting period) but well, democracy wasn't really instored and wasn't absolutely needed for what followed. I just find funny that he applied the german example as the most common way of getting a totalitarian state when it's not the case, rather an exception.
On February 06 2013 07:53 sam!zdat wrote: Well, that plus his definition of totalitarianism just sounds like absolutism to me
where's the power in a totalitarian state? god I'm glad I never had to pass an exam with this subject :D It's sad tho that one of the main aspect of totalitarism, the fact that it's not the state which had the power, is ignored by 90% of the people talking about it. His definition is perfect for an ideal fascist state tho, dunno if you can apply it on Italy tho since it's a tad complicated with the church and resilience of the italians.
the short answer: the totalitarian leader is a sort of empty-signifier who maintains the edifice precisely by insisting upon his own emptiness. He is sort of the exact inverse of the absolutist ruler?
the long answer: fuck if I know, go ask Arendt and Zizek.
I actually like Zizek's simple definition of future totalitarianism better. It will not be Orwell's 1984, it will not be Huxley's Brave New World, simply, it will be like China's and Singapore's form of capitalism aka East Asian Capitalism. Naomi Klein also talked about it quite it bit on Democracy Now! as well.
On February 06 2013 08:17 Shiragaku wrote: I actually like Zizek's simple definition of future totalitarianism better. It will not be Orwell's 1984, it will not be Huxley's Brave New World, simply, it will be like China's and Singapore's form of capitalism aka East Asian Capitalism. Naomi Klein also talked about it quite it bit on Democracy Now! as well.
I really need to read first hand material from Zizek, because Arendt and Lefort are interesting from an historical and philosophical pov, but gosh, it's quite dated.
Yeah, stuff from the 50s is starting to seem really dated, although Arendt is a beautiful soul who is always worth reading, even if she's trying to solve some different problems than those facing us today. I would recommend Zizek's first book, "The Sublime Object of Ideology," and also "The Plague of Fantasies" as introductions. He's so much fun! I just received "Did Someone Say Totalitarianism?" today, so I can't comment on its quality yet, although that might turn out to be more directly relevant to the discussion here
I think the main issue is that liberals think of the conservatives as the "evil empire" type of government. Especially after Bush. It's to the point that they can't even bother to see how much more "evil empire" shit is happening under Obama then it ever did in Bush. And it gets zero publicity.
So my thoughts is definitely yes, it will become a bigger "big brother" government, and it will happen right in front of our eyes (as it is now with Obama).
On February 06 2013 08:24 sam!zdat wrote: Yeah, stuff from the 50s is starting to seem really dated, although Arendt is a beautiful soul who is always worth reading, even if she's trying to solve some different problems than those facing us today. I would recommend Zizek's first book, "The Sublime Object of Ideology," and also "The Plague of Fantasies" as introductions. He's so much fun! I just received "Did Someone Say Totalitarianism?" today, so I can't comment on its quality yet, although that might turn out to be more directly relevant to the discussion here
i fall in love with arendt when I read this in the introduction of the antisemitism: I'll try to deal with this issue with zeal of the political analyst and the rigor of the historian. When you're studying both these matters <3
On February 06 2013 08:26 Pufftrees wrote: I think the main issue is that liberals think of the conservatives as the "evil empire" type of government. Especially after Bush. It's to the point that they can't even bother to see how much more "evil empire" shit is happening under Obama then it ever did in Bush. And it gets zero publicity.
So my thoughts is definitely yes, it will become a bigger "big brother" government, and it will happen right in front of our eyes (as it is now with Obama).
Yeah, it is a depressing truth that the average person cares more about their political "team" winning than about actual principles or policies.
“Inverted totalitarianism unlike classical totalitarianism does not revolve around a demagogue or charismatic leader, it finds expression in the anonymity of the corporate state. It purports to cherish democracy, patriotism and the constitution while manipulating internal levers to subvert and thwart democratic process.”
Sounds like the current state of America to me. Thanks for posting that video.
On February 06 2013 08:26 Pufftrees wrote: I think the main issue is that liberals think of the conservatives as the "evil empire" type of government. Especially after Bush. It's to the point that they can't even bother to see how much more "evil empire" shit is happening under Obama then it ever did in Bush. And it gets zero publicity.
So my thoughts is definitely yes, it will become a bigger "big brother" government, and it will happen right in front of our eyes (as it is now with Obama).
Yeah, it is a depressing truth that the average person cares more about their political "team" winning than about actual principles or policies.
At which point we're not really much better than the Byzantines with their Blues and Greens.
On February 06 2013 08:26 Pufftrees wrote: I think the main issue is that liberals think of the conservatives as the "evil empire" type of government. Especially after Bush. It's to the point that they can't even bother to see how much more "evil empire" shit is happening under Obama then it ever did in Bush. And it gets zero publicity.
So my thoughts is definitely yes, it will become a bigger "big brother" government, and it will happen right in front of our eyes (as it is now with Obama).
Welcome to the media. The things Bush never got a free pass on, Obama does (Preaches against the Patriot Act, quietly extends the majority of its provisions. Guantanamo Bay suddenly dropped out of the news. Etc). As long as it isn't a Republican doing it. Republicans stand for most of what Democrats do, but a little less of the same. That's why we talk about the conservative wing of the Republican party (as opposed to RINO's primarily, as well as the "screw the social legislation" crowd) and the liberal wing of the Democratic party (though most of the conservative conservative Democrats left from the McGovern to Mondale era, the modern use of the term being more the centrist leaning Democrats.)
I dislike the trend of execute orders (Immigration), recess appointments, and governing by state agency instead of elected representatives. That trend, I believe, ends in a system more directly resembling totalitarianism. You stuff the bureaucracy and the courts with your appointed agents, so that whatever parties control Congress, you control the majority of the state's power.
Dude the second ammendment is fucking pointless if the US gov ever got serious about an overthrow. 2 M1 Carbines and a handgun isn't going to stop a fucking tank lol
I do not believe we will ever become a totalitarian state, but things like the Patriot Act and other retarded bills make it seem somewhat plausible in the distant future.
There will always come a time when the citizens step back and say "no more" it can be peaceful or it can be violent but it always happens at some point in a countries history (usually more then once) as the balance between government being big and small fluctuates. At the moment most Americans are ok overall but of course they have their grievances. Will the US become a state like North Korea or some of the regimes we have seen in the past? No way.
So in a sense the OP is sensationalist and overblown with some truths to it.
IF the US does go in that direction it will be more like Brave New World where the populace is distracted enough by BS and pop culture than 1984 rule by force.
On February 06 2013 09:00 darthfoley wrote: I do not believe we will ever become a totalitarian state, but things like the Patriot Act and other retarded bills make it seem somewhat plausible in the distant future.
Take a look at what they've done to the NSA whistleblowers and the "Wikileaks-tainted" and what has been done to them, you'll realize it's not in the somewhat distant future, but already happening.
Something fishy is happening, can't pin point it yet, but here is a quote about Nazi Germany as it happened. First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Catholic.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me. - Martin Niemöller
On February 06 2013 10:27 Narobz wrote: Something fishy is happening, can't pin point it yet, but here is a quote about Nazi Germany as it happened. First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Catholic.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me. - Martin Niemöller
What is happening today? There is a sense from every point of view that the world is going in the wrong direction. The economy, the environment and in the political sphere. I think it started in the year 2000 with the y2k bug followed by 9/11 and from there on out it's all going downhill.
On February 06 2013 10:34 archonOOid wrote: What is happening today? There is a sense from every point of view that the world is going in the wrong direction. The economy, the environment and in the political sphere. I think it started in the year 2000 with the y2k bug followed by 9/11 and from there on out it's all going downhill.
You're getting older. It's what people have been experiencing for centuries at least.
On February 06 2013 10:34 archonOOid wrote: What is happening today? There is a sense from every point of view that the world is going in the wrong direction. The economy, the environment and in the political sphere. I think it started in the year 2000 with the y2k bug followed by 9/11 and from there on out it's all going downhill.
Doomsayers have been around since ancient times; the internet and the television just made them louder and a bit more organized.
I was not alive in those times, but the rise of communism, the spread of fascism, and the crackdown on student movements seemed like a much more exciting and scary time.
Right now, the most I have to tell my kids is 9/11 and the Arab Spring.
MARIJUANA is NOT DANGEROUS. Pot is NOT harmful to the human body or mind. Marijuana does NOT pose a threat to the general public. Marijuana is very much a danger to the oil companies, alcohol, tobacco industries and a large number of chemical corporations. Various big businesses, with plenty of dollars and influence, have suppressed the truth from the people. The truth is if marijuana was utilized for its vast array of commercial products, it would create an industrial atomic bomb! Entrepreneurs have not been educated on the product potential of pot. The super rich have conspired to spread misinformation about an extremely versatile plant that, if used properly, would ruin their companies.
Where did the word 'marijuana' come from? In the mid 1930s, the M-word was created to tarnish the good image and phenomenal history of the hemp plant...as you will read. The facts cited here, with references, are generally verifiable in the Encyclopedia Britannica which was printed on hemp paper for 150 years:
All schoolbooks were made from hemp or flax paper until the 1880s; Hemp Paper Reconsidered, Jack Frazier, 1974. It was LEGAL TO PAY TAXES WITH HEMP in America from 1631 until the early 1800s; LA Times, Aug. 12, 1981. REFUSING TO GROW HEMP in America during the 17th and 18th Centuries WAS AGAINST THE LAW! You could be jailed in Virginia for refusing to grow hemp from 1763 to 1769; Hemp in Colonial Virginia, G. M. Herdon.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers GREW HEMP; Washington and Jefferson Diaries. Jefferson smuggled hemp seeds from China to France then to America. Benjamin Franklin owned one of the first paper mills in America and it processed hemp. Also, the War of 1812 was fought over hemp. Emperor Wears No Clothes, Jack Herer. For thousands of years, 90% all ships' sails and rope were made from hemp. The word 'canvas' is Dutch for cannabis; Webster's New World Dictionary.
I'm a sophomore in high school. I can easily name off 10 of my friends that have had their lives completely ruined or are heading down that path, from smoking weed. They carhop at night during the week stealing so they can afford to drop 50 bucks to be high all weekend. Two of my friends in that group have committed suicide in the past 2 years.
Weed effects people in different ways, but saying it has "ZERO" negative effect on the body or mind(literally proven not true) and is "NOT DANGEROUS" is simply fucking retarded.
MARIJUANA is NOT DANGEROUS. Pot is NOT harmful to the human body or mind. Marijuana does NOT pose a threat to the general public. Marijuana is very much a danger to the oil companies, alcohol, tobacco industries and a large number of chemical corporations. Various big businesses, with plenty of dollars and influence, have suppressed the truth from the people. The truth is if marijuana was utilized for its vast array of commercial products, it would create an industrial atomic bomb! Entrepreneurs have not been educated on the product potential of pot. The super rich have conspired to spread misinformation about an extremely versatile plant that, if used properly, would ruin their companies.
Where did the word 'marijuana' come from? In the mid 1930s, the M-word was created to tarnish the good image and phenomenal history of the hemp plant...as you will read. The facts cited here, with references, are generally verifiable in the Encyclopedia Britannica which was printed on hemp paper for 150 years:
All schoolbooks were made from hemp or flax paper until the 1880s; Hemp Paper Reconsidered, Jack Frazier, 1974. It was LEGAL TO PAY TAXES WITH HEMP in America from 1631 until the early 1800s; LA Times, Aug. 12, 1981. REFUSING TO GROW HEMP in America during the 17th and 18th Centuries WAS AGAINST THE LAW! You could be jailed in Virginia for refusing to grow hemp from 1763 to 1769; Hemp in Colonial Virginia, G. M. Herdon.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers GREW HEMP; Washington and Jefferson Diaries. Jefferson smuggled hemp seeds from China to France then to America. Benjamin Franklin owned one of the first paper mills in America and it processed hemp. Also, the War of 1812 was fought over hemp. Emperor Wears No Clothes, Jack Herer. For thousands of years, 90% all ships' sails and rope were made from hemp. The word 'canvas' is Dutch for cannabis; Webster's New World Dictionary.
I'm a sophomore in high school. I can easily name off 10 of my friends that have had their lives completely ruined or are heading down that path, from smoking weed.
