US Citizens Only Please - Why we should contemplate Revolution

[Makain]

It is now becoming very apparent to me that our current system of government, however fair it strives to be, is not working. The Justice Department protects the religious and often opressing values of the majority at the expense of the minority.

The government is suppose to represent us all and should not include statements or actions which come in direct conflict with the spiritual beliefs of minorities. Examples:

The Pledge of Allegience ban which is now going to the supreme court. The constitution protects the beliefs of the minorities in the fashion that the government doesn't officially endorse one religion or another or in this case lack there of. Minorities should have a right to recite the pledge and show their devotion to this country without it conflicting with their own beliefs. The government has failed miserably in upholding this constitutional right by endorsing the words 'under God' in the senate in a 99-0 vote.

The immienent war in Iraq, which currently onl 47% of Americans support without a UN Resolution. The President is suppose to follow the will of the majority in such matters of policies or reveal information which proves a threat is immienent, which he has yet to do. He has failed the American people and has now repeatedly attempt to sidestep any real evidence that Iraq is a threat. Indeed all of the 'proof' Powell and Bush have endorsed have been indeed deemed either forgeries or have come from student essays!


It is clear that our government is no longer functioning (if it ever was) in the fashion it was meant to. The President is completely out of control and Congress passes legislation which is in clear violation of the constitution. They are approving a budget which will cause Social Security to fail this decade and are leading our economy to complete and total collapse. There are now daily protests of 10000+ people in New York, Chicago, Houston, Miami, Seattle, and San Francisco. The time is now for revolution, especially if it becomes clear Bush is continuing to exploit the electorate in winning Presidential elections. Reforms must be put into play to further limit the ability of the government to infringe on our personal liberities and to go against the will of the majority for cleary personal and selfish reasons. Especially if those actions lead to the probable death of millions of people. The Judicial branch is ineffective in monitoring Congress and the President. It should be limited to enforcing current law and settling domestic disputes through the court. Its previous powers to regulate the other 2 branches should be split into two seperate new branches, one to monitor Legislatator, and another to monitor the Executive. This new 5 branch system will allow two councils which will belong to a mandatory neutral party and be elected directly by the people to immediatly examine each edict and piece of legislation which is passed and determine right on the spot if it is legal under the Government's charter to rule.

These last past years have showed how the system has failed. When overflowed with politicians from the far Right or Left (especially the right) we now see that clearly flawed and biased legislation is passed and goes unchallenged by the courts which were created to prevent such things from happening. Our government has failed and has exceeded its' own Constitution. A revolution leading radical reform is the only way to correct these flaws, or we will find ourselves much like the Roman Republic two millenia ago.

[Radical Edward]

you think the armed forces would supress a popular revolution in the US?


that smacks of irony.

[Judge]

If it is broke fix it, work within the system, evolution is far preferable to revolution.

[Radical Edward]

It depends on how flawed the system is in the first place. He does rightly point out that in many ways the US is becoming like the Roman Empire of old, which collapsed even though it was at the hight of it's military power.

[xtrasyn]

Originally posted by Makain
It is now becoming very apparent to me that our current system of government, however fair it strives to be, is not working. The Justice Department protects the religious and often opressing values of the majority at the expense of the minority.

The government is suppose to represent us all and should not include statements or actions which come in direct conflict with the spiritual beliefs of minorities. Examples:

The Pledge of Allegience ban which is now going to the supreme court. The constitution protects the beliefs of the minorities in the fashion that the government doesn't officially endorse one religion or another or in this case lack there of. Minorities should have a right to recite the pledge and show their devotion to this country without it conflicting with their own beliefs. The government has failed miserably in upholding this constitutional right by endorsing the words 'under God' in the senate in a 99-0 vote.

The immienent war in Iraq, which currently onl 47% of Americans support without a UN Resolution. The President is suppose to follow the will of the majority in such matters of policies or reveal information which proves a threat is immienent, which he has yet to do. He has failed the American people and has now repeatedly attempt to sidestep any real evidence that Iraq is a threat. Indeed all of the 'proof' Powell and Bush have endorsed have been indeed deemed either forgeries or have come from student essays!


