You want a reason why the Bush administration is a bunch of morons? First post in the damn topic
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?
Russia has missiles that can get past any anti-missile defense system, and pretty much the same nuke quality considering that both the US and Russia stopped production.
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.
Denmark, Switzerland... just because some countries are worse then the US right now doesn't mean the US is doing better then any other country. Denmark and Switzerland are awesome right now compared to everyone else.
I assume you mean per-capita GDP? I meant in terms of government. Every country has red tape, bureaucracy, muddled responsibility lines, ect.
Add 'genius' to the list, and half your argument is out the window. Rosa Parks was fighting against something pretty simple - human rights, which was already in the constitution. How the hell are you going to protest what the government is doing like Rosa Parks did? Gandhi.. well, I'm sorry, but Americans are warlike, and to my experience, nonreligious (I live in NY) people. I don't see 'passive resistance' against the US government doing a damn thing.
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.
Quote from name:razorsnail
I do live in the US. As for anti-American extremists... they're anti-American for a reason. It could have something to do with our tendency to not consider human rights/consequences when invading other countries... And I mean, we have a really bad track record for that. As for immigrants... while yes, they do retain some of their culture, and influence the US a little bit, within a few generations, every major wave of immigrants has been assimilated into the US culture. And while yes, there are a lot of atheists and followers of Eastern religions, especially in big port cities like Seattle/SF/LA/NY, you also have a huge number of people who are sending monetary support to Israel because they believe they're the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. There's a reason much of the central US is called the "Bible Belt". Televangelists have millions of followers, and billions of dollars. You're right, though. I could be wrong about the people in power being religiously motivated. But whether it's true or not, I still think there are greater problems lurking beneath. And one of them is that they treat the public like sheep who need to be herded and told what to think, otherwise they can't be trusted.
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.
Quote from name:razorsnail
I would say that though they may be wrong, the Middle East is more open and honest about their reasons, whereas the US tends to throw a bunch of stuff in there to justify what they're doing. As for consequences, yes, the US considers possible consequences to the people in power -- themselves, thus all the bureaucracy, but they don't consider any consequences that have to do with universal truths/truths common to all humans/to the earth. I could be wrong... Maybe they do consider these consequences, but the conclusions they come to, I disagree with -- for example, the Patriot Act. I've found they tend to conclude that we the public can't possibly know what's right, and therefore must be treated like sheep. And unfortunately, the more you treat people like that, the more it becomes true, and the more you have to hand life and truth TO them. So now, we have a bunch of people who aren't able to call out truth or wrong when they see it, and even if someone does break out of the sheep mold, they still aren't able to do anything about it -- because if we let them, then we'd also be opening ourselves to bad influences and threats to the US. And terrorist attacks.
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.
Quote from name:razorsnail
I should have specified -- I didn't mean to pose that article as an argument or proof/evidence of a point, I merely meant it as a quick way of describing something that I've come across/is a possibility. As for the Constitution, there's not really any constitution anymore. If you have a good enough lawyer/connections, you can get a judge to interpret a law any way you want to... and if you don't have a good enough lawyer, then you won't be able to defend yourself in court. The governing body will not let you get away with anything they don't want you to get away with. e.g.: t@xgate.
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?
Quote from name:razorsnail
Like Centreri said, I don't think passive opposition is going to work on the US... people don't pay attention to that anymore. People are too afraid, suppressed, including the people in power who don't want to lose their power. Lincoln lived in a different era of the US. Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, Einstein... I'm not saying you can't change the world. Not at all. We can. And we should get our words out there and heard, because other people can learn/be inspired by them. But that doesn't mean you can change the US's attitude toward/treatment of people. The US at this point in time, especially since the 1970s, has a very strict power structure in place that is largely inaccessible. Most free thinkers with anti-current-establishment sentiments or a different idea of how America should run are silenced, ridiculed, dismissed. By the gov, and by the people. So in order for the US to change, some fundamental shift will have to happen.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Quote from name: razorsnail
I would say that though they may be wrong, the Middle East is more open and honest about their reasons, whereas the US tends to throw a bunch of stuff in there to justify what they're doing.
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
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.
None.