1) LOL 2) being young and smoking weed "completely ruins your life?" If only they had a few more decades of living to "salvage" their existences. Darn.
What else can you expect from the general forum? Flamebait OP, paranoid posters, and a bunch of know-it-alls. And the cherry on top, a complete derailment into whatever the hell you potheads and anti-drug schmucks are bickering about.
MARIJUANA is NOT DANGEROUS. Pot is NOT harmful to the human body or mind. Marijuana does NOT pose a threat to the general public. Marijuana is very much a danger to the oil companies, alcohol, tobacco industries and a large number of chemical corporations. Various big businesses, with plenty of dollars and influence, have suppressed the truth from the people. The truth is if marijuana was utilized for its vast array of commercial products, it would create an industrial atomic bomb! Entrepreneurs have not been educated on the product potential of pot. The super rich have conspired to spread misinformation about an extremely versatile plant that, if used properly, would ruin their companies.
Where did the word 'marijuana' come from? In the mid 1930s, the M-word was created to tarnish the good image and phenomenal history of the hemp plant...as you will read. The facts cited here, with references, are generally verifiable in the Encyclopedia Britannica which was printed on hemp paper for 150 years:
All schoolbooks were made from hemp or flax paper until the 1880s; Hemp Paper Reconsidered, Jack Frazier, 1974. It was LEGAL TO PAY TAXES WITH HEMP in America from 1631 until the early 1800s; LA Times, Aug. 12, 1981. REFUSING TO GROW HEMP in America during the 17th and 18th Centuries WAS AGAINST THE LAW! You could be jailed in Virginia for refusing to grow hemp from 1763 to 1769; Hemp in Colonial Virginia, G. M. Herdon.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers GREW HEMP; Washington and Jefferson Diaries. Jefferson smuggled hemp seeds from China to France then to America. Benjamin Franklin owned one of the first paper mills in America and it processed hemp. Also, the War of 1812 was fought over hemp. Emperor Wears No Clothes, Jack Herer. For thousands of years, 90% all ships' sails and rope were made from hemp. The word 'canvas' is Dutch for cannabis; Webster's New World Dictionary.
I'm a sophomore in high school. I can easily name off 10 of my friends that have had their lives completely ruined or are heading down that path, from smoking weed.
1) LOL 2) being young and smoking weed "completely ruins your life?" If only they had a few more decades of living to "salvage" their existences. Darn.
What else can you expect from the general forum? Flamebait OP, paranoid posters, and a bunch of know-it-alls. And the cherry on top, a complete derailment into whatever the hell you potheads and anti-drug schmucks are bickering about.
And sophomore in high school? Sounds about right.
You forget that like every single hobby, smoking weed costs money, albeit it tends to cost a lot of money to get high with the frequency a lot of people I see do. This can be said of smoking and drinking as well, I have seen plenty of kids steal/shoplift/etcetera to fund their habits.
MARIJUANA is NOT DANGEROUS. Pot is NOT harmful to the human body or mind. Marijuana does NOT pose a threat to the general public. Marijuana is very much a danger to the oil companies, alcohol, tobacco industries and a large number of chemical corporations. Various big businesses, with plenty of dollars and influence, have suppressed the truth from the people. The truth is if marijuana was utilized for its vast array of commercial products, it would create an industrial atomic bomb! Entrepreneurs have not been educated on the product potential of pot. The super rich have conspired to spread misinformation about an extremely versatile plant that, if used properly, would ruin their companies.
Where did the word 'marijuana' come from? In the mid 1930s, the M-word was created to tarnish the good image and phenomenal history of the hemp plant...as you will read. The facts cited here, with references, are generally verifiable in the Encyclopedia Britannica which was printed on hemp paper for 150 years:
All schoolbooks were made from hemp or flax paper until the 1880s; Hemp Paper Reconsidered, Jack Frazier, 1974. It was LEGAL TO PAY TAXES WITH HEMP in America from 1631 until the early 1800s; LA Times, Aug. 12, 1981. REFUSING TO GROW HEMP in America during the 17th and 18th Centuries WAS AGAINST THE LAW! You could be jailed in Virginia for refusing to grow hemp from 1763 to 1769; Hemp in Colonial Virginia, G. M. Herdon.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers GREW HEMP; Washington and Jefferson Diaries. Jefferson smuggled hemp seeds from China to France then to America. Benjamin Franklin owned one of the first paper mills in America and it processed hemp. Also, the War of 1812 was fought over hemp. Emperor Wears No Clothes, Jack Herer. For thousands of years, 90% all ships' sails and rope were made from hemp. The word 'canvas' is Dutch for cannabis; Webster's New World Dictionary.
I'm a sophomore in high school. I can easily name off 10 of my friends that have had their lives completely ruined or are heading down that path, from smoking weed. They carhop at night during the week stealing so they can afford to drop 50 bucks to be high all weekend. Two of my friends in that group have committed suicide in the past 2 years.
Weed effects people in different ways, but saying it has "ZERO" negative effect on the body or mind(literally proven not true) and is "NOT DANGEROUS" is simply fucking retarded.
That's not weed's fault, though. I smoked a lot of weed and I already have both an engineering and a chemistry degree at 22 years old. I'm also gainfully employed, own my own car, and invest into a retirement fund on a regular basis.
Weed isn't even addictive. I went from smoking it daily for two years to quitting cold turkey and the worst thing that happened was that I had trouble falling asleep for a few days.
To speak on the main topic, I don't think the US will become a totalitarian state unless something crazy happens like a prolonged global energy crisis, pandemic, or really big war. I am curious how the whole "terrorist" thing will pan out. The government could pretty easily start labeling dissenters as terrorists.
MARIJUANA is NOT DANGEROUS. Pot is NOT harmful to the human body or mind. Marijuana does NOT pose a threat to the general public. Marijuana is very much a danger to the oil companies, alcohol, tobacco industries and a large number of chemical corporations. Various big businesses, with plenty of dollars and influence, have suppressed the truth from the people. The truth is if marijuana was utilized for its vast array of commercial products, it would create an industrial atomic bomb! Entrepreneurs have not been educated on the product potential of pot. The super rich have conspired to spread misinformation about an extremely versatile plant that, if used properly, would ruin their companies.
Where did the word 'marijuana' come from? In the mid 1930s, the M-word was created to tarnish the good image and phenomenal history of the hemp plant...as you will read. The facts cited here, with references, are generally verifiable in the Encyclopedia Britannica which was printed on hemp paper for 150 years:
All schoolbooks were made from hemp or flax paper until the 1880s; Hemp Paper Reconsidered, Jack Frazier, 1974. It was LEGAL TO PAY TAXES WITH HEMP in America from 1631 until the early 1800s; LA Times, Aug. 12, 1981. REFUSING TO GROW HEMP in America during the 17th and 18th Centuries WAS AGAINST THE LAW! You could be jailed in Virginia for refusing to grow hemp from 1763 to 1769; Hemp in Colonial Virginia, G. M. Herdon.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers GREW HEMP; Washington and Jefferson Diaries. Jefferson smuggled hemp seeds from China to France then to America. Benjamin Franklin owned one of the first paper mills in America and it processed hemp. Also, the War of 1812 was fought over hemp. Emperor Wears No Clothes, Jack Herer. For thousands of years, 90% all ships' sails and rope were made from hemp. The word 'canvas' is Dutch for cannabis; Webster's New World Dictionary.
I'm a sophomore in high school. I can easily name off 10 of my friends that have had their lives completely ruined or are heading down that path, from smoking weed. They carhop at night during the week stealing so they can afford to drop 50 bucks to be high all weekend. Two of my friends in that group have committed suicide in the past 2 years.
Weed effects people in different ways, but saying it has "ZERO" negative effect on the body or mind(literally proven not true) and is "NOT DANGEROUS" is simply fucking retarded.
That's not weed's fault, though. I smoked a lot of weed and I already have both an engineering and a chemistry degree at 22 years old. I'm also gainfully employed, own my own car, and invest into a retirement fund on a regular basis.
Weed isn't even addictive. I went from smoking it daily for two years to quitting cold turkey and the worst thing that happened was that I had trouble falling asleep for a few days.
Can we cut the anecdotal off topic Pro/Anti drug posts?
“They are eager to investigate these cases. And they have done a fantastic job of developing an openness and culture within the SEC and CFTC enforcement staff that is whistleblower friendly.”
MARIJUANA is NOT DANGEROUS. Pot is NOT harmful to the human body or mind. Marijuana does NOT pose a threat to the general public. Marijuana is very much a danger to the oil companies, alcohol, tobacco industries and a large number of chemical corporations. Various big businesses, with plenty of dollars and influence, have suppressed the truth from the people. The truth is if marijuana was utilized for its vast array of commercial products, it would create an industrial atomic bomb! Entrepreneurs have not been educated on the product potential of pot. The super rich have conspired to spread misinformation about an extremely versatile plant that, if used properly, would ruin their companies.
Where did the word 'marijuana' come from? In the mid 1930s, the M-word was created to tarnish the good image and phenomenal history of the hemp plant...as you will read. The facts cited here, with references, are generally verifiable in the Encyclopedia Britannica which was printed on hemp paper for 150 years:
All schoolbooks were made from hemp or flax paper until the 1880s; Hemp Paper Reconsidered, Jack Frazier, 1974. It was LEGAL TO PAY TAXES WITH HEMP in America from 1631 until the early 1800s; LA Times, Aug. 12, 1981. REFUSING TO GROW HEMP in America during the 17th and 18th Centuries WAS AGAINST THE LAW! You could be jailed in Virginia for refusing to grow hemp from 1763 to 1769; Hemp in Colonial Virginia, G. M. Herdon.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers GREW HEMP; Washington and Jefferson Diaries. Jefferson smuggled hemp seeds from China to France then to America. Benjamin Franklin owned one of the first paper mills in America and it processed hemp. Also, the War of 1812 was fought over hemp. Emperor Wears No Clothes, Jack Herer. For thousands of years, 90% all ships' sails and rope were made from hemp. The word 'canvas' is Dutch for cannabis; Webster's New World Dictionary.
I'm a sophomore in high school. I can easily name off 10 of my friends that have had their lives completely ruined or are heading down that path, from smoking weed. They carhop at night during the week stealing so they can afford to drop 50 bucks to be high all weekend. Two of my friends in that group have committed suicide in the past 2 years.
Weed effects people in different ways, but saying it has "ZERO" negative effect on the body or mind(literally proven not true) and is "NOT DANGEROUS" is simply fucking retarded.
That's not weed's fault, though. I smoked a lot of weed and I already have both an engineering and a chemistry degree at 22 years old. I'm also gainfully employed, own my own car, and invest into a retirement fund on a regular basis.
Weed isn't even addictive. I went from smoking it daily for two years to quitting cold turkey and the worst thing that happened was that I had trouble falling asleep for a few days.
Can we cut the anecdotal off topic Pro/Anti drug posts?
Seems to me that drug laws are the only "totalitarian" government policy that anyone cares about.
The moment that the US military can perform operations on home soil I may listen to shit like the OP, but for now I think that the Patriot Act is the only major concern you brought up, and pretty much everyone knows that is a bullshit piece of legislation. Read a newspaper and see how fucked up things are basically everywhere else in the world before you start thinking that the US is turning into a totalitarian state, and give some respect to the generations of people that have worked to move us away from that hell.
On February 06 2013 10:34 archonOOid wrote: What is happening today? There is a sense from every point of view that the world is going in the wrong direction. The economy, the environment and in the political sphere. I think it started in the year 2000 with the y2k bug followed by 9/11 and from there on out it's all going downhill.
You're getting older. It's what people have been experiencing for centuries at least.
