Alright, I agree, I don't think I should have phrased it that way. We elected them, but I don't think most of the people who voted would have noticed, seeing as even though they state the issues and how they stand, they can do whatever they want after they actually recieve the Precidency. Bush has had a difficult term, but I think he could've handled the Iraq War better, seeing as the fault for going to war in Iraq was bad intelligence, and, in a time with so much communication technology, and espionage technology, with the internet, with satellites, and with entire agencies on hold to help him, I think we made a bad decision. Now, why would anyone fight a conventional war if they know that the U.S can be held in sieges by a guerilla war? And furthermore, slowly wreck their economy in the process?



Meh, I think any kind of nuke in nuclear warfare would wreck a country if aimed right, say Russia aimed all of it's nukes at the east coast, how long do you think we'd last?



Alright, that kinda makes me think you didn't learn your history. Western expansion was caused because American's thought they had the 'god given right' to expand there, and therefore, wouldn't you classify all wars caused because of that as religious wars? Though, I agree with you, I don't think they're fighting a religious war currently.

And, I couldn't resist this:
I'll leave it at this: LOL


Though, if the Middle East part was true, we wouldn't be there anyways, would we? You know, the reason we though Iraq had WMD's was because they denied inspection from an agency in the first place, which would lead to doubt. Bad move on their part.

Thinking I'll end the post here, I'm not making any monster posts, no one reads 'em

Or maybe they’re smart for creating for themselves a position from which they can deal from the upper hand in regards to other countries?

This sounds like you’re making things up. Please provide some citation for these missiles that can get past any missile defense system. As for quality, yeah, does it make a difference? We know we can blow the world over quite a few times.

I assume you mean per-capita GDP? I meant in terms of government. Every country has red tape, bureaucracy, muddled responsibility lines, ect.


You can’t just keep adding to the list or else everything will fall under the list. Intelligence is not equivalent with Senatorial power or Monetary value either. The point of the original quote was that you need to overcome these insurmountable barriers to make a difference. And don’t diminish Rosa Parks. It may have been de jury, but human rights were not de facto back in the day. That was a major stride for humanity.


We tend to consider our [America’s] human rights/consequences before considering other people’s human rights/consequences, and isn’t that only natural to put the needs of your own country, your own family, your own friends, before the needs of some other people that you don’t know or care for? We don’t leave it out of the picture like you suggest. Also, the “bible belt” is a part of the U.S, yes, but it doesn’t just send money to Israel, it sends it to places all over the world. Not only that, but I seriously doubt, due to the military advantages inherent in having an Israel at all, that it was religious motivation or “fulfillment of prophecy” that spurred on its creation.




As for the whole sheep thing, that’s not exactly true. How do you get reelected if your constituents don’t like anything you do? What IS true is that politicians are generally better informed, up to date on issues, and better able to make judgments on serious issues because of the time and effort they put into examining consequences and doing their jobs, essentially. In that sense, we are supposed to trust our representatives, because how difficult would it be if you had to spend hours a day in addition to your regular job examining issues and such and such politically? Not everyone would be able to keep up.

Okay I need you to expand on that section I’ve quoted above. What has drawn you to all these conclusions? What do you call the media, except this omnipresent force that yells its head off every time they see a breach of “truth or wrong.” The fundamentals of the Constitution provide that the public know what’s right, to a degree, and that the representatives know what’s right, to a degree. The public can’t be right about everything, but history has shown that when the public is convinced of something, the government abides by it, for example, the Prohibition. But we also cannot micromanage the entire government and every decision by ourselves, that’s what specific committees are for, and things like the CRS. Our government is a far cry from “handing life and truth” to us.

The Patriot Act. Catch 22. If it wasn’t created, everyone would be pissed at the government for not protecting them, and now that it is created, everyone’s pissed at civil liberties infringements. But such is the nature of our government. Bad laws will be created, but we have provisions set up in our elections and courts and even our executive branch to amend these things. But really, how do you try to put a stop to terrorism if you need to waste three days getting a court order for a search warrant, especially now that the court systems are understaffed because of Presidential/Congressional squabbling. Time will iron out [most] the extremities to a compromise of civil rights protection and police authority.