It is clear that our government is no longer functioning (if it ever was) in the fashion it was meant to. The President is completely out of control and Congress passes legislation which is in clear violation of the constitution. They are approving a budget which will cause Social Security to fail this decade and are leading our economy to complete and total collapse. There are now daily protests of 10000+ people in New York, Chicago, Houston, Miami, Seattle, and San Francisco. The time is now for revolution, especially if it becomes clear Bush is continuing to exploit the electorate in winning Presidential elections. Reforms must be put into play to further limit the ability of the government to infringe on our personal liberities and to go against the will of the majority for cleary personal and selfish reasons. Especially if those actions lead to the probable death of millions of people. The Judicial branch is ineffective in monitoring Congress and the President. It should be limited to enforcing current law and settling domestic disputes through the court. Its previous powers to regulate the other 2 branches should be split into two seperate new branches, one to monitor Legislatator, and another to monitor the Executive. This new 5 branch system will allow two councils which will belong to a mandatory neutral party and be elected directly by the people to immediatly examine each edict and piece of legislation which is passed and determine right on the spot if it is legal under the Government's charter to rule.

These last past years have showed how the system has failed. When overflowed with politicians from the far Right or Left (especially the right) we now see that clearly flawed and biased legislation is passed and goes unchallenged by the courts which were created to prevent such things from happening. Our government has failed and has exceeded its' own Constitution. A revolution leading radical reform is the only way to correct these flaws, or we will find ourselves much like the Roman Republic two millenia ago.

1) I am not american, so tough luck as I am answering in this thread already.
2) Plato, Voltaire and Machiavelli (to name just three) have published great works a long time ago saying and proving and telling you the same things you just said. I know these works are issued at the start of any european law education, and I wonder if this is the same in the US (since it seems it isn't)
3) You have my support. This revolution should have begun the week after the kennedy shooting as your country has been corrupted fairly short before these happenings, and I guess the general public could have picked up on that point if they wanted to. Their failure to do so has been the basis of the 35 years of extortion and bribe, while failing to secure the quality of life for all americans.

[Makain]

The system itself is flawed in the fact that the only the people in power can limit their own power. Instead of thinking towards successors and what they might do they think only of their adminstration and what they cannot do. This has lead to an expansion of executive powers ever since Andrew Jackson's corrupt and immoral adminstration. Two new councils elected by popular vote whose sole obligation is to ensure all new acts operate within in the government's constitution of action is what we need. Whether it will be achieved by Senators trying to stay in office from a popular movement or full scale revolution is another matter. You people are going to see a very scary change in the world when Social Security collapses and the United States ceases to exist as a functional entity (either from 3rd world invasion, or by other government moving in to cease US technology and weapons).

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by xtrasyn

Their failure to do so has been the basis of the 35 years of extortion and bribe, while failing to secure the quality of life for all americans.

Marx?

[xtrasyn]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
Marx?

I do not want to go as far as that, the social principal perhaps, but there it ends. I believe firmly in corporate governments, if their prime goal is the sustenance of the coorporation due to social excellence...

[Judge]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
Marx?

Yes:


Groucho

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by xtrasyn
I do not want to go as far as that, the social principal perhaps, but there it ends. I believe firmly in corporate governments, if their prime goal is the sustenance of the coorporation due to social excellence...

I was just comenting really on the fact that the US citizens are being duped, which quite frankly I think they are.

what do you mean by corporate governments btw?

[Makain]

Rebellion by armed force is authorized in the Constitution if the government oversteps its bounds. That phrase alone would convince thousands of the legality of such a revolution.

[xtrasyn]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
I was just comenting really on the fact that the US citizens are being duped, which quite frankly I think they are.

what do you mean by corporate governments btw?

oh ehhm

with corporate government I mean an improved form of a republic. Much like where the economic aspects outweigh the military or geographical borders or boundaries. Leaders are chosen based on what good they can do for the Homeland Company, not on trust or sentiment.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by xtrasyn
oh ehhm

with corporate government I mean an improved form of a republic. Much like where the economic aspects outweigh the military or geographical borders or boundaries. Leaders are chosen based on what good they can do for the Homeland Company, not on trust or sentiment.

I thought that might be the idea. It is a bit idealistic, but since it is corporations making money and doing R&D in order to produce better products and hence a better standard of living, then I can see the logic behind it, since it is an idea I have entertained myself for some time. Do you know of any proponents of the idea?

[xtrasyn]

PDF version

The html version link doesn't work

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by xtrasyn
This revolution should have begun the week after the kennedy shooting as your country has been corrupted fairly short before these happenings, and I guess the general public could have picked up on that point if they wanted to. Their failure to do so has been the basis of the 35 years of extortion and bribe, while failing to secure the quality of life for all americans.

The Nixon presidency was possibly the greatest era of peace the Americans have had since the great depression. He ended the conflict in Vietnam, he opened up relations with China, and halted the Cold War.

[Radical Edward]

ace. it is a bit different from my concept of a corporate state by the looks, but I shall have a read. thanks

[xtrasyn]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
The Nixon presidency was possibly the greatest era of peace the Americans have had since the great depression. He ended the conflict in Vietnam, he opened up relations with China, and halted the Cold War.