Actually I think it is more than that. It is not only is the doomprophets getting more exposure due to the internet. It is a general disconnect between people and government. The more the government opens up, the more their dirty laundry will be seen by the public! Transparency is showing so much of the previously hidden dirt that it is making people very dissatisfied. When politicians see this, they are in a catch-22: If they keep increasing transparency they will expose a lot more dirt, if they retract the transparency they are angering people like no tomorrow, but if they keep it as it is they are forced to change the way they do politics. The way they have tried to handle it initially has to a large extend been to try and stick to the old strategy by over-classifying dirt to keep it from the public, going furiously against whistleblowers and using "newspeak" arguments, like "protect our children from terrorism!" to push the patriot act and "protect our economy by protecting our property" and "Don't worry we have the permission to do this!" to push ACTA. It is a problem of our time that protection against terrorism and neo-protectionism in "trade agreements" has been taken to a new level that will put severe pressure on freedom of speech (through wrongful claims whether DMCA or other systems), the right to face the accuser (Kim Dotcom and to some extend Julian Assange) and basic legal rights (Aaron Schwartz, getting drilled by secret service and Bradley Manning getting treated like any Guantanamo Bay prisoner in violation of civil rights). It is a new issue that we will have to deal with and it will get better to some extend when things are worked into routines and the dirt has been "dealt with".
USA is not close to turning into totalitarianism. It is merely opening up for more public oversight in how they do business and that is backfiring at the moment since the way to deal with transparency is through reason, more openness and removal of some of the "dead weight".
Edit: The white paper thread here has a very detailed walkthrough describing some related issues concerning exactly facing the accuser and basic legal rights.
MARIJUANA is NOT DANGEROUS. Pot is NOT harmful to the human body or mind. Marijuana does NOT pose a threat to the general public. Marijuana is very much a danger to the oil companies, alcohol, tobacco industries and a large number of chemical corporations. Various big businesses, with plenty of dollars and influence, have suppressed the truth from the people. The truth is if marijuana was utilized for its vast array of commercial products, it would create an industrial atomic bomb! Entrepreneurs have not been educated on the product potential of pot. The super rich have conspired to spread misinformation about an extremely versatile plant that, if used properly, would ruin their companies.
Where did the word 'marijuana' come from? In the mid 1930s, the M-word was created to tarnish the good image and phenomenal history of the hemp plant...as you will read. The facts cited here, with references, are generally verifiable in the Encyclopedia Britannica which was printed on hemp paper for 150 years:
All schoolbooks were made from hemp or flax paper until the 1880s; Hemp Paper Reconsidered, Jack Frazier, 1974. It was LEGAL TO PAY TAXES WITH HEMP in America from 1631 until the early 1800s; LA Times, Aug. 12, 1981. REFUSING TO GROW HEMP in America during the 17th and 18th Centuries WAS AGAINST THE LAW! You could be jailed in Virginia for refusing to grow hemp from 1763 to 1769; Hemp in Colonial Virginia, G. M. Herdon.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers GREW HEMP; Washington and Jefferson Diaries. Jefferson smuggled hemp seeds from China to France then to America. Benjamin Franklin owned one of the first paper mills in America and it processed hemp. Also, the War of 1812 was fought over hemp. Emperor Wears No Clothes, Jack Herer. For thousands of years, 90% all ships' sails and rope were made from hemp. The word 'canvas' is Dutch for cannabis; Webster's New World Dictionary.
I'm a sophomore in high school. I can easily name off 10 of my friends that have had their lives completely ruined or are heading down that path, from smoking weed. They carhop at night during the week stealing so they can afford to drop 50 bucks to be high all weekend. Two of my friends in that group have committed suicide in the past 2 years.
Weed effects people in different ways, but saying it has "ZERO" negative effect on the body or mind(literally proven not true) and is "NOT DANGEROUS" is simply fucking retarded.
That's not weed's fault, though. I smoked a lot of weed and I already have both an engineering and a chemistry degree at 22 years old. I'm also gainfully employed, own my own car, and invest into a retirement fund on a regular basis.
Weed isn't even addictive. I went from smoking it daily for two years to quitting cold turkey and the worst thing that happened was that I had trouble falling asleep for a few days.
To speak on the main topic, I don't think the US will become a totalitarian state unless something crazy happens like a prolonged global energy crisis, pandemic, or really big war. I am curious how the whole "terrorist" thing will pan out. The government could pretty easily start labeling dissenters as terrorists.
as i said, it effects different people in different ways.
On February 06 2013 10:50 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
MARIJUANA is NOT DANGEROUS. Pot is NOT harmful to the human body or mind. Marijuana does NOT pose a threat to the general public. Marijuana is very much a danger to the oil companies, alcohol, tobacco industries and a large number of chemical corporations. Various big businesses, with plenty of dollars and influence, have suppressed the truth from the people. The truth is if marijuana was utilized for its vast array of commercial products, it would create an industrial atomic bomb! Entrepreneurs have not been educated on the product potential of pot. The super rich have conspired to spread misinformation about an extremely versatile plant that, if used properly, would ruin their companies.
Where did the word 'marijuana' come from? In the mid 1930s, the M-word was created to tarnish the good image and phenomenal history of the hemp plant...as you will read. The facts cited here, with references, are generally verifiable in the Encyclopedia Britannica which was printed on hemp paper for 150 years:
All schoolbooks were made from hemp or flax paper until the 1880s; Hemp Paper Reconsidered, Jack Frazier, 1974. It was LEGAL TO PAY TAXES WITH HEMP in America from 1631 until the early 1800s; LA Times, Aug. 12, 1981. REFUSING TO GROW HEMP in America during the 17th and 18th Centuries WAS AGAINST THE LAW! You could be jailed in Virginia for refusing to grow hemp from 1763 to 1769; Hemp in Colonial Virginia, G. M. Herdon.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers GREW HEMP; Washington and Jefferson Diaries. Jefferson smuggled hemp seeds from China to France then to America. Benjamin Franklin owned one of the first paper mills in America and it processed hemp. Also, the War of 1812 was fought over hemp. Emperor Wears No Clothes, Jack Herer. For thousands of years, 90% all ships' sails and rope were made from hemp. The word 'canvas' is Dutch for cannabis; Webster's New World Dictionary.
I'm a sophomore in high school. I can easily name off 10 of my friends that have had their lives completely ruined or are heading down that path, from smoking weed.
1) LOL 2) being young and smoking weed "completely ruins your life?" If only they had a few more decades of living to "salvage" their existences. Darn.
What else can you expect from the general forum? Flamebait OP, paranoid posters, and a bunch of know-it-alls. And the cherry on top, a complete derailment into whatever the hell you potheads and anti-drug schmucks are bickering about.
And sophomore in high school? Sounds about right.
I'm not talking about kids that casually smoke and party on weekends. I'm talking about kids who are in and out of rehab, probabtion, some with multiple DUI's on their permanent record, and a felon. I would call that ruining your life.
@aksfjh: What about Thomas Andrews Drake, Jesselyn Radack, William Binney and Bradley Manning? What about Mordechai Vanunu? They all faced terrible consequences for blowing the whistle and telling the truth.
I don't think you guys understand how libertarian Americans really are. Just take a look at the nations reaction involving the recent discussion on gun control. The only way for government to become totalitarian would be for the citizens to become so dumb, that they would have no idea that an internal change in government was occurring.
On February 06 2013 13:15 TheToaster wrote: I don't think you guys understand how libertarian Americans really are. Just take a look at the nations reaction involving the recent discussion on gun control. The only way for government to become totalitarian would be for the citizens to become so dumb, that they would have no idea that an internal change in government was occurring.
And yet the majority of Americans who post on these forums are vehemently anti-libertarian. Don't try to explain it away by appealing to age or some other internet demographics. The reality is your assessment is wrong, and the polling data refutes it as well. Libertarians are a small minority of Americans, as evidenced by the last 100 years of policy and election results.
Well, it was, I guess an interesting read, for better or worse. I do have one problem though... You are dangerously misleading people when you carelessly claim this:
MARIJUANA is NOT DANGEROUS. Pot is NOT harmful to the human body or mind.
It may be argued that THC, one of the psychoactive components in weed/marijuana, is by itself nontoxic. Moreover, it may even be argued that it may possess anti-cancerous properties; i.e., exposure of THC to tumorigenic cell populations induces cell death in an in vitro setting.
However, that being said, it remains a stark fact that multiple lines of evidence suggest the obvious: that the smoke produced by combustion of the plant itself produces carcinogens -- just as the smoke of other burning plants such as tobacco produce carcinogens. Therefore, it stands to reason that inhalation of marijuana smoke may potentially initiate cancer in some cases.
Evaluation of the DNA damaging potential of cannabis cigarette smoke by the determination of acetaldehyde derived N2-ethyl-2'-deoxyguanosine adducts. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19449825
Acetaldehyde is an ubiquitous genotoxic compound that has been classified as a possible carcinogen to humans. It can react with DNA to form primarily a Schiff base [...] In conclusion, these results provide evidence for the DNA damaging potential of cannabis smoke, implying that the consumption of cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human health with the possibility to initiate cancer development.
In this study, a systematic comparison of the smoke composition of both mainstream and sidestream smoke from marijuana and tobacco cigarettes prepared in the same way and consumed under two sets of smoking conditions, was undertaken. This study examined the suite of chemicals routinely analyzed in tobacco smoke. As expected, the results showed qualitative similarities with some quantitative differences. [...] Hydrogen cyanide, NO, NO x , and some aromatic amines were found in marijuana smoke at concentrations 3-5 times those found in tobacco smoke. Mainstream marijuana smoke contained selected polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) at concentrations lower than those found in mainstream tobacco smoke, while the reverse was the case for sidestream smoke, with PAHs present at higher concentrations in marijuana smoke. The confirmation of the presence, in both mainstream and sidestream smoke of marijuana cigarettes, of known carcinogens and other chemicals implicated in respiratory diseases is important information for public health and communication of the risk related to exposure to such materials.
As societies reconsider the legal status of cannabis, policy makers and clinicians require sound knowledge of the acute and chronic effects of cannabis. This review focuses on the latter. [...] Cannabis has been linked to cancers at eight sites, including children after in utero maternal exposure, and multiple molecular pathways to oncogenesis exist. Chronic cannabis use is associated with psychiatric, respiratory, cardiovascular, and bone effects. It also has oncogenic, teratogenic, and mutagenic effects all of which depend upon dose and duration of use.
In conclusion I'm not randomly butting in to say marijuana/weed is bad, and that it causes cancer, for sure, if you smoke it once. I'm coming in because I was bothered by the blaring and misinformed "POT ISNT BAD FOR YOU" message near the bottom of your post. It's really misleading to not feed people the full story. On the one hand, THC and cannabinoids may serve as therapeutic agents in the presence of tumorigenic cells. On the other hand, the smoke produced by marijuana is undeniably marked by the presence of many carcinogens, similar to those found in other smoke produced from burned material such as tobacco.
If you're going to spout all that stuff at the end like you did, at least make an effort to include that it's *probably* not too bad, so long as it's vaporized or consumed without smoke exposure.
Cheerio, and apologies if I spent too much time on this side tangent.
The collective is taking more control over the individual, which is sad.
Every year more and more personal freedoms, rights, and civil liberties are done away with.
They normally make up some bogus reason like "It's for saftey" or some other propaganda.
There's always some boogey man to point at, be in the Russians or terrorists or whatever. The boogey man changes but the result the same, fewer rights and fewer freedoms.
That's why republicans want smaller government. This whole gun debate currently going on in America plays around this idea. It's possible but very unlikely. Not in this country. Too many paranoid people with guns.
Paranoid people with guns wouldn't be much use against a modern US military unfortunately. In the 1800s, perhaps, but not in today's time with tanks, bombers, helicopters, etc. 100 million rifles just don't amount to much when stacked up against 100s of billions of dollars' worth of modern military equipment & technology. It would've meant something back when that was a more relevant idea -- say sometime around the 1800s.
It seems TC doesn't really understand or is just ill-informed
MARIJUANA is NOT DANGEROUS.
like really??? are you serious? As someone who has smoked for 10+ years I can easily say you are very wrong......I mean dear lord your source for that is 420 magazine......hmmmmm
But thats just a little part the is wrong with your entire post not to mention all your other sources.....that most you dont even cite
On February 06 2013 13:15 TheToaster wrote: I don't think you guys understand how libertarian Americans really are. Just take a look at the nations reaction involving the recent discussion on gun control. The only way for government to become totalitarian would be for the citizens to become so dumb, that they would have no idea that an internal change in government was occurring.
And yet the majority of Americans who post on these forums are vehemently anti-libertarian. Don't try to explain it away by appealing to age or some other internet demographics. The reality is your assessment is wrong, and the polling data refutes it as well. Libertarians are a small minority of Americans, as evidenced by the last 100 years of policy and election results.
