|
Post by rihochan on May 10, 2006 4:22:58 GMT -5
Has anyone else noticed that the US has begun to look as if we are trying to build an empire? It's seriously creepy the way our government has been getting so one-sided in recent years. I'm not saying that there aren't disputes (there are a lot), but the fact is that we have a disproportionate number of Republicans in the Senate and House... Overall this country is about 20% commited Republican, 16% Democrat and the rest undecided or going wherever the wind blows. Yet... the fact is that debates within the Republican party have somehow become debates for the whole country... That is always a bad sign, historically speaking. Whenever one political faction becomes more powerful than the others it tends to landslide... It doesn't help that there have been such a large number of Supreme Court appointments in this administration (most administrations have one at most... and some not even that). It seems like those in power are deliberately focusing on outside enemies in order to distract our attention from the problems here. This is a tactic as old as time itself. How long before we change from 'the United States of America' to 'the Empire of America'? I would be somewhat reassured if we pulled out of Iraq, but the fact is that will most likely not happen in the near future. What's worse is that other nations have already begun to position themselves for what seems to be the creation of a hegemony. When all is said and done, religion is just an excuse for the Iranian leaders to create a New Persian Empire, and China is openly making power plays with our 'allies' all over the world. We are all set up for a World War a hundred times worse than the first two. On a seperate note, to anyone who generally objects to political discussion... I sincerely apologise, but I had to get this off my chest.
|
|
|
Post by firesword on May 10, 2006 21:04:32 GMT -5
As it describes in wikipedia an empire; Comprises a set of regions locally ruled by governors, viceroys or client kings in the name of an emperor. By extension, one could classify as an empire any large, multi-ethnic state ruled from a single center. Like other states, an empire maintains its political structure at least partly by coercion.
- As if you connect this to the USA, you can find that it has had the foundation of an empire set, perhaps on purpose or not. The sets of regions are the states that are locally ruled by governors and their helpers. They work in the name of the president. - The USA was large and expanded well into the western part, thus causing wars with many cultures, but eventually gaining more land. - May I point out it says “multi-ethinic.” Now does that not sound like the multi ethicsy of the United States? - Ruled by a single center, in this case. Washington DC. - One of the last things missing is coercion. Coercion is a government ruled through pressure or threat. May I remind us of the wars we have gone to, the people that have been threatened?
I leave my ado there. ((I do also apologize for the politics, I tried to make it as nul as I could)
|
|
|
Post by murmkuma on May 11, 2006 13:24:32 GMT -5
1 section in a slew of other threads concentrated on politics is much welcomed for me. I am glad to hear an American see that point of view as a Canadian right next to you Guys......Bush makes me very nervous. He has exploited 911 and the situation in the middle east for his own agenda. very Scary...... You must get this man out of power.
|
|
|
Post by rihochan on May 11, 2006 23:53:59 GMT -5
The problem is that we can't get rid of him unless he does something criminal... by our laws. He can't be re-elected, but he is very likely going to pass the torch to the next power-hungry idiot that he finds in the Republican party. The fact is that Bush's support is the lowest it has ever been, because he doesn't really need to hold back without the worry of getting re-elected. Also, he has surrounded himself with people just like himself... Cheney is a greedy and corrupt and he has used the situation in Iraq to make money for companies he has stock in. Frankly, this kind of thing is the reason why I find both political parties rather disturbing. There are good choices for the next president, but the likelihood of them getting the nomination from their parties is astronomically low.
|
|
|
Post by murmkuma on May 12, 2006 0:06:21 GMT -5
can you please explain your two party system to me? I never understood that really? Can only two parties run for office? We have 3-4 main parties in a power struggle right now, the conservatives with a slight edge....anyways I realize bush's run is almost over thank god here he could run as many times in a row as he wants You guys just need a good non bonehead democrate candidate.....I'd fuckin Vote for Hillary! can't speak for the men in YOUR country though.
|
|
|
Post by rihochan on May 12, 2006 5:46:22 GMT -5
Well... it is possible for a third party to join in on the lower levels, but for President the two main parties (the ones that have developed the largest power bases over a long period of time) are the only ones who are ever successful. The system is that whoever wins the most votes in a state wins all the delegates for that state. It is somewhat more complex than that, but... that's also the reason why the popular vote isn't totally what determines a president. A president can win a few large states by a small margin, but lose a whole lot of smaller states by a massive gap in the popular vote and those large state's delegates will still all go to that person... thus ensuring his victory. In other words... winning the right states can ensure victory over a more popular (in sheer numbers) opponent. This has been the case for both of our current president's terms... My own state is kind of weird... we are a big one and only one person has ever been elected president without winning our state over.... Clinton. However, the main reason most people around here voted for him was because he started out as our governor. Some of us realised that his election would be a disaster for the nation, but in Texas we (as a state) always vote for whoever has closer ties with us. The two party system is more a result of momentum than anything else. People have pretty much lost hope that either of those two will be thrown down... or so I've observed. To be honest... there have been many presidents that have been elected without the popular vote on their side. It kind of makes me sick when I think about it. I'm being honest because I'm sure anyone with a moderate amount of intelligence and knowledge of our government would know that much. Rhetoric pisses me off, but I tend to use it a lot when I'm passionate. Hypocrisy is the USA's truest passion after all.
