Corxenshi
The active planning member of Foedus Lamia.
- Joined
- May 31, 2014
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 0
The American civil war perhaps?
The war itself, no, but I'm going to assume you are referring to Reconstruction, in which case, yes.
Corxenshi
The active planning member of Foedus Lamia.
- Joined
- May 31, 2014
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 0
The Anerican revolution did in fact have an effect on the industrial revolution. It spread industrial means throughout America during and after.
Drake_968
Huntsman/Vanguard of Vansaileich/Logic Puncher
I think you've been listening to too many drunken political conversations between republicans. This argument has so many flaws it would be impossible to dispute them all, because each one is large enough for a debate all on its own. These "reliable sources and proof" you've provided are so biased that they should be thrown out completely. Anyone with a Guy Fawkes mask and a voice modulator can make a youtube channel and pretend to be from an organization that doesn't even exist. This "peaceful revolution" barely sounds feasible even in theory. Just imagine the repercussions of any uprising in this country at all. It isn't nearly as simple as you think it is. Instead of complaining about things that don't affect you (you did say you were 15) and don't even exist, be glad you live in a country like the USA. I guarantee if someone living in Somalia came to America, they will give zero damns about the NSA "spying" on people or various actions regarding UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE. That last part is something you should appreciate all on its own. I don't have a political party preference and don't agree with all actions or ideals of our current president, but compared to other countries, i'm just glad I live here. The NSA operates to prevent terrorist attacks on our soil. They have better things to do than look at the search history of a teenager or listen in on civilian phone calls. You should only worry about things like this if you have something to hide..
Last edited:
Corxenshi
The active planning member of Foedus Lamia.
- Joined
- May 31, 2014
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 0
Like I have already stated, how is spying on activist groups and spying on Germany's Prime Minister Angela Merkel preventing terror attacks? Both Luxor and I could provide proof with multiple sources and most likely will. You state that our statements are false for not providing evidence, yet you say our ideas are flawed and won't provide evidence.
Remember, inside country errors and mischief our government has made are not the only reason we are angry. You state that a Somalian that moves to Anerica won't care what they do. Yet you forget that thy kill in the hundreds of thousands in the Middle East, and are working to destabilize Iran, Syria, and Cuba.
I bet you know nothing of international affairs, let me give you an example, Iran. I bet you all think Iran is starting a nuclear program and that's why tensions are high, wrong. Iran isn't even considering nuclear arms, that's just good old western media corruption getting to you. Both the Iranian government and a CIA investigation have concluded there are no nuclear arms being built or designed in Iran. Do you know what is going on in Iran? They are being the only country exporting gold in a currency that isn't the dollar.
So really don't use "they're protecting us from terrorists" when the war on terror will never work, we kill over oil prices with outstanding evidence, we allow the people that make an oath to defend the constitution to violate it over and over again, and no one is doing a damn thing about it! Finally, for those of you that say martial law, nor a martial state could never be initialized in America, I have two words and a number for you. Boston Marathon 2013
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2014
- Messages
- 133
- Reaction score
- 89
- Points
- 0
Technically, that's four words.
--
I don't think anybody doubts our country is constantly up to nefarious activities. It's obvious every campaign in the Middle East is an effort to secure oil more than preventing 'terrorism' or human rights violations. If we truly cared about human rights in other countries, we'd be in places like Somalia. But we arent, because there is no oil in somalia. But I honestly don't give a shit.
NSA wants to watch me? Fine, I've got nothing to hide. I don't put all my info online like an idiot anyway.
The government wants oil? GOOD. We depend on the stuff for everything. Even if we managed to completely replace fossil fuels with green energy, we still need oil for plastics.
The real problem with this country is the fact that its run by whoever has the biggest bank account. You don't need a revolution to change that. Just maybe get off your ass and go vote, call your senator, etc. (if you really care and aren't just being another rebellious teen)
1.) I am not a Republican, I am a Libertarian. Also, everyone's families have political arguments when drunk? Not only do they not have those kinds of arguments while drunk, but they don't get drunk in the first place. Also, neither of my parents are Democrat or Republican, similar to myself.