You don't understand where America is on the global political scale. We are EXTREMELY conservative; so much so that it's practically a joke outside of this country. The vast, vast majority of this country is incredibly conservative, even compared to European right-wing ideologues.
On February 06 2013 14:59 FallDownMarigold wrote: Paranoid people with guns wouldn't be much use against a modern US military unfortunately. In the 1800s, perhaps, but not in today's time with tanks, bombers, helicopters, etc. 100 million rifles just don't amount to much when stacked up against 100s of billions of dollars' worth of modern military equipment & technology. It would've meant something back when that was a more relevant idea -- say sometime around the 1800s.
Maybe, but the more realistic outcome is civil war. For a big brother like country, you need to completely fool the people, to where they're ignorant and powerless. This country is way too divided for that to happen.There is a party completely dedicated to limiting the scope of government.
I live in Texas, my father is a Republican. So I am exposed to the right's ideologies and so forth. I can't see it happening.
Yeah KingAce, actually on the topic of "are we becoming big brother state", I agree with you that the answer is a pretty thoroughly resounding NO. Heh. I got distracted and was more inclined to respond to this thread because of the dangerous misinformation at the end, stating weed is totally "harmless to the body", when at the end of page 9 you can clearly see that weed actually contains no fewer carcinogens in its smoke than in smoke from inhaled tobacco.
In any case, yeah, it seems pretty ludicrous to me to fear the US becoming a totalitarian state, lol - especially based on the reasons provided in the OP
Absolutely. One of the key Misesean insights was that the interventionist state leads inexorably to socialism and the 20th century has proved that socialism is invariably totalitarian. Look at the size of America's prison population, the draconian drug laws, the rise of the surveillance state. The right of Habeas Corpus is disappearing, police conduct warantless searches, people are held indefinitely in American detention facilities without access to a lawyer or any sort of due process, individuals like Bradley Manning who speak out against atrocities are put in prison for daring to defy the administration, millions of non violent drug users are locked in jail their lives ruined by avaricious and power hungry prosecutors...
it's a grim future for what was once a great nation, for a place that was once a bastion of hope and liberty
On February 06 2013 15:34 TerribleNoobling wrote: Absolutely. One of the key Misesean insights was that the interventionist state leads inexorably to socialism and the 20th century has proved that socialism is invariably totalitarian. Look at the size of America's prison population, the draconian drug laws, the rise of the surveillance state. The right of Habeas Corpus is disappearing, police conduct warantless searches, people are held indefinitely in American detention facilities without access to a lawyer or any sort of due process, individuals like Bradley Manning who speak out against atrocities are put in prison for daring to defy the administration, millions of non violent drug users are locked in jail their lives ruined by avaricious and power hungry prosecutors...
it's a grim future for what was once a great nation, for a place that was once a bastion of hope and liberty
Look at the size of Europe's prison population, and how many rights they are giving up! Just today British Parliament approved gay marriage! Oh yes, how invariably totalitarian, the walls of Mises close in on us as the monolith looms overhead, its outline more important than its substance.
On February 06 2013 15:34 TerribleNoobling wrote: Absolutely. One of the key Misesean insights was that the interventionist state leads inexorably to socialism and the 20th century has proved that socialism is invariably totalitarian. Look at the size of America's prison population, the draconian drug laws, the rise of the surveillance state. The right of Habeas Corpus is disappearing, police conduct warantless searches, people are held indefinitely in American detention facilities without access to a lawyer or any sort of due process, individuals like Bradley Manning who speak out against atrocities are put in prison for daring to defy the administration, millions of non violent drug users are locked in jail their lives ruined by avaricious and power hungry prosecutors...
it's a grim future for what was once a great nation, for a place that was once a bastion of hope and liberty
Look at the size of Europe's prison population, and how many rights they are giving up! Just today British Parliament approved gay marriage! Oh yes, how invariably totalitarian, the walls of Mises close in on us as the monolith looms overhead, its outline more important than its substance.
Socialism is here. And God died long ago.
My sarcasm detector readings are through the roof!
farvacola : The nations in Europe are not examples of socialism. North Korea, on the other hand is. Like North America what you see in Europe is the interventionist state, as well as socialism for many industries (health care, roads, police etc). Further the people in Europe have given up many rights; the right to own property is just as infringed upon there as it is in North America.
On February 06 2013 16:33 TerribleNoobling wrote: farvacola : The nations in Europe are not examples of socialism. North Korea, on the other hand is. Like North America what you see in Europe is the interventionist state, as well as socialism for many industries (health care, roads, police etc). Further the people in Europe have given up many rights; the right to own property is just as infringed upon there as it is in North America.
On February 06 2013 16:34 TerribleNoobling wrote: Just look at the history of the USSR, Cambodia, Maoist China, Cuba etc. Socialism is not pretty.
I think your confusing socialism with communism dominated by dictators.
I find it utterly hilarious the ACLU and other liberal lobbies are trying to stop "big government" when they're the driving force behind expanding the government's powers over its citizens. Throw around "Patriot Act" and "Police state" all you want, the American people are far too wary to let that happen. Forcing the citizenry to become utterly dependent on the government because it's creeped into our private an economic lives? That's more scary and much more possible because people don't have a natural aversion to "welfare" or "expanded civil liberties".
I can't believe the amount of tin foil hat wearers there are in this thread, it just blows my mind. Some of you are referring to the U.S. military like some sort of clone army from Star Wars, only capable of executing commands from authority. I know several people that are enlisted, and they know exactly why they fight. This is still 2013, and the military won't even come close to involving themselves with domestic conflict on a large scale.
As far as the "surveillance state" argument, I'm not even sure what the massive amounts of data being collected by the government is even supposed to suggest. Okay, so they might have billions of personal e-mails stored up. It's not like the government has the time and resources available to actually make use of that data individually. That would require way more resources and employees than what our pathetically underemployed government has. At best, this is just another pathetic attempt by the government to try and keep up pace with the rapidly expanding world of the internet.
In general, the U.S. government has a pathetic internal infrastructure that can be no threat to it's own citizens. Internationally, on the other hand, I have no doubt the defense department has several skeletons in their closet that they aren't about to make public. But then again, we ARE the world's only remaining super power, so that's to be expected.
The poll results are flawed by the fact that people want their lives to be more exciting and meaningful, for example by experiencing something important to happen. Of course the USA won't turn into the described form of police state in the near future (~30years) and nobody can ever predict what's going to happen after that. If they pretend they can, they're obviously fooling you to seem more exciting and meaningful (to quote myself) or to empower themselves to take something away from you.
On February 06 2013 17:20 TheToaster wrote: I can't believe the amount of tin foil hat wearers there are in this thread, it just blows my mind. Some of you are referring to the U.S. military like some sort of clone army from Star Wars, only capable of executing commands from authority. I know several people that are enlisted, and they know exactly why they fight. This is still 2013, and the military won't even come close to involving themselves with domestic conflict on a large scale.
As far as the "surveillance state" argument, I'm not even sure what the massive amounts of data being collected by the government is even supposed to suggest. Okay, so they might have billions of personal e-mails stored up. It's not like the government has the time and resources available to actually make use of that data individually. That would require way more resources and employees than what our pathetically underemployed government has. At best, this is just another pathetic attempt by the government to try and keep up pace with the rapidly expanding world of the internet.
In general, the U.S. government has a pathetic internal infrastructure that can be no threat to it's own citizens. Internationally, on the other hand, I have no doubt the defense department has several skeletons in their closet that they aren't about to make public. But then again, we ARE the world's only remaining super power, so that's to be expected.
An argument that says it's okay to give the government the theoretical ability to intrude into our personal life because they lack the logistical ability to do it seems startlingly shortsighted given technological and computing advances. Surely it's better to say "stop reading our emails" than "sure, you can read our emails, but you'll need to invent a way of sorting them to actually get anywhere".
Also if this is the new teabagger (or like-minded radicals) idea of how to argue against reason by creating fear of a modern society, then this is going to fail, except for the people who already live inside the radicalist bubble and are beyond hope and saving anyways.
On February 06 2013 17:20 TheToaster wrote: I can't believe the amount of tin foil hat wearers there are in this thread, it just blows my mind. Some of you are referring to the U.S. military like some sort of clone army from Star Wars, only capable of executing commands from authority. I know several people that are enlisted, and they know exactly why they fight. This is still 2013, and the military won't even come close to involving themselves with domestic conflict on a large scale.
As far as the "surveillance state" argument, I'm not even sure what the massive amounts of data being collected by the government is even supposed to suggest. Okay, so they might have billions of personal e-mails stored up. It's not like the government has the time and resources available to actually make use of that data individually. That would require way more resources and employees than what our pathetically underemployed government has. At best, this is just another pathetic attempt by the government to try and keep up pace with the rapidly expanding world of the internet.
In general, the U.S. government has a pathetic internal infrastructure that can be no threat to it's own citizens. Internationally, on the other hand, I have no doubt the defense department has several skeletons in their closet that they aren't about to make public. But then again, we ARE the world's only remaining super power, so that's to be expected.
They fight for freedom ? I agree with you in a way, as most military person I crossed in my little life were pretty decent men, but you cannot deny the fact that they - like citizens - very weak to suggestion and propagande. Just look back at the event that preceded the Iraq invasion, and the lie coming from high official such as Colin Powell. The fact is, you can establish a totalitarian state and make sure your population back you up with propaganda and lies.
On February 06 2013 17:20 TheToaster wrote: I can't believe the amount of tin foil hat wearers there are in this thread, it just blows my mind. Some of you are referring to the U.S. military like some sort of clone army from Star Wars, only capable of executing commands from authority. I know several people that are enlisted, and they know exactly why they fight. This is still 2013, and the military won't even come close to involving themselves with domestic conflict on a large scale.
As far as the "surveillance state" argument, I'm not even sure what the massive amounts of data being collected by the government is even supposed to suggest. Okay, so they might have billions of personal e-mails stored up. It's not like the government has the time and resources available to actually make use of that data individually. That would require way more resources and employees than what our pathetically underemployed government has. At best, this is just another pathetic attempt by the government to try and keep up pace with the rapidly expanding world of the internet.
In general, the U.S. government has a pathetic internal infrastructure that can be no threat to it's own citizens. Internationally, on the other hand, I have no doubt the defense department has several skeletons in their closet that they aren't about to make public. But then again, we ARE the world's only remaining super power, so that's to be expected.
An argument that says it's okay to give the government the theoretical ability to intrude into our personal life because they lack the logistical ability to do it seems startlingly shortsighted given technological and computing advances. Surely it's better to say "stop reading our emails" than "sure, you can read our emails, but you'll need to invent a way of sorting them to actually get anywhere".
Which they are already doing, if not already completed. The NSA, according to the whistleblower is a project meant to filter through all the data, providing cross-agency data extrapolation.
The people who believe every conspiracy are just as ridiculous and stupid as people who discredit every conspiracy. Then again calling everyone a tin-foil hat makes you look cool ^_^
Already there, brother. I live in Maryland, and we have thousands of discreet license-plate recorders that snap photos of every single car every day on most major highways, record their license plate, location, and time, and load it into a large database to be used for criminal investigation and surveillance; the ACLU is fighting against it as it's generally agree that large-scale surveillance of citizens not accused of any crime is unconstitutional, and the fact that it is being used to build a database makes it even more so. It's something I'm against, at the very least, the fact that they are using license plates on motor vehicles to build a database of every driver's driving patterns, habits, and whereabouts every single day.
It was in the newspapers, but by and large it has been on the hush hush, and any questions or publicity drawn is ignored and swept under the rug; the old "if we pretend we aren't doing it, people will lose interest and eventually accept it". Disgusting, IMHO.
And the large majority of these license plate scanners are not on police patrol cars, but permanent fixtures on highways and roads, like speed cameras.
On February 05 2013 19:16 xM(Z wrote: i won't comment on whether or not that's the case but i do have some questions. what's the point/purpose of this control?, why does it happen?; and since it's stretched out over generations (this need for control), is it passed on from father to son(like an agenda)?, it's institutionalized?, it's compulsive?, why would X care if people are still controlled 100 years from now?.