Lol. I’ll say it again. Lol. Okay, I’ll be serious now. There is a few degrees of difference with which judges can interpret law, but what you’ve just described is hogwash. The constitution is still around. Congress still convenes, the President still vetoes laws, people still go to Court, people still argue about the “inherent privacy“ in the Bill of Rights (hey we touched on this!). A good lawyer is a must have for any legal dispute, period, I agree, but there are things you simply can not do. I think, statistically, there will always be court decisions that are wrong, backwards, unfounded, ect, but in the long run things will turn out to be primarily correct. Sort of like the Law of Large Numbers. And as my citation for this, I will again draw on the largest example of government corruption in known American history: Watergate.

As for your “t@xgate” thing, could you please direct me to an appropriate source, I’ve google’d it once or twice but my knowledge is insufficient to accurately judge the matter. From what I’ve gleaned, it’s the IRS failing to deliver notices about the Due Process of law, Correct?





I need you to expand more on this “very strict power structure” that is “largely inaccessible.” There are three branches of government, as I’m sure you know, each of which it is possible for you to enter. There is even a pseudo-fourth branch, the bureaucracy. It’s not so inaccessible, you just need to actively pursue it. You probably can’t just suddenly become a U.S. Senator, but you could probably get an internship with one, or a House Rep, or enter an Executive Agency, or become a Lawyer and study to be a judge. The only thing preventing you from accessing these things is your own inactivity.

As for the silencing of these free thinkers, I am not aware of this. Sure, the NY Times might not publish you if they think you’re garbage, but that’s different from being “silenced.” Is the U.S. actively seeking out “free thinkers” and jailing them or something. If so, please link me to it because that’s a scary thought, and it has happened before, ex McCarthy (he’s such a good example for so many things lol). There is naturally a difference between “free thinkers” and “dangerous thinkers” as well, so be careful to discern between the two.
Democratic Free thinker: We should socialize all healthcare.
Democratic Dangerous Thinker: We should give control of all private assets to the government to control.
Republican Free Thinker: We should eliminate income taxes
Republican Dangerous Thinker: We should eliminate government.
I hope you see my point.


I agree with most of your sentiments here. The Iraq war could’ve been better handled, our intelligence could’ve been much better, and our economy is being wrecked by the war.


I don’t know, but I’d run for the hills (and probably die anyway). Consequently, the effect on the environment would probably kill off Russia and everyone else too.


Expand where? Hawaii? Let’s see, we took the Phillipines at one point after WWII. We bought Alaska, so that doesn’t count. No one lived in America in the 1800’s. (Well, the Indians, but that was a blatant disregard for them as a people, that wasn’t religious, that was Capitalist). America didn’t really engage in the Imperialism I think you are referring to. America hasn’t waged any religious wars. I don’t think we’ve ever justified our wars religiously, like I’ve said before, we may have asked a blessing, or said maybe that “we believe we’re right under God,” but we’ve never waged a war for non-secular reasons.



I read your posts!!!
I agree mostly, Bagles. Razor, consider yourself in the executive position of asking Congress to declare war. You know your approval ratings are going to drop sharply, you will be ridiculed and hated by mothers, brothers, sisters, fathers, and families across America, you will be sending hundreds and thousands of young American men to a foreign nation, all of whom you know will serve proudly and die proudly for their country: It is NOT an easy decision to make. Look at pictures of G.W.B. from the beginning of his term in office to now, he looks like shit now. It takes a toll on you. I don’t agree with everything he’s done either, but the U.S. certainly does not “throw a bunch of stuff in there to justify what they’re doing.” Back in 01’ or 02’ everyone thought there was a legitimate threat to U.S. security. I think there still may be.

Whew. Long Post. This took me 2 days to write. lol. It’s 5 pages in my word processor.