2.) If you doubt the sources, do research.
3.) Egypt and Russia anyone?
4.) Naw, I totally did not realize that you have to persuade people to make change and the fact the we have the strongest military in the world.
4.) Why would they not care about a violation of privacy?
5.) "Nothing to hide" is not a valid argument, since it is still unconstitutional and a violation of privacy, as previously stated.
P.S. Since when has age had anything to do with anything? Should I remind you that Anonymous started with teenagers and they have geopolitical impact...
Also, I should add that all I have "to hide" is my interest in conspiracy theories and propaganda, but I'm against it due to it being Federally illegal.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gurl, I wish I had the right to vote to change our government. Also, why would anyone as powerful as a Senator listen to some rambling teenager? I personally will vote in 2016, when I am 18, and have that privilege.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2014
- Messages
- 133
- Reaction score
- 89
- Points
- 0
One rambling teenager? They probably wouldn't. Which is why you need a good argument and lots of people supporting it. You can't just post YouTube videos on a forum and expect people to believe in your cause.
Recently here in California a law was passed that restricts corporations from contributing funds to political parties and candidates. One of the biggest sources of support for this law was a 16 year old girl who rallied people from her community and called law makers just to get the law even considered.
First, put limits on the federal government to change the Constitution, or downright ignore it. Tweak the Constitution for the modern age. Abolish the concept of a President, but keep a Legislature. Also, any change that our Congress proposes (and includes all of them) must be approved by the people in order to be enacted. Politics should be like our old system, part time politicians, no full time; plus, the only benefit you should keep post Congress should be the title of "Former Governor," "Former Senator," etc.
You know what, I have a lot of friends that agree with me, perhaps I can try and get some help from them, to at least make some kind of political change, you have inspired me good sir.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2014
- Messages
- 133
- Reaction score
- 89
- Points
- 0
Well that's good, but don't think it's easy. It's a lot of work.
millawolf
The "Normal" Fong
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 90
- Reaction score
- 350
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 42
I'm a bit confused. First you want limits about how the Feds "limit" the constitution. Then you want to "tweak" it. Wich is it?
LordSylveon
The Desciple of Cecidit
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 357
- Reaction score
- 633
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 29
- Location
- In The Shadows
- Website
- thalan79.deviantart.com
All governments need a leader, so Disagree there.
As a member of the US Navy, the President is kinda my boss. Disagree Double Combo
The Legislature is the branch that is causing all the trouble, so if we are going to completely destroy our government at least remove the part that is doing the damage. Disagree Triple Combo
If Congress had to run all changes by the people, they would have to ask us to have turkey or ham on their lunch menu. Not particularly effective, and it removes the point of a representative democracy. Disagree Super Combo.
Term limits would be nice, but that does fall under get out and vote. Which I have. So....
Disagree Uber Combo.
While I think you have done some research (still trying to decide) I really feel that our issues don't stem from the system itself, but the people within the system. Disagree if you want to, thats my opinion on the matter.
I should be more specific, by tweak, I mean improve things mentioned in the Constitution to give more freedoms and make it even more difficult to corrupt it, as well as creating additions to help translate rights into modern society.
I don't see a need for a "top boss" when the Legislature is the one making the laws, I understand he is the Commander in Chief, so why don't we have someone with that title? Well, I mentioned that the Constitution would be modified to protect US citizens from rights infringement, and a reelection would take the corrupt out of power and replace them with more deserving people. And the last part... what do you... I don't even... Mind explaining, don't really get the fourth point.
Woah woah woah woah, I reject that last comment. Frankly; if America underwent a revolution, with the citizens genuinely wanting a change in leadership, I'm nigh certain that Britain wouldn't lend the US a packet of peanuts. As a British citizen I certainly wouldn't support any form of aid towards the American government, revolution or otherwise; we have a (somewhat lesser) love of the idea of "freedom" over here too, although I don't think we're quite as obnoxious with it.