The very nature of any system is self-preservance. Any system (or group, or individual) will try to stay alive as much as possible and, in most cases, try to make itself more stable and stronger in the future.
That usually implies making real (or perceived) enemies of said system weaker, it implies gaining more power and control over things it doesn't have power or control over currently. Any collective emotion can be used as a mechanism of control, it's just that things like fear, anger or hatred are more easily directable than e.g. love or joy. Should probably ask historians as to how this usually ends up. =P
tl;dr: Machiavellis "The Prince" makes understanding some of those politics mentioned in the OP much easier to understand.
you can't just look at a system, analyze it, figure out how it works and then assume that's the only way it could work. it doesn't account for environmental feedbacks/evolution. vague questons vague answers i guess but i still believe that control via censorship, fear, deceit shouldn't/can't work in this day n' age. it can advance as far as people let it thow (lazines, passiveness and an overall not giving a fuck work for it).
On February 06 2013 17:20 TheToaster wrote: I can't believe the amount of tin foil hat wearers there are in this thread, it just blows my mind. Some of you are referring to the U.S. military like some sort of clone army from Star Wars, only capable of executing commands from authority. I know several people that are enlisted, and they know exactly why they fight. This is still 2013, and the military won't even come close to involving themselves with domestic conflict on a large scale.
As far as the "surveillance state" argument, I'm not even sure what the massive amounts of data being collected by the government is even supposed to suggest. Okay, so they might have billions of personal e-mails stored up. It's not like the government has the time and resources available to actually make use of that data individually. That would require way more resources and employees than what our pathetically underemployed government has. At best, this is just another pathetic attempt by the government to try and keep up pace with the rapidly expanding world of the internet.
In general, the U.S. government has a pathetic internal infrastructure that can be no threat to it's own citizens. Internationally, on the other hand, I have no doubt the defense department has several skeletons in their closet that they aren't about to make public. But then again, we ARE the world's only remaining super power, so that's to be expected.
An argument that says it's okay to give the government the theoretical ability to intrude into our personal life because they lack the logistical ability to do it seems startlingly shortsighted given technological and computing advances. Surely it's better to say "stop reading our emails" than "sure, you can read our emails, but you'll need to invent a way of sorting them to actually get anywhere".
Which they are already doing, if not already completed. The NSA, according to the whistleblower is a project meant to filter through all the data, providing cross-agency data extrapolation.
The people who believe every conspiracy are just as ridiculous and stupid as people who discredit every conspiracy. Then again calling everyone a tin-foil hat makes you look cool ^_^
The NSA have been monitoring European communications for years and for some reason many Americans are fine with it. Playing Devil's advocate, what would be the difference if the USA treats its citizens the same as they treat their allies (and enemies)? In my opinion, this is a huge breach of privacy and individual liberties, but it hardly qualifies as totalitarianism.
This also has little to do with the "small" or "big" state controversy, as I see it, since the use of such methods should be against international law. Not that we can do anything about it.
From the article: "The data are also funneled to Maryland's Intelligence Center, which connects and monitors 367 license plate readers around the state. Assistant U.S. Attorney Harvey Eisenberg oversees the network."
This is not even close to being constitutional. Not that anyone seems to care about the constitution in this country anymore.
"Tax departments use them as well. Arlington, Va. relies on scanners to locate the cars of delinquent taxpayers. " Really? So it's admittedly not just used for dangerous criminals, but for something as benign as being late or delinquent on your taxes? This is how it starts; use dangerous crimes to justify something, then slowly spread it into more benign crimes, until it is used as a simple cash collector.
On February 06 2013 18:44 LF[Media] wrote: From the article: "The data are also funneled to Maryland's Intelligence Center, which connects and monitors 367 license plate readers around the state. Assistant U.S. Attorney Harvey Eisenberg oversees the network."
This is not even close to being constitutional. Not that anyone seems to care about the constitution in this country anymore.
"Tax departments use them as well. Arlington, Va. relies on scanners to locate the cars of delinquent taxpayers. " Really? So it's admittedly not just used for dangerous criminals, but for something as benign as being late or delinquent on your taxes? This is how it starts; use dangerous crimes to justify something, then slowly spread it into more benign crimes, until it is used as a simple cash collector.
On February 06 2013 17:20 TheToaster wrote: In general, the U.S. government has a pathetic internal infrastructure that can be no threat to it's own citizens.
On February 06 2013 20:39 StickyFlower wrote: Dont be silly, USA is already a totalitarian state. They reached that state when George W. Bush took office.
The ends of power is to enrich the private sector + Show Spoiler +
They wage war, not to free people or make the world more safe, but to make money for private companies (read:Halliburton)
It gives monopoly to 2 parties making it impossible for any other party to challenge. The majority doesnt always pick the President.
The Elected people who are supposed to run the state are highly ignorant, and doesnt believe in Science. + Show Spoiler +
Science is fact and its true whether or not you believe in it.
Spoken like someone who hasn't been to America. You provide no evidence to back up any of these points. You say the electoral college is undemocratic, but Americans still choose their leaders to represent them. Just because Americas democracy isn't the same as European democracies does not mean that America isn't democratic.
On February 06 2013 20:39 StickyFlower wrote: Dont be silly, USA is already a totalitarian state. They reached that state when George W. Bush took office.
The ends of power is to enrich the private sector + Show Spoiler +
They wage war, not to free people or make the world more safe, but to make money for private companies (read:Halliburton)
It gives monopoly to 2 parties making it impossible for any other party to challenge. The majority doesnt always pick the President.
The Elected people who are supposed to run the state are highly ignorant, and doesnt believe in Science. + Show Spoiler +
Science is fact and its true whether or not you believe in it.
I don't know where you get your facts.....
Sure, Bush waged a war for personal reasons as well as to help out Halliburton. Iraq and Afghanistan are more safe though despite that not being our reason for going there.
You don't really explain the second spoiler, but yes, our politicians are corrupt. Their views are irreverent to the law making process as it takes way more than 1 individual to pass a law. They are corrupt because they steal money left and right from the people, and waste their time in office getting paid to do nothing except line their pockets with even more money.
There is no limit in the rights for a gay movement sorry. Just recently several states passed gay marriage laws. The government (federal) continues to do nothing about it because they support gay rights. And the "movement" is not being hindered.
The Electoral College has nothing to do with a 2 party system. And to my knowledge only 1 president won the EC without winning the popular vote as well.
Our elected officials almost all believe in science lol. They might be dumb as shit, but they're not out there contesting science.
I don't know where you got your information, and yes I think our government and the state of our country is quite shitty right now, but not for the reasons you stated. In fact your reasons are almost all completely false. I don't know who is spoon feeding you this, but you might do well with some googling on the US.
On February 06 2013 17:20 TheToaster wrote: In general, the U.S. government has a pathetic internal infrastructure that can be no threat to it's own citizens.
Sad the 16 year old kid died (unless ofc he was actually an enemy combatant) Sad potentially another innocent was killed in the strike. Don't give a fuck that the US thought a bomb maker was over seas and tried to blow him up.
On February 06 2013 17:20 TheToaster wrote: In general, the U.S. government has a pathetic internal infrastructure that can be no threat to it's own citizens.
Sad the 16 year old kid died (unless ofc he was actually an enemy combatant) Sad potentially another innocent was killed in the strike. Don't give a fuck that the US thought a bomb maker was over seas and tried to blow him up.
So you don't believe that American citizens have the right to a fair trial before a jury? That it's fine to assume someone is guilty and then bomb the shit out of them?
On February 06 2013 18:54 KwarK wrote: Do you really have a right to privacy in the street? That seems an odd thing to contest.
Of course you don't have a right to privacy in the street. However, I'd suggest there's a difference between watching locations with recording devices, and cross-comparing many different recording devices to follow a person throughout their day.
On February 06 2013 17:20 TheToaster wrote: In general, the U.S. government has a pathetic internal infrastructure that can be no threat to it's own citizens.
Sad the 16 year old kid died (unless ofc he was actually an enemy combatant) Sad potentially another innocent was killed in the strike. Don't give a fuck that the US thought a bomb maker was over seas and tried to blow him up.
So you don't believe that American citizens have the right to a fair trial before a jury? That it's fine to assume someone is guilty and then bomb the shit out of them?
Take a direct and logical look at it. The president wouldn't authorize a bombing of a US citizen without good proof. So, he is most likely a bomb maker who's bombs will kill how many innocent people? Now, killing him without a trial to save how many innocent people is it worth it? To me, in most cases yes. If they US could easily extract him from Yemen it would have been better, sure, but every hour they waste completing an extraction (by force or political) he could be making another bomb. Logically bombing makes the most sense to save the most innocent people. Now, I'm much more of a fan of collecting him in some fashion torturing him for information about who the bombs were for, but if the president and his staff decided that the drone strike was the best solution I think they were probably right.
On February 06 2013 18:54 KwarK wrote: Do you really have a right to privacy in the street? That seems an odd thing to contest.
Of course you don't have a right to privacy in the street. However, I'd suggest there's a difference between watching locations with recording devices, and cross-comparing many different recording devices to follow a person throughout their day.
Why do you care if the government tracks you? I don't think they're using these efforts to spot you cheating on your spouse. They probably just ignore your information and continue to log more.
On February 06 2013 21:27 NoobSkills wrote: Take a direct and logical look at it. The president wouldn't authorize a bombing of a US citizen without good proof. So, he is most likely a bomb maker. If the president and his staff decided that the drone strike was the best solution I think they were probably right.
And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death?
On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote: And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death?
You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it.
On February 06 2013 18:54 KwarK wrote: Do you really have a right to privacy in the street? That seems an odd thing to contest.
Of course you don't have a right to privacy in the street. However, I'd suggest there's a difference between watching locations with recording devices, and cross-comparing many different recording devices to follow a person throughout their day.
Why do you care if the government tracks you? I don't think they're using these efforts to spot you cheating on your spouse. They probably just ignore your information and continue to log more.
I don't think I do care, because The Powers That Be have little cause to fuck with me. Suppose, however, that I became a major figure in some sort of political movement, such as Wikileaks. Would you trust the government to use its repository of surveillance data responsibly, rather than exploit that data in any way it can to discredit my efforts?
On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote: And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death?
You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it.
And where are the constitutional checks on his power? How good does the evidence have to be for the state to murder (for that is what extrajudicial killing is called) someone? Does the system just rely on Obama just being the kind of honourable man who wouldn't murder someone who didn't deserve it? What if the guy giving him the intel is less honourable? What if the probably deserves it guy is standing next to another citizen who probably doesn't deserve it, do you average their guilt out? What if Obama isn't the President forever? How exactly do you see this situation working?
On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote: And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death?
You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it.
And where are the constitutional checks on his power? How good does the evidence have to be for the state to murder (for that is what extrajudicial killing is called) someone? Does the system just rely on Obama just being the kind of honourable man who wouldn't murder someone who didn't deserve it? What if the guy giving him the intel is less honourable? What if the probably deserves it guy is standing next to another citizen who probably doesn't deserve it, do you average their guilt out? What if Obama isn't the President forever? How exactly do you see this situation working?
Your original line had the word "arbitrary" you know. And now you're talking about a lot of quite probable process which probably still misses out on a lot of checks, systems and considerations that get made before anything of this nature occurs.
So haven't you just proved the difference?
(Though you are raising a new argument of "the system" and there's always potential for flaw there. Not denying that.)
On February 06 2013 17:20 TheToaster wrote: In general, the U.S. government has a pathetic internal infrastructure that can be no threat to it's own citizens.
Sad the 16 year old kid died (unless ofc he was actually an enemy combatant) Sad potentially another innocent was killed in the strike. Don't give a fuck that the US thought a bomb maker was over seas and tried to blow him up.
So you don't believe that American citizens have the right to a fair trial before a jury? That it's fine to assume someone is guilty and then bomb the shit out of them?
Take a direct and logical look at it. The president wouldn't authorize a bombing of a US citizen without good proof. So, he is most likely a bomb maker who's bombs will kill how many innocent people? Now, killing him without a trial to save how many innocent people is it worth it? To me, in most cases yes. If they US could easily extract him from Yemen it would have been better, sure, but every hour they waste completing an extraction (by force or political) he could be making another bomb. Logically bombing makes the most sense to save the most innocent people. Now, I'm much more of a fan of collecting him in some fashion torturing him for information about who the bombs were for, but if the president and his staff decided that the drone strike was the best solution I think they were probably right.