|
|
|
Post by firesword on May 13, 2006 12:23:28 GMT -5
There is also the fact of the elective collages, or something around that name. I'm not as knowing the the field as rihochan, but the state didn't matter as much as select individuals. As in the state may vote democratic, but if those individuals vote mostly republican then the republican wins over the state. Something along the lines of that, my class was silent when our teacher told us about it, but I wasn't taking notes so this is from memory.
|
|
|
Post by murmkuma on May 13, 2006 15:50:27 GMT -5
I would love to see the day when politicians are no longer needed and we make our decisions through majority votes via an independant voting system. With the technology available today, it would not be hard to implement. Think about it- A seperate internet -Just for voting, everyone is assigned an i.d. just as they are a social security #. Once a day /week/ month whatever you log in and cast your vote various issues, at the end of the vote majority wins, laws could be created, budgets, everything....No dickhead in a suit tryin to tell the rest of us what we want......Think about it people, talk about it to other people, maybe if it spreads around it can become a reality, Taxes would be alot lower if we didnt have to pay all these theives to blow hot air all day.....remember where ya heard it 1st.
|
|
|
Post by rihochan on May 13, 2006 18:58:35 GMT -5
... I will say this. It is a wonderful ideal, but it is one I've heard a hundred times before. This idea is a good one, but as long as the people with money control the government it will never happen. Also, there are times when the majority of people are influenced by irrational fears and worries and overreact thus creating situations that cost lives and destroy personal freedoms. The birth of the Roman Empire was one of those times. The people of Rome overreacted to a confusing and frightening situation and overwhelmingly forced the Senate to make Caesar their dictator. This would not be mitigated by the use of the internet's information, but would probably be worsened. The sheer volume of information confuses most people, and they often find themselves voting for a familiar face just to get rid of the confusion.... though that thought was a bit off-topic, as you were talking about politics without the politicians. However, the politicians would not disappear, they would just manipulate the information on whatever they were voting for so that the people as a whole would be unable to understand its ramifications.
|
|
|
Post by Tchalvak on May 15, 2006 3:20:44 GMT -5
The Electoral college is simply the translation of the popular vote into blocks by state instead of percentages, and it remains to some extent sensible because it acts slightly as a "divine mandate" if y'all remember the phrase that high-school teachers loved using. Instead of a victory making a president out of 44% of the popular vote vs an opponents 43%, winning comes in units of states. It's possible that the electoral college -is- past it's time, but any country -needs- to have a clearly victorious leader to avoid the power struggle that two evenly matched leaders bring with them. So perhaps the US' problem is not its two-party system, but the fact that those two parties are so evenly matched.
Back on the main issue of the question of empires and voting and all that, I was just remarking to an associate that the progression of leadership in the US is much like the progression that has happened time and time again in any other little country, the slow move from the will of the people to the will of the few, and only the large scale makes people care as it happens in the US. (As far as I remember, Lybia or somewhere like that moved towards dictatorship recently, and who could afford to expend the effort to care?). 'cause in the end, We Are An Empire, put together by people with enough brilliance to make us call our general area our "state" instead of our "country" despite the parallels of size and seperation of leadership.
One of the few quotes that I come back to again and again because it makes thought in with so many topics, from gun control (as Jefferson originally used it) to democracy in general: "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.
As for how the internet will keep World War II from happening, I can't feel certain that it will, but if it does, one thing that might do it is the intensity of observation that exists as a result of the internet. All actions are known, all moves towards war are instantly decried, even if they don't get stopped. The other ideal that I see and love, more and more coming out of the internet seems to me to blow away the concept of the vote, and it is the wiki. Instead of just asking for basic yes/no, him/her/him/or him opinions, it requires direct effort to be put in to bring forth a result. Every effort matters, and the sum is much greater than any individual's actions, but those with more passion to bring about change will have more say in how the change happens. Which is nothing new about how the universe works, but it's good to have effort and dedication be rewarded in a direct manner with results. So what's the point? What does that have to do with government? Probably very little, the way things go these days, but perhaps the internet will eventually yeild a government that works like wiki's work, by depending upon force of will and the will of the community.