This is something I've never understood about American politics; why should somebody only be allowed to serve for a set period of time, even if the citizens would still re-elect them. So long as your electoral system is sound (Preferably out of the country, centreless, free of world politics etc, [I know it's impossible with humans]), there is nothing wrong with having the same leader consistently, providing that is what the citizens want.
The first Prime Minister of the UK, Sir Robert Walpole, served for 21 years, in a structure in which landowners were the only citizens allowed to vote; a fairly corrupt system, yet Walpole didn't become a supreme dictator.
Margaret Thatcher held the post for 11-12 years, Tony Blair had it for 10. These are examples of officials that were elected three times.
Somebody being in power doesn't make them corrupt; if they're corrupt then they were generally corrupt from the offset. It's not as if government officials' leadership qualities decay over time and can only be trusted for a set period before they need to be disposed of.
If you want to live in a "democracy", let the people decide who leads them; for as long as they are wanted.
Drake_968
Huntsman/Vanguard of Vansaileich/Logic Puncher
I never claimed you were of a certain party. I said that because similar, (but much more reasonable) arguments come up from these two parties. Do research?? Wtf?? Anyone who believes biased "news" from a private youtube channel that claims to be a fake organization needs to stop and think for a moment. What do Egypt and Russia have to do with anything I said? If you're talking about revolutions, both of those countries had oppressive governments that lead themselves into an aggressive revolt of the people. Before you say "Oh well America is the same way!!11!!1" It is not. I get the feeling you like bold lettering so i'll use it here. The example I used about a Somali coming to America was to show that people from third world countries would be much more grateful to live in a place like the US and that people who do (<-- thats for you) live in the US take many of our freedoms and advantages for granted and then freak out when they learn of something that actually protects them.
Corxenshi
The active planning member of Foedus Lamia.
- Joined
- May 31, 2014
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 0
Biased? Really, that's what you're going with? Quite sad in all honesty. First of all, American media don't take things like this seriously, that's why some people pay attention to alternative media. It's just because the only thing American media talks about, no offense meant to anyone, but bulls**t. I remember a few days ago, the anchor on the television states that the American economy dropped a few points, then instead of going on about it he just brings everyone's attention to the world cup. Seriously? I love how some of you people think. Most people in the American mindset believe that people can't believe everything that is questioned about the government and is revealed on the internet like WikiLeaks and so on. Though, I have some thing to say to you guys that think just like that, don't believe everything that washes out of your magical image box. The men in suits on there are more than capable of saying wrong information, and definitely more than capable of lying.
Also, if a citizen of a third world country came to the United States, yes they would see the many benefits of it rather than their original descent. However you must also keep in mind that if their original home was under a socialistic or martial rule, and if (I use if only so you people don't blow your caps about how we're supposedly not in a fascist martial state) America is under a martial state, they would definitely notice. Like @Luxor Ignotis said, his family grew up in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and his family is probably more than capable of seeing the police brutality, the socialism, and fascism taking place. Though I must point out a few things that people just can't get through their thick heads.
- A right cannot be infringed upon or taken away, it is an act of treason. I am not saying any Amendment in particular but that is the case.
- If you really think there is no police state in America. Just type in "Police State America" on YouTube. Don't even listen to what the people are saying and just look at the videos of police brutality in the United States.
- For the people that say that NSA spying is only for terrorists. I don't see why activist groups and Angela Merkel are considered terrorists.
- Edward Snowden is a traitor, anything saying otherwise is "like a bank robber having the man that dialed 911 arrested."
- The United States currency is not stable. If you think $16 trillion is not enough to make an economy unstable overnight, the only GDP debt close to it is the United Kingdom at $10 trillion.
- The war on terror can never work. You cannot kill an idea. It is forever imprinted in the mind. If you think it is winnable, think of killing every Islamic extremist, and judging that there are about 1.5 billion followers of Islam, and about 10-20% are extremists. Good luck killing almost 300 million people.
- The War on Terror is just corrupt and wrong. If you think it is justifiable, compare the deaths of innocent civilians in 9/11 to the people killed violently in the Middle East after 9/11.
- Edited: I am going to remind you of someone who persecuted a religion just by getting along with the people: Adolf Hitler.