I am taking a direct and logical look at it, and it seems to me this is in violation of the 5th amendment of the Constitution.
Why should I believe a president would not order the killing of a US citizen without good proof, when the previous president ordered the bombing of an entire country without good proof? If there was good proof (which it seems like there was), why not order him to appear in court? Try him in absentia, and if the proof really is good, then he could be found guilty, and then sentenced to death.
But if you're just going to take shortcuts and ignore people's rights, then why have rights in the first place? If our leaders are so benevolent and just, why would it matter if we had a dictatorship?
Even if you happen to naively trust Obama and his staff to make the right call on matters like this, because "Father Knows Best," these powers that he has just claimed for the presidency won't just disappear when he leaves office. Would you be comfortable with any president having the power to assassinate people at their discretion? Cause I'm not.
On February 06 2013 20:39 StickyFlower wrote: Dont be silly, USA is already a totalitarian state. They reached that state when George W. Bush took office.
The ends of power is to enrich the private sector + Show Spoiler +
They wage war, not to free people or make the world more safe, but to make money for private companies (read:Halliburton)
What a pile of BS.
Every country uses it`s power to enrich private sector. Look at your country. The only reason it conducts diplomacy is to enrich it`s private sector.
On February 06 2013 20:39 StickyFlower wrote: The corruption is ridiculously high + Show Spoiler +
How else can you explain why USA's "professionals" always have a different view of that of the rest of the world?
Always different to the rest of the world? What a ridiculous red herring.
On February 06 2013 20:39 StickyFlower wrote: The limitation of Pluralism pretty damn high aswell + Show Spoiler +
Little rights for gaymovements and other religious believes that are not Christian.
By "little" ou abviously mean no right to marry? So what. Marriage is a goverment service. If the majority of population belives gays are not entitled to that service, they do not get it.
On February 06 2013 20:39 StickyFlower wrote: The Electoral College is undemocratic + Show Spoiler +
It gives monopoly to 2 parties making it impossible for any other party to challenge. The majority doesnt always pick the President.
You seem to forget that any "democratic" country requires a rulling coalition of 50+%. to rule. The many parties&majority coalition is not different from 2 party system.
EC is a good compromise for when you have a huge country to ensure that all states are reasonably represented and it is impossible to fake elections by voter faud. Sue, today it may be replaced with direct vote, back than, no, and EC sides with the winner of popular vote the vast majority of instances.
On February 06 2013 20:39 StickyFlower wrote: The Elected people who are supposed to run the state are highly ignorant, and doesnt believe in Science. + Show Spoiler +
Science is fact and its true whether or not you believe in it.
Again red herring. Science is just an observation of small sample and extrapolation of results to larger sample. Often the small sample is not good enought to make accuraqte measurments.
As for ignorance, the majority of elected officials have had succesfull private sector jobs before being elected, so you`re obviously wrong.
On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote: And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death?
You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it.
And where are the constitutional checks on his power? How good does the evidence have to be for the state to murder (for that is what extrajudicial killing is called) someone? Does the system just rely on Obama just being the kind of honourable man who wouldn't murder someone who didn't deserve it? What if the guy giving him the intel is less honourable? What if the probably deserves it guy is standing next to another citizen who probably doesn't deserve it, do you average their guilt out? What if Obama isn't the President forever? How exactly do you see this situation working?
Your original line had the word "arbitrary" you know. And now you're talking about a lot of quite probable process which probably still misses out on a lot of checks, systems and considerations that get made before anything of this nature occurs.
So haven't you just proved the difference?
(Though you are raising a new argument of "the system" and there's always potential for flaw there. Not denying that.)
No, the point is that the social contract by which the US is governed only allows a citizen to be executed by the state following a death sentence by the judicial system. This is important because the authority of the government is derived from the social contract in which the people empower it to act on their behalf. When the government claims the right to extrajudicial execution of a citizen then the social contract is broken and the citizen becomes a subject to a tyranny. Obama thinking he has a good enough reason does not make the system not arbitrary, for it not to be arbitrary a clear set of rules and safeguards must be established.
On February 06 2013 17:20 TheToaster wrote: In general, the U.S. government has a pathetic internal infrastructure that can be no threat to it's own citizens.
Sad the 16 year old kid died (unless ofc he was actually an enemy combatant) Sad potentially another innocent was killed in the strike. Don't give a fuck that the US thought a bomb maker was over seas and tried to blow him up.
So you don't believe that American citizens have the right to a fair trial before a jury? That it's fine to assume someone is guilty and then bomb the shit out of them?
Take a direct and logical look at it. The president wouldn't authorize a bombing of a US citizen without good proof. So, he is most likely a bomb maker who's bombs will kill how many innocent people? Now, killing him without a trial to save how many innocent people is it worth it? To me, in most cases yes. If they US could easily extract him from Yemen it would have been better, sure, but every hour they waste completing an extraction (by force or political) he could be making another bomb. Logically bombing makes the most sense to save the most innocent people. Now, I'm much more of a fan of collecting him in some fashion torturing him for information about who the bombs were for, but if the president and his staff decided that the drone strike was the best solution I think they were probably right.
Take the example of the 16 yr old American who was bombed. What was his crime? He was eating at a restaurant with a friend of his, he has a facebook page filled with friends just like any other normal 16 yr old kid. His only crime is that his father was condemned by the US administration without trail either.
Obama is abusing a judicial loophole where he cannot disclose the evidence because of "national security" but at the same time kill people for the "evidence" which he cannot disclose. 2 weeks ago a judge shot down a request to provide proof and this is what she said about the issue:
“I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret,” she wrote.
“The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me,” Judge McMahon wrote, adding that she was operating in a legal environment that amounted to “a veritable Catch-22.”
On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote: And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death?
You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it.
And where are the constitutional checks on his power? How good does the evidence have to be for the state to murder (for that is what extrajudicial killing is called) someone? Does the system just rely on Obama just being the kind of honourable man who wouldn't murder someone who didn't deserve it? What if the guy giving him the intel is less honourable? What if the probably deserves it guy is standing next to another citizen who probably doesn't deserve it, do you average their guilt out? What if Obama isn't the President forever? How exactly do you see this situation working?
Again do you really think that Obama is sitting in the oval office and hitting up his check list of everyone who made fun of him in high school? And on the reverse do you really think that Obama could just call up the military and request X be killed without giving them any information? So, yes the person in the drone strike is most likely always a criminal. Do you think that drone strike are committed to with just one source of information? Or more logically that they're attempted for high priority targets who have been confirmed on the ground? I only ask because we don't hear about a drone strike every 30 seconds for the common Al-Qaeda grunt. These are targeted missions against high priority members. What happens if the terrorist is standing next to an innocent civilian, shit happens, causality of war. One to save thousands has to be the motto. Know why? Because those on 9-11 weren't standing next to any military/political personnel. Why if he isn't president forever? Do you think the next guy in office has a high school checklist too? I see this situation working how it was working probably even before 9-11. Government will eliminate threats by any means at their disposal.
On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote: And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death?
You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it.
And where are the constitutional checks on his power? How good does the evidence have to be for the state to murder (for that is what extrajudicial killing is called) someone? Does the system just rely on Obama just being the kind of honourable man who wouldn't murder someone who didn't deserve it? What if the guy giving him the intel is less honourable? What if the probably deserves it guy is standing next to another citizen who probably doesn't deserve it, do you average their guilt out? What if Obama isn't the President forever? How exactly do you see this situation working?
Again do you really think that Obama is sitting in the oval office and hitting up his check list of everyone who made fun of him in high school? And on the reverse do you really think that Obama could just call up the military and request X be killed without giving them any information? So, yes the person in the drone strike is most likely always a criminal. Do you think that drone strike are committed to with just one source of information? Or more logically that they're attempted for high priority targets who have been confirmed on the ground? I only ask because we don't hear about a drone strike every 30 seconds for the common Al-Qaeda grunt. These are targeted missions against high priority members. What happens if the terrorist is standing next to an innocent civilian, shit happens, causality of war. One to save thousands has to be the motto. Know why? Because those on 9-11 weren't standing next to any military/political personnel. Why if he isn't president forever? Do you think the next guy in office has a high school checklist too? I see this situation working how it was working probably even before 9-11. Government will eliminate threats by any means at their disposal.
Are you familiar with the military at all? Do you really think the guy controlling the drone by remote is going to demand that the Commander in Chief justify it to his satisfaction. The system rests on the assumption that everyone is accountable to the guy above them and the guy at the top is accountable to the people. Of course Obama doesn't have to justify drone strikes to the military, he makes a decision with his security advisers and then an officer gives the order.
I don't think Obama is a supervillain killing his political enemies left and right, I think a system based on hoping Obama isn't a supervillain or ever wrong or mistaken is inferior to a system of checks, balances, judicial scrutiny and accountability. Saying "but Obama isn't evil" doesn't in any way respond to the issues I'm raising with a system in which the government can execute a citizen without any judicial involvement or even stating their reasons.
On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote: And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death?
You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it.
And where are the constitutional checks on his power? How good does the evidence have to be for the state to murder (for that is what extrajudicial killing is called) someone? Does the system just rely on Obama just being the kind of honourable man who wouldn't murder someone who didn't deserve it? What if the guy giving him the intel is less honourable? What if the probably deserves it guy is standing next to another citizen who probably doesn't deserve it, do you average their guilt out? What if Obama isn't the President forever? How exactly do you see this situation working?
So, yes the person in the drone strike is most likely always a criminal.
Again, how do you know this when they are not given a trial?
On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote: And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death?
You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it.
And where are the constitutional checks on his power? How good does the evidence have to be for the state to murder (for that is what extrajudicial killing is called) someone? Does the system just rely on Obama just being the kind of honourable man who wouldn't murder someone who didn't deserve it? What if the guy giving him the intel is less honourable? What if the probably deserves it guy is standing next to another citizen who probably doesn't deserve it, do you average their guilt out? What if Obama isn't the President forever? How exactly do you see this situation working?
So, yes the person in the drone strike is most likely always a criminal.
Again, how do you know this when they are not given a trial?
even more important: how do you prevent it from being abused if all you do is TRUST the person in charge.
this guy is definately trolling btw. don't feed him.
On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote: And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death?
You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it.
And where are the constitutional checks on his power? How good does the evidence have to be for the state to murder (for that is what extrajudicial killing is called) someone? Does the system just rely on Obama just being the kind of honourable man who wouldn't murder someone who didn't deserve it? What if the guy giving him the intel is less honourable? What if the probably deserves it guy is standing next to another citizen who probably doesn't deserve it, do you average their guilt out? What if Obama isn't the President forever? How exactly do you see this situation working?
So, yes the person in the drone strike is most likely always a criminal.
Again, how do you know this when they are not given a trial?
Because he's saying "if they didn't deserve to be executed then why were they executed, clearly guilty". It's the same logic as "if he didn't do anything wrong then why is he defending himself in a court" only without the right to a lawyer, to defend yourself, to see the evidence against you or a fair trial.
On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote: And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death?
You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it.
And where are the constitutional checks on his power? How good does the evidence have to be for the state to murder (for that is what extrajudicial killing is called) someone? Does the system just rely on Obama just being the kind of honourable man who wouldn't murder someone who didn't deserve it? What if the guy giving him the intel is less honourable? What if the probably deserves it guy is standing next to another citizen who probably doesn't deserve it, do you average their guilt out? What if Obama isn't the President forever? How exactly do you see this situation working?
So, yes the person in the drone strike is most likely always a criminal.
Again, how do you know this when they are not given a trial?
Because does it make any sense for Obama to kill a US citizen at random? Does it really make sense to you? Do you really think that not only is there no evidence, that Obama can call an air strike without having a meeting with Secretary of Defense and other military officials, do you really think they would waste time scouting out the location of that individual if he wasn't a terrorist? I just don't see it.
Is that a defence of giving the government total opaque power of life and death over its citizens based upon the government's known ability to use time in the most productive fashion?
On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote: And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death?
You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it.