I am of course reffering to expansion into the western territories, such as Oregon, California, places like that. Oh, lol, I should've specified a time period, I meant after the British had colonized, after we'd gained independence, when we decided to expand our borders (Lousianna purchase, all those indian wars), that was what I was reffering to, sorry again.

Wait.. the US couldn't do that before? Do you know ANYTHING about history? Cold War? The US and the Soviet Union dealt completely with an upper hand toward every country except each other. It's really not hard for the country which in the past pretty much carried world economy, that has the most powerful military and a long history of good western European relations to propose something like that in Europe. Bush didn't build a thing there. What he did was bring back cold-war age tensions by pushing forward a blatantly offensive system against the will of the people living in the area.

gogo braindrain
lolmore
Since you're such an American die-hard (defending the Bush administration.. I ask you...), I'll add this: 2nd Cold War?

I'm not adding to the list. You said 'Einstein' - well, guess what, it's a bit easier for a brilliant theoretical physicist who assisted in the creation of the Atom Bomb to do that stuff. I wasn't diminishing Rosa Parks, just saying how what she did is pretty much impossible now.

Post has been edited 4 time(s), last time on Jun 9 2008, 10:11 pm by Centreri.

Please don't attack my knowledge base, it has a negative affect on the course of the topic and as I'm sure you've seen, often leads to degeneration from the topic. I would appreciate it if you kept the conversations about my arguments.

What's your point? I suppose if you mean in regards to like, humanitarian views, then you can call the Bush or even America in general a bunch of morons, but if you're talking about the Cold War and such, you've completely defeated yourself. This is U.S. vs. World right? The topic, I mean. Even if it wasn't, I wouldn't call him a moron for setting up systems for the defence of a nation. Though, I do not like his failure to warn Russia of his specific intents long beforehand. It should have been a cooperative effort.


Please leave my political affiliation out of this. I am not an American die-hard, I simply see fallacies in many of people's arguments against the Bush administration. And please don't try and make me look stupid by your little parenthetical quote there. "defending the Bush administration.. I ask you..."

Ok thanks for the sources. Maybe they can get past any missle defence system, but I think as soon as they develop something to get past what we have, we'll develop something that blows up what they made. Anyway, my point was, does it really matter how good they are? If anyone uses them, EVERYONE is screwed. Maybe Russia takes out 100% of U.S. nukes. How many nuclear explosions would that be? How screwed over would the environment be? Can they really even get EVERY one?


It doesn't matter that Einstein was a brilliant theoretical physicist, it matters that he applied himself to a task and worked and worked and worked at it. His IQ just helped. But still, you don't need a collosal IQ to make a difference in the American Government. All you need is the support of people.

Well, in regards to Rosa, of course it's impossible now, the race barrier isn't really around anymore (not to say it isn't still a factor, just not as extreme as it once was).
I don't get how some of you guys said passive resistance wouldn't work in America though... it did work. It drew attention.

Please don't claim moral superiority over every little thing I write.

.. I don't think you understand what this topic is about. This topic is about how the US is forcing another Arms Race, how it's pushing for complete global dominance. The US setting up the defense so aggressively is pretty stupid, since there's nothing to defend from. Russia and China have shown no sign of wanting to nuke the US, and there are plenty better positions that wouldn't make Russia panic. It's pretty clear from the article I posted in my last post that it's pretty obvious that it's aimed at Russia and China. When you bring into account that Putin suggested a protective Umbrella to cover both Europe and Asia, but based in Russia instead of NATO lands, and the US hasn't replied positively (or at all, really), it makes it even more obvious. The US is the aggressor here, and I'd love for you to bring up arguments about how China and Russia have been meeting secretly to bomb the US just so I can shoot it down. The US is the one making aggressive moves and breaking international law. There's nothing to 'defend' from. If the US was worried about Iran, then you put the damn missile defense system in the middle east. Or in Russia. You don't put it in NATO lands while NATO is expanding to where it promised it never would and where it could harm both Russian and Chinese interests. Your argument there is completely nonsensical. How talking about US dominance during the Cold War while you're blabbering about how Bush is intelligent for being able to influence European affairs is beyond me as well. It's like you think that until Bush America was isolated from the rest of the world and couldn't influence a thing.