|
|
|
Post by murmkuma on May 15, 2006 23:17:35 GMT -5
oooooooooooo deep
|
|
|
Post by rihochan on May 17, 2006 0:21:45 GMT -5
Perhaps one of my flaws is that I believe in the value of pretense. As long as we feel we need to keep up a pretense of philanthropy and democracy, then our aggressive actions will be restricted by that need. The moment that pretense collapses completely is the moment this nation needs to be obliterated. This may seem somewhat of a cold reason for such a thing, but I nonetheless believe this. Imagine what would happen if we discarded all pretense... We could become a force even more corrupt than the Roman Empire at its nadir or the Roman Catholic Church during the Dark Ages.
|
|
|
Post by murmkuma on May 18, 2006 22:19:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by murmkuma on May 19, 2006 16:52:13 GMT -5
I just know that Americans are very patriotic as a people. I havent heard many people personal opinions on bush...only whats spoon fed to me through network television. and my point i guess (perhaps too subliminal) is that there is a person in power right now who is both a puppet and at the same time manipulating all systems in his control to benefit his own agenda (and others...many layers here)...what pill do you want to take neo?
and now just for arguments sake....if the majority of people in the country do not want this man as your leader.....why is he still your leader?
|
|
|
Post by murmkuma on May 20, 2006 22:26:02 GMT -5
what it all boils down to really is, we as a people need to start standing up to those who controll us, and make the system work equally for everyone.......but now we're getting into communism.
and as for the internet idea there are many technichal issues including the ones you brought up..those probably most importantly...but it is the idea that is important, a means to restore power back to the people.
|
|
|
Post by rihochan on May 21, 2006 4:14:55 GMT -5
A chip planted in the body probably wouldn't work. Too many people would refuse on general principles... A lot of people don't like the idea of the government having that kind of oversight in their lives. Personally... that's how I feel. However... I think that the reason that most people would dislike the idea is that they would feel that they were losing some of their individuality and becoming just another numbered chip to be counted. This is already true (Social Security Numbers and various ID numbers...), but the chip would be solid symbol of that loss of individuality.
|
|
|
Post by firesword on Aug 10, 2006 22:17:51 GMT -5
I'd have to agree on the chip front. there are certain clubs around the US that chip it's most important members, and they are then chipped for life. But, I for one, would not like getting chipped. It would remind me of being even more of an object as I am now. We are already coded and numbered, in school you have your ID number, and that is who you are. Chipping may have the possibility of more organization, but even more rebelling and what not.
I was reminded of something the other day that has nothing to do with chips, but with government. George Washington himself said something before be died. That would be that he didn't want a two party government, and that a two party government would ruin America. Well, just take a look at the American Government now,
|
|
|
Post by kenpachi on Aug 21, 2006 8:55:11 GMT -5
OK Murm I saw the video. I doubt highly that the Masons are in charge of a massive conspiracy theory to rule everything. President Bush is doing a pretty damn good job of doing that himself. I don't know about the Kennedy assassination. How do we know the CIA wasn't involved with the Kennedy assassination? He's dead isn't he. The pentacle, or it's true name the pentagram was an old pagan nature worship symbol (at least according to The Da Vinci code, and yes I know it is not the most trustworthy source). No Satanic purpose was given to them at the time of its creation. I don't think aliens destroyed the World Trade Center. I think that Saudi Arabians did. I don't think that the government orchestrated 9/11 but I think they did exploit it to gain public support for their policies. I think that Bush is a total idiot. He could not find his way out of a burning telephone booth without the advice of either Karl Rove, Dick Cheney or both. I think that he only got into power because he has a mob of religious zealots he think that it doesn't matter that they lose their jobs to outsourcing, their children to the war, their personal fortunes at the gas pump and the future payment for the deficit as long as the happy fellows in San Fran don't get to marry. Moral high ground my ass. Now don't get me wrong. I have no problems with faith. Some with religion but those are easily reconciled. My problem is when faith overrides common sense. That includes wild conspiracy theories (sorry Murm). I stick to conspiracy theories that I can believe. Such as the timing of terror alerts and Osama videos around election time.
|
|
|
Post by murmkuma on Aug 21, 2006 20:38:51 GMT -5
k just so everyone knows, i don't buy everything in that conspiracy theory video. But I post it so you can make up your own mind. Do ALL the masons have an agenda to rule the world....no. All the shit that seems phony is, and after having seen a few vids on the net, I am convinced that the bush government and his handlers orchistrated 9/11 , without the help of aliens. But the symbolisms are the key, it is disturbing to me to see that a pentagram stems from the white house. google map it youll see.
|
|