The Genie
The most brooding person evah
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2013
- Messages
- 174
- Reaction score
- 170
- Points
- 0
That's true. The reason there's a president is because we NEED to have a strong leader. If we didn't, then NOTHING would ever get done. Without one, the legislature would just endlessly debate and argue and end up getting EVEN LESS done than they already do. :/ Also, thank you for serving our country! I salute you! But, anyway, I think a revolution wouldn't end too well. Even if it weren't peaceful, what's preventing another corrupt leader from taking power? Nothing. But, I do have to say this: WHY WOULD A 78 YEAR OLD MALE NEED PREGNANCY COVERAGE???
Btw, don't judge me. I don't research too much, but this is what I've learned IN SCHOOL, so you can blame my teachers for giving me information that may or may not be found to be wrong. So, yeah.
Or just vote republican if you hate Obamacare so much. Choose the lesser of two evils.
I know that's just part of the whole argument but really...
America brainwashes, tortures it's own citizens, makes people believe stuff that blatantly isn't true (2+2=5)(You could say Dick Cheney and Iraq and Nuclear weapons, but i feel like this focuses on Obama, which he hasn't pulled off anything that big yet), dictates marriage, and rations food, has a godlike leader who may or may not exist, rewrites all of history, has telescreens everywhere with propaganda on it, and am I forgetting anything?
redneck voice "the gov aint takin away our gerns (guns)"
Commanderkull
Vasch: Demon of Valyria and King of Necimus
@Grailen Obama directly said while he was a congressman that he desires a "Universal single-payer healthcare system". Which he enacted upon as president by providing Obamacare. The Obama administration desires a Cuban style government in which the state is your provider, doctor, and hospital. And you are right "Murican Socialized Medical" as you put it, is not communism. It's blatant socialism.
Corxenshi
The active planning member of Foedus Lamia.
- Joined
- May 31, 2014
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 0
Or simply vote Libertarian or Green, maybe even Independent...
I do give you credit, as you've learned this through school and not your own research and multiple sources.
The problem with a single leader is the fact that it is easier for a dictatorship to take over, it is less likely for an Oligarchy takeover. The problem with an Oligarchic take over is the fact that all congress members must be corrupt in order to achieve it. Which, thank god, is not the case. Though the mass majority is corrupt, setting up better deals for the wealthy and corporations rather than the people. Stuff like that.
I'm going to leave with a few quotes I found after a few days of research...
"The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost interpretable pieces. In this way, the people will not see those and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed." - Translated quote from Mein Kampf, written by Adolf Hitler.
"The greatest fear I have regarding the outcome for America, is that nothing will change. People will see in the media all of these disclosures they'll know the lengths that the government is going to grant themselves powers unilaterally. To create greater control over American society, and global society. But, the people won't be willing to take the risks necessary to fight, to force their representatives to take a stand in their interests. Then months, years ahead, it's only going to get worst. " - Edward Snowden
I concur.
Corxenshi
The active planning member of Foedus Lamia.
- Joined
- May 31, 2014
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 0
Hold up, the sane government that claims authority to turn America into a battlefield during civil unrest, the same America that claims the authority to detain anyone anywhere in the world permanently, the same America that aid so called "rebel groups" that are Al-Queda affiliate. You think they'll listen to your petition? You think voting tem out will work? Please, come on. If you think that'd work, why don't Ukranians vote out the neo-nazi government set up practically creating another Cold War between the east and west?
Articles of evidence: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-bbc-supports-ukraines-neo-nazis/5383112,
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/us-backing-neo-nazis-ukraine,
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_detention
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/04/11/syria-al-qaeda-connection/2075323/
http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/2911
http://rt.com/news/rebel-syria-leader-alqaeda-097/
http://scgnews.com/the-odessa-massacre-what-really-happened
Having read through the entire thread now, I can't bite my tongue any longer;
This thread is littered with "Slippery Slope" fallacies (Suggesting that a run of events will occur as a result of one stimulus, with these suggested outcomes often being wildly unfounded).