Sure. I just get annoyed when people say I'm making stuff up when a three word google search comes up with dozens of references with what I'm talking about. The point isn't that Russia can nuke the US - that's obvious. No defense system care take down every single nuke if they were launched within a short time span. The point is that the US is forcing Russia to engage in an arms race to keep a global balance of power.

Einstein got his influence pretty much just from his IQ. I really think Einstein's a horrible example for what you're trying to emphasize. And, again, look what the people elected - Bush. And look how many of the American people are going for McCain. I really wouldn't trust the people to make informed decisions about the future of anything about now.

Passive resistance being able to do anything? Have I told you about the 60% people in Czechoslovakia who don't want the missile system? I'm pretty sure I also mentioned hunger strikes. When the US or the Czech government starts caring, let me know. Since you seem pretty convinced that Passive Resistance can do anything in the US, I'll ask you for a source as to when a single person in modern history (last 15 years) influenced anything via passive resistance.

Vrael:

I have certain central assumptions about the U.S. (and maybe about humans in general, too) that you don't share, and I think that's where most of our disagreement comes from.

The problem is, my assertions can't easily be proved/backed up, because the evidence I use depends on you sharing my assumptions in the first place. Otherwise, you won't agree with my interpretation of that evidence.

Moreover, I think it's to be expected that the explanation we get from the government is not trustworthy... so we have to seek out other sources of truth. Problem is, a lot of these sources have huge "conspiracy theorist" stigmas attached to them. Granted, many of these sources do publish junk, but we have to be able to sort the good from the bad.

For example, I think that if the U.S. was controlling popular opinion, we wouldn't know it, because popular opinion would be that it wasn't being controlled.

The thing is, I obviously can't convince anyone to believe anything they don't want to believe. I just throw my thoughts out there for anyone who has had similar experiences/hunches as me, as a sort of double witness and as a way of saying, no, you're not crazy. Or at least you're not alone.

As for the specifics of what I think, I'm willing to tell them, but only if you want to hear them. If nobody cares, I'm not going to post them.

As for Taxgate... that was part of it, yeah. According to the authors of Taxgate, the IRS has been awarded powers of taxation that are unlawful. The authors published a guide outlining citizens' rights in this matter, and advising them how to legally defend their right to not pay income tax to the IRS. A number of people were successful in this and some even successfully defended themselves in court, until the IRS forced the guide to be removed from the internet. It now exists only in archives, such as:
http://www.gamblin.net/webbackups/www.taxgate.com/top/study_sequence.htm

PS: Hot damn this page is long.

Centreri, I'm sorry if my postings have come off adversarially. I didn't mean them that way, and I have had no intentions of claiming any moral superiority over you. However, when you claim that I have no knowledge of the subject area, try to word your posts incredulously to discredit me and not my arguments, say that I'm "blabbering", and presume to know how I think, it's just not cool man. I have views and opinions too, and I have yet to attack you for yours. Or if I have and I didn't realise it, I didn't mean to, and I apologize in advance.

As for the whole cold war instigation, Russia isn't innocent either.
Russia Selling Missles to Iran
I'm sure you can see how I view the U.S. putting missle defences in Europe is less scary to me than Iran having nuclear weapons. I agree that the U.S. may be instigating another arms race, but I don't think it's entirely their fault. The prospect of organizations like Hamas or Iran, which are clearly not in favor of the U.S., having nukes is scary, because they might use one. And when they are getting their supplies from Russia, it's even scarier.

And again Centreri, I'm not a die-hard-pro-Bush fanatic, I just think a lot of the arguments against him are weak and under supported. He is not the fool the media has portrayed him to be, even if he only graduated with a C or whatever at Harvard.



I think the U.S. forcing Russia into an arms race is a side effect of the Iraq war and Iran pursuing nuclear technologies.