And where are the constitutional checks on his power? How good does the evidence have to be for the state to murder (for that is what extrajudicial killing is called) someone? Does the system just rely on Obama just being the kind of honourable man who wouldn't murder someone who didn't deserve it? What if the guy giving him the intel is less honourable? What if the probably deserves it guy is standing next to another citizen who probably doesn't deserve it, do you average their guilt out? What if Obama isn't the President forever? How exactly do you see this situation working?
So, yes the person in the drone strike is most likely always a criminal.
Again, how do you know this when they are not given a trial?
Because does it make any sense for Obama to kill a US citizen at random? Does it really make sense to you? Do you really think that not only is there no evidence, that Obama can call an air strike without having a meeting with Secretary of Defense and other military officials, do you really think they would waste time scouting out the location of that individual if he wasn't a terrorist? I just don't see it.
See, we were given this song and dance before we invaded Iraq. How well did that work out?
On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote: And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death?
You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it.
And where are the constitutional checks on his power? How good does the evidence have to be for the state to murder (for that is what extrajudicial killing is called) someone? Does the system just rely on Obama just being the kind of honourable man who wouldn't murder someone who didn't deserve it? What if the guy giving him the intel is less honourable? What if the probably deserves it guy is standing next to another citizen who probably doesn't deserve it, do you average their guilt out? What if Obama isn't the President forever? How exactly do you see this situation working?
So, yes the person in the drone strike is most likely always a criminal.
Again, how do you know this when they are not given a trial?
Because does it make any sense for Obama to kill a US citizen at random? Does it really make sense to you? Do you really think that not only is there no evidence, that Obama can call an air strike without having a meeting with Secretary of Defense and other military officials, do you really think they would waste time scouting out the location of that individual if he wasn't a terrorist? I just don't see it.
See, we were given this song and dance before we invaded Iraq. How well did that work out?
WMD or no WMD there were terrorists there. Worked out well in my opinion other than the loss of true soldiers. Btw there is actual evidence that terrorists were there, so we were completely justified. They didn't need the WMD song and dance to enter btw, they already had 9/11 which imo is all they needed.
On February 06 2013 22:32 KwarK wrote: Is that a defence of giving the government total opaque power of life and death over its citizens based upon the government's known ability to use time in the most productive fashion?
You read wasting scout/spy's time as the only part of that post. How do you really think these drone strikes occur please tell me what you think happens? Sure, I know I don't know what happens, but how do you think it happens? Obama picks a name out of a hat? Picks up his cell phone and calls Jim the drone strike pilot? Give him the coordinates? Done? Seems logical to me.
On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote: And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death?
You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it.
And where are the constitutional checks on his power? How good does the evidence have to be for the state to murder (for that is what extrajudicial killing is called) someone? Does the system just rely on Obama just being the kind of honourable man who wouldn't murder someone who didn't deserve it? What if the guy giving him the intel is less honourable? What if the probably deserves it guy is standing next to another citizen who probably doesn't deserve it, do you average their guilt out? What if Obama isn't the President forever? How exactly do you see this situation working?
So, yes the person in the drone strike is most likely always a criminal.
Again, how do you know this when they are not given a trial?
Because does it make any sense for Obama to kill a US citizen at random? Does it really make sense to you? Do you really think that not only is there no evidence, that Obama can call an air strike without having a meeting with Secretary of Defense and other military officials, do you really think they would waste time scouting out the location of that individual if he wasn't a terrorist? I just don't see it.
See, we were given this song and dance before we invaded Iraq. How well did that work out?
WMD or no WMD there were terrorists there. Worked out well in my opinion other than the loss of true soldiers. Btw there is actual evidence that terrorists were there, so we were completely justified.
Nope. Al Qaeda only came in after the US invaded, even the government has admitted this.
But that's besides the point. The point is, the government has made critical decisions on bad intelligence in the past. What makes you think they won't do it again? Isn't the point of due process to protect people from this sort of thing? And you don't think people should have that?
Er, Iraq and Afghanistan are actually different places.
The terrorists were in Afghanistan and we knew that was exactly where we were and we knew they definitely weren't in Iraq because Saddam was running a brutal secular dictatorship that actively repressed Islamic extremism. The 9/11 terrorist war was Afghanistan, the WMD war was Iraq. There wasn't actually ever a link between them.
Actually when Saddam invaded leading up to the first gulf war Osama Bin Ladin actually offered to go to war to fight him off. You might have had justification to send in a seal team but I don't see how you can justify invading a country because of the actions of a few people. The invasion of Afghanistan was an immoral act of aggression.
On February 06 2013 23:08 KwarK wrote: NoobSkills is currently in the process of justifying Iraq because of 9/11. We'll get to the morality of Afghanistan once he finds it on a map.
You can't kill Al-Qaeda in Iraq if they weren't there right? Our troops landed there and did nothing during these years.
User was temp banned for ruining the topic with consistently incredible levels of ignorance about basic, basic things. In this particular case failing to notice the posts above which explained that Al Qaeda in Iraq was founded after the US invasion and still believing in 2013!!! that we invaded Iraq to get the Taliban.
It's funny, because the majority of people I know who have an opinion on this topic fall into two distinct categories:
1) They were very vocal against our actions in Iraq while Bush was president, but strangely silent or dismissive when they hear about what Obama is doing 2) They are very vocal against what Obama is doing, but were strangely silent or supportive of what Bush did as president.
I must say, at least this guy is consistent, even if he is consistently on the wrong side lol
On February 06 2013 17:20 TheToaster wrote: I can't believe the amount of tin foil hat wearers there are in this thread, it just blows my mind. Some of you are referring to the U.S. military like some sort of clone army from Star Wars, only capable of executing commands from authority. I know several people that are enlisted, and they know exactly why they fight. This is still 2013, and the military won't even come close to involving themselves with domestic conflict on a large scale.
As far as the "surveillance state" argument, I'm not even sure what the massive amounts of data being collected by the government is even supposed to suggest. Okay, so they might have billions of personal e-mails stored up. It's not like the government has the time and resources available to actually make use of that data individually. That would require way more resources and employees than what our pathetically underemployed government has. At best, this is just another pathetic attempt by the government to try and keep up pace with the rapidly expanding world of the internet.
In general, the U.S. government has a pathetic internal infrastructure that can be no threat to it's own citizens. Internationally, on the other hand, I have no doubt the defense department has several skeletons in their closet that they aren't about to make public. But then again, we ARE the world's only remaining super power, so that's to be expected.
An argument that says it's okay to give the government the theoretical ability to intrude into our personal life because they lack the logistical ability to do it seems startlingly shortsighted given technological and computing advances. Surely it's better to say "stop reading our emails" than "sure, you can read our emails, but you'll need to invent a way of sorting them to actually get anywhere".
Which they are already doing, if not already completed. The NSA, according to the whistleblower is a project meant to filter through all the data, providing cross-agency data extrapolation.
The people who believe every conspiracy are just as ridiculous and stupid as people who discredit every conspiracy. Then again calling everyone a tin-foil hat makes you look cool ^_^
The NSA have been monitoring European communications for years and for some reason many Americans are fine with it. Playing Devil's advocate, what would be the difference if the USA treats its citizens the same as they treat their allies (and enemies)? In my opinion, this is a huge breach of privacy and individual liberties, but it hardly qualifies as totalitarianism.
This also has little to do with the "small" or "big" state controversy, as I see it, since the use of such methods should be against international law. Not that we can do anything about it.
The NSA does monitors traffic going out and into the country by tapping into the transatlantic/pacific cables. But no one cares because unless your a terrorist you're not special, no one is creeping on your traffic, anyways any random admin or whoever is routing your Internet traffic to it's destination could easily tap it as well. Although soldiers have their communications actually listened to by other soldiers which is tons creepier then just a machine that chucks away at key phrases or activity and suggests you may be a concern to someone else. But that comes with the job when you're active rights change.
On February 06 2013 18:54 KwarK wrote: Do you really have a right to privacy in the street? That seems an odd thing to contest.
Of course you don't have a right to privacy in the street. However, I'd suggest there's a difference between watching locations with recording devices, and cross-comparing many different recording devices to follow a person throughout their day.
In the US depending on state you have the right to piracy in just about any enclosed space house car room curtain etc. It comes from the ideas of expected privacy if most people expect some level of privacy in an area it actually has to be respected, and then that falls into what kind of privacy is expected and where that line is drawn, such as privacy in a changing room/bathroom vs a living room or street. And then privacy usually falls into recording of video or audio, audio is very tricky more often then recording audio without the consent(wiretapping laws) of all parities involved is illegal but video can be quite legal most of the time.
On February 05 2013 21:42 TotalNightmare wrote: Well at the moment the USA seem like the only country where 1984 may actually ever happen, possibly even be on the way. While I deem it possible I could not say under any circumstances how high/low the chances of that actually ever happening are, never having been to the states.
PS: I would find it hilarious if the US became a dictatorship though, simply due to the fact that some people are so sure that the second amendment will protect them from just that...
Uhh, you clearly have never heard of North Korea. It's been a 1984 state since the 60s.
On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote: And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death?
You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it.
And where are the constitutional checks on his power? How good does the evidence have to be for the state to murder (for that is what extrajudicial killing is called) someone? Does the system just rely on Obama just being the kind of honourable man who wouldn't murder someone who didn't deserve it? What if the guy giving him the intel is less honourable? What if the probably deserves it guy is standing next to another citizen who probably doesn't deserve it, do you average their guilt out? What if Obama isn't the President forever? How exactly do you see this situation working?
What makes you think there aren't checks on his power with drone strikes?
There's a lot that we don't know about in regards to the exact chain of command that is involved when ordering a drone strike. Afaik the only "US citizens" were ones involved in terrorist activities in foreign countries.
On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote: And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death?
You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it.
And where are the constitutional checks on his power? How good does the evidence have to be for the state to murder (for that is what extrajudicial killing is called) someone? Does the system just rely on Obama just being the kind of honourable man who wouldn't murder someone who didn't deserve it? What if the guy giving him the intel is less honourable? What if the probably deserves it guy is standing next to another citizen who probably doesn't deserve it, do you average their guilt out? What if Obama isn't the President forever? How exactly do you see this situation working?
What makes you think there aren't checks on his power with drone strikes?
There's a lot that we don't know about in regards to the exact chain of command that is involved when ordering a drone strike. Afaik the only "US citizens" were ones involved in terrorist activities in foreign countries.
Isn't it normal to use the word allegedly before the jury returns a guilty verdict. The US citizens were the ones allegedly involved in terrorist activities before they were killed by the state. And I think there aren't checks is because he says there aren't, he claims the right to do it by his own power.
On February 05 2013 21:42 TotalNightmare wrote: Well at the moment the USA seem like the only country where 1984 may actually ever happen, possibly even be on the way. While I deem it possible I could not say under any circumstances how high/low the chances of that actually ever happening are, never having been to the states.
PS: I would find it hilarious if the US became a dictatorship though, simply due to the fact that some people are so sure that the second amendment will protect them from just that...
Uhh, you clearly have never heard of North Korea. It's been a 1984 state since the 60s.
I would argue that North Korea lacks the technology to go all the way, but they are certainly good at "newspeak" and creating enemies when needed.
On February 06 2013 20:39 StickyFlower wrote: Dont be silly, USA is already a totalitarian state. They reached that state when George W. Bush took office.
The ends of power is to enrich the private sector + Show Spoiler +
They wage war, not to free people or make the world more safe, but to make money for private companies (read:Halliburton)
What a pile of BS.
Every country uses it`s power to enrich private sector. Look at your country. The only reason it conducts diplomacy is to enrich it`s private sector.
On February 06 2013 20:39 StickyFlower wrote: The corruption is ridiculously high + Show Spoiler +
How else can you explain why USA's "professionals" always have a different view of that of the rest of the world?
Always different to the rest of the world? What a ridiculous red herring.
On February 06 2013 20:39 StickyFlower wrote: The limitation of Pluralism pretty damn high aswell + Show Spoiler +
Little rights for gaymovements and other religious believes that are not Christian.
By "little" ou abviously mean no right to marry? So what. Marriage is a goverment service. If the majority of population belives gays are not entitled to that service, they do not get it.
On February 06 2013 20:39 StickyFlower wrote: The Electoral College is undemocratic + Show Spoiler +
It gives monopoly to 2 parties making it impossible for any other party to challenge. The majority doesnt always pick the President.