Shocking as it may seem to some Americans, the rest of the world can survive without you. America isn't the be-all and end-all of the world; sure, the US produces a lot of food, but so do areas of Britain. China produces colossal quantities of food, albeit food that is / was used to feed their somewhat cancerous population growth. Trying to claim that human civilisation as we know it would literally end as a result of a political spat in America isn't only unknowable, but also deeply insulting to the rest of the world. Something Americans seem to forget is that your country was forged by Europeans, and, believe it or not, we are not reliant upon the beast we created.
I'm unsure as to why this topic is even being debated. It seems to me that it is literally two people constantly battling in favour of a revolution, against a tide of somewhat intelligent reasons for the contrary, using half-thought out conspiracy theories that are riddled with fallacies and propaganda.
Just a note; America is arguably not a democracy:
This is due to the fact that when voting for President, citizens are in fact sending their votes to a group of Electors that represent their state. These votes are then held as a "recommendation" if you will. The Electors usually then say "Ok, the majority of the votes are in favour of -Some American politician-, so that is how this state votes. But guess what; Electors can over turn the citizen vote whenever they like. The more you know.
This thread is littered with "Slippery Slope" fallacies (Suggesting that a run of events will occur as a result of one stimulus, with these suggested outcomes often being wildly unfounded).
Shocking as it may seem to some Americans, the rest of the world can survive without you. America isn't the be-all and end-all of the world; sure, the US produces a lot of food, but so do areas of Britain. China produces colossal quantities of food, albeit food that is / was used to feed their somewhat cancerous population growth. Trying to claim that human civilisation as we know it would literally end as a result of a political spat in America isn't only unknowable, but also deeply insulting to the rest of the world. Something Americans seem to forget is that your country was forged by Europeans, and, believe it or not, we are not reliant upon the beast we created.
I'm unsure as to why this topic is even being debated. It seems to me that it is literally two people constantly battling in favour of a revolution, against a tide of somewhat intelligent reasons for the contrary, using half-thought out conspiracy theories that are riddled with fallacies and propaganda.
Just a note; America is arguably not a democracy:
This is due to the fact that when voting for President, citizens are in fact sending their votes to a group of Electors that represent their state. These votes are then held as a "recommendation" if you will. The Electors usually then say "Ok, the majority of the votes are in favour of -Some American politician-, so that is how this state votes. But guess what; Electors can over turn the citizen vote whenever they like. The more you know.
Mitt Romney proposed Romney Care, under the approval of other Republicans, which was the exact same thing.
@Luxor Ignotis you do realize that everything I said in my post is what America Doesn't do? I don't really know why you agreed to it, but it guess that adds another hole in your argument for a second revolution. The fact that we're sitting on the internet freely, talking about if there should be a revolution (Which there's no need for, if anything it should've been when bush was president), completely makes America Absolutely nothing like 1984. You sir have managed to do something very few people have ever done and that's to thoroughly piss me off. So if you're going to make stupid arguments about how Obama is communist, go take it to your fox news, and stop misinterpreting Literature.
I agreed? Also, you realize I was referring to the points Orwell makes in the books, not the literal events, you should also understand that I was referring to how our country is slowly taking on those properties. Also, you claim I am misinterpreting Literature, yet you talk literally of 1984, even though Literature must be interpreted through a THEME.
Last edited by a moderator:
Throughout this topic you've expressed a view, and then made adjustments to said views as they're criticised. I'm referring not only to your above post, but also to the example of you changing your description from "communist" to "communist in nature" earlier in the topic. Here's an idea; actually think about what you want to say before you type it. Ensure that what you're saying is articulate and fully encompasses what you want to convey, leaving no room for misinterpretation, rather than attempting to clumsily repair your previous points with a "I meant" later.
Your comment on literature is complete horse shit (No need to capitalize "literature", you don't say "The field of Science relies upon empirical observation", just sayin'); literature may be interpreted however the reader pleases. People take the Bible, Qur'an, and Torah as a literal representation, others view them as metaphorical, or explore a theme. You have no right to dictate, nor even pretend to be an authority on, how people can interpret a subject with your incomplete high-school level education.