Einstein is a brilliant example. He had the intelligence, yes, but his life is characterized by long hours of work and theorizing. He didn't sit around on his ass (well maybe he did, I'm not sure what he did while he was thinking and writing) and waste his talents.

I haven't said that Passive Resistance can do anything, and I generally agree that in foreign policy, passive resistance won't do much, unless we were to unanimously stop paying our taxes. Then the government would listen, assuming this was on the scale of a hundred million people or so. As for a good example in the last 15 years, I haven't got one at the moment. The best examples are typically Ghandi or from the 1960's social movements. There probably has been a good example of some law being changed or something somewhere in the U.S. though. As for the U.S. government caring, I would encourage you to speak with one of your state representatives. Speak with a member of the military. Speak with your local burrow councilman, speak with Barack Obama or John McCain if you get a chance.



I'm very interested in hearing them. Even if you can't back them up, they're still worth something because that's what the atmosphere around you has lead you to believe, the combination of the media, your parents and friends, ect. And sorting the truth from the junk is essential. If you like in further conversation I would be happy to try and see things your way first. But I've been responding from my own point of view so far.

As for taxgate, I'm still not quite sure of the legality of it. Maybe in certain circumstances you may be exempt from paying income tax, but the sixteenth amendment to the constitution is as follows:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

However, in the fifth amendment:
"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
And from the Fourteenth:
"nor shall any State deprived any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

In this sense, if the IRS does not carry out the due process correctly, then there is a definite legal case and abuse of the law.

Edit: Oh okay I get it now. Yea that's a definite abuse. How did they force the guide to be removed from the internet?

And lol yea, a couple of these posts are monsters.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jun 10 2008, 3:06 pm by Vrael.

Centreri, you are definitely focused on the republican side of the United States. Not a single thought towards democracy along soon-to-be President Barack Obama.

And I heavily doubt that the United States would ever wage war against Russia. After all, the republican George W. Bush did have a harmless meeting with Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. As for China, I still doubt the possibilities waging war against a now damaged developing country that is the main manufacturer for the United States.

Okay, first of all, I'll apologize for the blabbering comment, although before you posted any evidence, the idea of the missile defense in Czechoslovakia/Poland was preposterous. It still is. That is not 'defense', when no one except the US has attacked (well, Al-Quaeda, but that's really besides the point here).
Since the US was wrong about Iraq having nukes, I really think that it's very possible that Iran has none either. What the Bush Administration is worried about is not that Iran has nukes - it's that they may start developing them. Right now, the Iranians are simply using nuclear technology to diversify their power sector, as they only have enough oil left for perhaps 70 years at steady output. source. I do not see how Russia's supplying of missiles to Iran, as it does to almost anyone willing to pay (No, it hasn't done it for terrorist organizations. Iran isn't a terrorist organization by any standards.), excuses the US for putting missiles in Eastern Europe. A purely offensive move, since, as I said, Russia has not in any way made aggressive moves toward the US. Beyond, of course, dropping the CFE treaty, which none of the other supposedly participating nations were going to ratify any time soon. Keep in mind that Russia is not selling nuclear weapons to Iran. It's providing a small amount of defenses which any nation should have. If the US had wanted to just keep Iran's nukes under control, then, as I said, Middle East or, as Putin suggested, within Russia itself. Until the US comes up with any actual reasons why not to do it, I don't see how what they're doing is not a poorly thought out offensive move.

Again, I don't see any correlation between missile defense in Eastern Europe and Iran.

Gandhi was going passive resistance in a country half a world away from the controlling country. He actually had a powerful cause, powered by nationalism and support of almost every native. I'd say anything we might try here would be a bit different.

Republican side.. that's the side that just held power for eight years and could easily do it for at least four more, correct?

I'm not saying that the US will start a sudden war against any powerful country. I'm just suggesting that the US has taken an awful lot of moves to extend its influence over the last few years, militarily, and is abusing its economic prowess to produce more and more stronger and stronger weapons. I'm also saying that on the off-chance something went wrong in America, it would screw over everyone.