You seem to forget that any "democratic" country requires a rulling coalition of 50+%. to rule. The many parties&majority coalition is not different from 2 party system.
EC is a good compromise for when you have a huge country to ensure that all states are reasonably represented and it is impossible to fake elections by voter faud. Sue, today it may be replaced with direct vote, back than, no, and EC sides with the winner of popular vote the vast majority of instances.
On February 06 2013 20:39 StickyFlower wrote: The Elected people who are supposed to run the state are highly ignorant, and doesnt believe in Science. + Show Spoiler +
Science is fact and its true whether or not you believe in it.
Again red herring. Science is just an observation of small sample and extrapolation of results to larger sample. Often the small sample is not good enought to make accuraqte measurments.
As for ignorance, the majority of elected officials have had succesfull private sector jobs before being elected, so you`re obviously wrong.
Its a sad day when people call things they dont understand for red herrings and BS and doesnt want to have their believes challenged.
So what you are saying is: Its ok to wage war as long as a few companies tied to the ruling class makes money off the war. The majority should always decide in every single question, even those who doesnt affect them. The limiting of parties to 2 parties a democratic nessecity. It reasonable that everyones vote isnt counted equaly across the country. Its acceptable that the EC fails from time to time.
You find Science false, thus the computer you are using to type here has been created by an almighty being, mostlikely living somewhere in Asia because it says made in China on multiple machines in your household.
As for ignorance, the majority of elected officials have had succesfull private sector jobs before being elected. So they realy know how to decieve you. They are not ignorant, they just make more money acting like they are.
For anyone wondering, I did use Sondrols chart. I do believe USA could be classified as a authoritarian regime due to how almost every President of the USA have had blood-ties to one another, thus creating a small group of political elite. + Show Spoiler +
The term 'an authoritarian regime' denotes a state in which the single power holder - an individual 'dictator', a committee or a junta or an otherwise small group of political elite - monopolizes political power.
I was basicly checking if they have reached the totalitarian state. They have, without people realy noticing it. Congratz!
On February 06 2013 23:15 SpeaKEaSY wrote: It's funny, because the majority of people I know who have an opinion on this topic fall into two distinct categories:
1) They were very vocal against our actions in Iraq while Bush was president, but strangely silent or dismissive when they hear about what Obama is doing 2) They are very vocal against what Obama is doing, but were strangely silent or supportive of what Bush did as president.
I must say, at least this guy is consistent, even if he is consistently on the wrong side lol
I get what you're saying and there's some truth to it. For me though, it's just kind of become normal. A horrible thing to say but this "war on terror" just looks like it has no end and it will keep going until the geopolitical landscape completely changes. That said, I don't support what Obama is doing but to quote Jon Stewart after the foreign policy debate "It looks like Mitt Romney has come around to Obama's policy and it looks like Obama has come around to Bush's policy on foreign intervention."
While their social issue and domestic policy platforms might be different, on foreign policy we can have a party who will talk nicely to the rest of the world, or a party who will tell the world it doesn't give a damn, but the same stuff goes on in the background either way.
I really feel that the fact that the president of the United States has the power of judge, jury and executioner to be extremely troubling.
Besides being a breach of the fifth amendment, can we really trust ONE person to be completely incorruptible and all knowing? That he can filter all misinformation from his HUGE information network and never make any mistakes? That he never ever kills (breaches the freedom of) an innocent person?
If the president is so sure that this person is a terrorist, why isn't he allowed to defend himself? Do you really feel that preemptive action is the only solution? Kill him, before he presumably kills us?
Why is there so little information, when the president is so sure that these people were terrorists? Why has nothing been said regarding the 16 year old boy?
Can you really trust a person that publicly kills a 16 year old teenager and when asked about it, basically replies with "I have my justifications."
Couldn't care less if the US government is killing US citizens abroad who are waging war on the United States. The laws of war don't say anything about due process. If you really think that the government is just killing people without good evidence of their being terrorists, you're either being malicious or naive. That's why there aren't drone strikes every day, they build up intelligence until they're sure that they can kill this particular terrorist and that entails analyzing intelligence on his movements and activities. Worried about one man being judge, jury, and executioner? Welcome to organized war, it's been around for 12,000 years. I don't know when war became not-war, it seems like around when George W. Bush was president, but I can't seem to remember the reason why war became not-war then... oh wait, he was a Republican! I remember now. That's why.
Of course our government is a wannabe Big Brother, it has been for a while. Much earlier than Bush. It goes back to Johnson, who wiretapped everyone from NBC News to the headquarters of both the Humphrey and Nixon campaigns in 1968. Or back to Lincoln. Or back to John Adams. Or you could look at Woodrow Wilson, who instituted basically the only time this country has been ruled by an authoritarian or near-totalitarian government, from 1917-1919. It's just that for fifty years now people haven't pushed back much. Now they're finally realizing that a big government that can poke its nose into every aspect of their lives is a threat to them.
stickyflower: For anyone wondering, I did use Sondrols chart. I do believe USA could be classified as a authoritarian regime due to how almost every President of the USA have had blood-ties to one another, thus creating a small group of political elite.
Do they shapeshift into reptilians when no one else is around?
Dude you're incredibly ignorant about the United States, grow out of your juvenile emotionality about George W. Boooooooooooooooosh. Last I checked he left office over four years ago, despite people like you hysterically wailing about dirty tricks and false flags and martial law and a suspension of elections and all kinds of other bullshit.
The US repeatedly ranks near the top for countries of lowest amount of corruption, marriage is just about the only thing gays can't do (only in parts of the country) plus we are the most diverse country ethnically and religiously and ideologically and lifestyle-wise on the planet, what is this shit about a lack of pluralism. The Electoral College is undemocratic? It's supposed to be, so little states don't get screwed. It's about fairness. Also, ignorant about science? That must be why the US government spends billions a year on various kinds of research and the US has the most developed post-secondary education system in the world, much of it thanks to land-grant colleges, universities and institutions get billions in government grants and tax subsidies a year, and the US leads the world by a large margin still in inventions, research papers, technological innovations, etc.
You sound like you're just a typical anti-American bigot.
Laws of war? Fuck that. Everyone has a right to due process, despite any bullshit any government might be trying to push. You sound like typical patriotic bigot (yes, I use patriot as an insult, since it's just sugar coated nationalist).
Every nation fights dirty in war, and every nation has some level of dissonance between its domestic and foreign policy, particularly the more powerful ones. If anyone has an example of a nation that was a great power and simultaneously driven by ethical and humanitarian principles in its military and intelligence actions, I'd love to see it.
The simple fact of the matter is that US citizens as a whole enjoy one of the highest degrees of freedom and economic opportunity of any country. We also continue to have one of the highest degrees of political stability of any large country, astounding given our size and diversity. Put those two factors together, and the future for anything like totalitarianism in the US does not seem bright.
While I detest the exceptions, such as illegal imprisoning and killing of suspected terrorists, but these are a FAR cry from anything like totalitarianism. The US has leaned towards totalitarianism several times in its history, notably during the world wars and Cold War, and yet it swung back after the crises were over, usually to an even greater degree of freedom and equality than existed before the crises. How do the gaggle of 9-11 conspiracy theorists and hemp defenders quoted in the OP respond to that fact? Because what it really suggests that the symptoms that are being described here as "heading towards big brother" are a lot more complex than a simple devolution towards totalitarianism.
Finally, it's a poor argument to talk about whether a country MIGHT be possibly construed as headed towards totalitarianism. Such regimes are a thousand times worse, in terms of, to take just one metric, state sanctioned executions of its own citizens - usually for such light crimes as dissent, vs the awesome crime of conspiring to terrorize and murder ones countrymen. The US is nowhere near close to that, and to prove that, one need only look the dissent and political blowback which are effectively limiting the govt's current deplorable actions overseas, to a much greater extent than in the past - witness the immediacy of protest against the Iraq war and the effect that had in limiting said war. There is basically a storm of protest against every immoral action the US govt takes. Not all of it is necessarily constructive, this thread being a case in point. But it's there, it has an increasing impact, and its not what you'd expect of a nation that's sliding towards 1984.
On February 07 2013 07:18 3772 wrote: Laws of war? Fuck that. Everyone has a right to due process, despite any bullshit any government might be trying to push. You sound like typical patriotic bigot (yes, I use patriot as an insult, since it's just sugar coated nationalist).
Everyone has a right to due process? Alright, every time a soldier wants to shoot the guy pointing a gun at him, we need to gather up all the witnesses, the guns and anyone involved and pack inside a courtroom and review whether or not the man is guilty.
Here is what an Native American Indian had to say on these matters:
"Before our white brothers arrived to make us civilized men, we didn't have any kind of prison. Because of this, we had no delinquents. Without a prison, there can be no delinquents. We had no locks nor keys and therefore among us there were no thieves. When someone was so poor that he couldn't afford a horse, a tent or a blanket, he would, in that case, receive it all as a gift. We were too uncivilized to give great importance to private property. We didn't know any kind of money and consequently, the value of a human being was not determined by his wealth. We had no written laws laid down, no lawyers, no politicians, therefore we were not able to cheat and swindle one another. We were really in bad shape before the white men arrived and I don't know how to explain how we were able to manage without these fundamental things that (so they tell us) are so necessary for a civilized society. " John (Fire) Lame Deer
On February 07 2013 07:18 3772 wrote: Laws of war? Fuck that. Everyone has a right to due process, despite any bullshit any government might be trying to push. You sound like typical patriotic bigot (yes, I use patriot as an insult, since it's just sugar coated nationalist).
Everyone has a right to due process? Alright, every time a soldier wants to shoot the guy pointing a gun at him, we need to gather up all the witnesses, the guns and anyone involved and pack inside a courtroom and review whether or not the man is guilty.
Do you see what's wrong with this?
You don't see the difference between a soldier fighting in war under fire and drones firing rockets into cities and villages in Pakistan that there isn't a war raging to get "terrorists" without due process?
I thought this was about a big brother state? Now we're talking about drone strikes on American citizens in foreign countries?
I don't know how much a drone strike cost but I would hope the target is worth the millions it costs.
The "war terror" changed the rules, hell Obama realized this when he took office. He's foreign policy on this subject isn't all that different from Bush.
the USA has been heading in this direction for a long long time. one of the earliest deep thinkers in this area was Leondard Piekoff. His book "The Ominous Parallels" brings up some interesting themes and ideas which later turned out to be true.
On February 06 2013 21:30 KwarK wrote: And how exactly does that differ from the right of a king to arbitrarily sentence a subject to death?
You think Obama is sitting there in the oval office laughing about that one time that Yemen guy called him the N-word and he got him. Didn't give a fuck if he had to drone strike a foreign country to pay him back. Or less severe? You think Obama receives a report every day about US citizens living abroad with possible terrorist connections and each name has a check box next to it, then he checks off the ones he wants bombed? I'm all for the US government taking some measures beforehand to capture this person through political means or by force from the foreign country. And if in the end they determined that this action was necessary then yes, I agree with it.
And where are the constitutional checks on his power? How good does the evidence have to be for the state to murder (for that is what extrajudicial killing is called) someone? Does the system just rely on Obama just being the kind of honourable man who wouldn't murder someone who didn't deserve it? What if the guy giving him the intel is less honourable? What if the probably deserves it guy is standing next to another citizen who probably doesn't deserve it, do you average their guilt out? What if Obama isn't the President forever? How exactly do you see this situation working?
What makes you think there aren't checks on his power with drone strikes?
There's a lot that we don't know about in regards to the exact chain of command that is involved when ordering a drone strike. Afaik the only "US citizens" were ones involved in terrorist activities in foreign countries.
Isn't it normal to use the word allegedly before the jury returns a guilty verdict. The US citizens were the ones allegedly involved in terrorist activities before they were killed by the state. And I think there aren't checks is because he says there aren't, he claims the right to do it by his own power.
So he can in theory just call in a drone strike to someone in the US even? Or anyone outside the US that's a US citizen?
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.phawker.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/orwell_vs_huxley.png)
![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ifxNU1cZNp8/UIf6hzbLanI/AAAAAAAAk0k/YHI8X5aCG4Q/s1600/bandeira-flag.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/US_Slave_Free_1789-1861.gif)