*EDIT* Ending a statement such as "I agreed" with a question mark is obnoxious, condescending, and reflects poorly upon your maturity.
First off, statements can be misinterpreted, just as your sarcastic remark was. (which, as "smartassy" as it sounds, is hypocritical) A statement can always be mistaken for how it sounds, no matter how well it is written, which is especially true on the Internet, as you were taught when you were younger, at least one would assume, due to our "web dependent" society. Second, most writers intend their literature to be interpreted through a theme, though some fail to realize this, so I felt a need for a reminder, as my view on literature is placed into my perspective (at least, when I regard fiction).
By the way, why are YOU being technical about capitalization when you made the same mistake?
*edit* Also, why are you assuming my education is incomplete, and I'm not saying it is complete, but there are prodigies out there who have a completed education, and in some countries, I would be considered to have an optimal education, just putting it out there.
Last edited by a moderator:
Please point me to this capitalisation mistake. The example in which I capitalised "Science" was entirely deliberate; as I was showing how capitalisation of an over branching field is wrong.
There is a stark difference between misinterpretation and misrepresentation; you are guilty of the latter. As others have pointed out, the particular example of "communist" being corrected to "communist in nature" completely changes the message you were conveying. You can not assume that everybody is aware of your views, you need to express them, hence my advice on that oh-so useful action, thinking.
You're absolutely right! A statement can be misinterpreted on the internet, it happens all the time! This is an issue that can be resolved by not contracting statements such as "communist in nature" to "communist". Again, it's about re-reading what you have written and thinking "Now, if I'm reading this for the first time, will I have a clue as to what I'm actually saying?".
"Most authors intend their literature to be interpreted through a theme." Please provide me with links to 51% of every author stating this. Again, you are masquerading your opinion as fact and falling back on your education, education which you have recognised, is incomplete. Again, what the author wants is wholly irrelevant. Once the book is published, any interpretations, or lack thereof, lie solely in the hands of the reader. If an author wrote "The curtains were black" and wished me to deduce that this was some inclination towards the theme of death or mourning, then that is fine. Nothing can stop me, however, from reading that sentence and saying "Oh, he means that the curtains.. are black." and presenting that as a perfectly valid interpretation. It is arrogant and obnoxious of you to believe that you know the singular, correct way to interpret literature.
Your general arguing style, lack of sound reasoning, cluelessness to the fallacies that litter your arguments, various incorrect uses of basic punctuation, and the very fact that you believe America should revolt were all factors in the decision making process regarding your status as a child prodigy. I'm afraid my particular assessment came back negative.
It doesn't matter how your education would be viewed in other countries, the standard education of your particular area (The level of education that, I hope, is possessed by the adults surrounding you.) is incomplete. If I get most of the way through a construction project, but still have the roof to build, "In some places this would be a mighty fine house as it is!" doesn't really detract from the fact that the house is incomplete.
I (Semi) apologise for the frequent use of analogies; but they're often useful for expressing a point to those that are better at understanding and imagining real life situations.
Apologies for the double post, but I thought that this deserved a reply of it's own.
Oh no, there were no wars.. except:
Pontiac's War
American Revolutionary War
Chickamauga Wars
Anglo-Spanish War
Northwest Indian War
The French Revolution
Haitian Revolution
Napoleonic Wars
Russo-Persian War
Rum Rebellion
Spanish American wars of independence
Mexican War of Independence
War of 1812
Creek War
Seminole Wars
Zulu Wars of Conquest
Texas–Indian wars
Greek War of Independence
Comanche–Mexico War
Java War
Winnebago War
Black Hawk War
Texas Revolution
First Opium War
Other than that, no! No wars, at all!
The Industrial Revolution itself was not a cause of a war, nor was it one... You are defeating the purpose of my point. I was referring to the specific period and the change it created to emphasize the definition I expressed, and not the events in between.
*addition* However, I do apologise for the incorrect wording, I should have said it better.
Last edited by a moderator:
millawolf
The "Normal" Fong
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 90
- Reaction score
- 350
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 42
I think they were correcting your saying "There weren't any wars then" aspect of your post.
Similar threads