Shut up.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by xtrasyn
Shut up.

To keep it tpoical, I think that statement will have about as much as Bush's did on Saddam.

[xtrasyn]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
To keep it tpoical, I think that statement will have about as much as Bush's did on Saddam.

I know. I always hope he will find someone that will listen to him and tell him how great he is, all day long.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by xtrasyn
I know. I always hope he will find someone that will listen to him and tell him how great he is, all day long.

??

[Grind]

65% of americans now support the war.

in addition to this, i think you are confused with the seperation of church and state . . .

a church is not to control a state. this does not mean that we aren't allowed to mention god in our society.

if you don't want to say "under god" in the pledge, then don't. i don't know why you have to whine bitch and moan about it.

most americans do support this war, and they do support their congressmen. your view is the minority view. sorry.

[Event_Horizon]

A rebellion?

Do you realize that the percentage of Americans that would even think about this would be very close 0%.

Get in the real world and off of PA... man just when I thought I had heard it all...

[queball]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
It depends on how flawed the system is in the first place.

And how good the new system will be.

[Makain]

Originally posted by Grind
65% of americans now support the war.

in addition to this, i think you are confused with the seperation of church and state . . .

a church is not to control a state. this does not mean that we aren't allowed to mention god in our society.

if you don't want to say "under god" in the pledge, then don't. i don't know why you have to whine bitch and moan about it.

most americans do support this war, and they do support their congressmen. your view is the minority view. sorry.

We have a right to express patriotism and not have the government endorse only a limited number of beliefs in those statements. By endorsing 'Under God' they are saying my beliefs are not associated with patriotism in any way and I cannot be loyal to this country.

[Structural Integrity]

Originally posted by Grind
65% of americans now support the war.

I watched Nova a few days ago (some Ductch news program) about the coming war in Iraq, and they stated that the Presidents popularity and the pro-war sentiments will drastically rise if a president anounces a war. The reason for this (according to the historicus (sp?) in Nova) is because if the Americans don't they will be looked upon as traitors of their nation by their peers.
This has been proven by history according to the program.
They also stated that the popularity will dramitacally drop when the first dead/wounded soldiers return to the US.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Structural Integrity

They also stated that the popularity will dramitacally drop when the first dead/wounded soldiers return to the US.

[Structural Integrity]

Originally posted by Radical Edward

That's what I meant.... I blame my Dutch background for the poor wording *cough*

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Structural Integrity
That's what I meant.... I blame my Dutch background for the poor wording *cough*

feel free to blame my English background for being a pedant

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
feel free to blame my English background for being a pedant

I refuse.

I blame your scientific and mathematical backgrounds.

Unless you meant your 'background in England', in which those would already be included.

[acropolis]

With respect to polls;
The recent numbers have Bush dropping below 50% for the first time since 9/11. There is a majority favoring the war if there is an endorsement by the UN, but no such endorsement exists. Within the minority that supports the war, the support is conditional on the assumption that when it is over, there will be clear proof of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program etc. As Bill O'Reilly put it, if it turns out that the administration was wrong about the Iraqi program (ie, lied), there will never be any more trust from him.

So Bush has perhaps 40% support, and if after the war ends no nuclear program is found, that will drop to about the 2% that is either beyond ignorant or actually has a stake in a major oil company.

With respect to revolution;
I have a very strong level of agreement with the statement "The system itself is flawed in the fact that the only the people in power can limit their own power." However, the problem with revolution is that even when it succeeds, the person left to rule is whoever was most willing to make moral sacrifices during the revolution, so we end up with a brutal dictator in charge, and we've just destroyed any institutions that could curb his power.

To me a much better method would be a secession, whereby an individual simply quits their current citizenship, and would join the "new government," one that as xtrasyn said would have no real geographic boundaries, just citizens and non-citizens.

Revolution connotates taking what others have, a thirst for power (whether that is the real intention or not). A secession would connotate a lack of support for the existing regime. And it is my guess that it is the second connotation you are seeking.

Then of course the question becomes what sort of government to go to.

(and xtrasyn's link so far so good, but I would recommend a good deal more discussion on this point. and i would emphasize that whatever government was decided upon would be the best at that particular time economically etc, and 100 years or 50 down the road it might no longer be the best and it would be time for a new secession and a new type of government)

Originally posted by Makain
The Justice Department protects the religious and often opressing values of the majority at the expense of the minority.

EXCESSIVE STUPID!

CANNOT COMPUTE!

SYSTEM SHUTDOWN!

[Cyp]

Most sensible reason for allowing gun ownership I've heard, is to enable the citizens to successfully rebel against an oppressive government... Isn't it even written in the constitution somewhere?

[Grind]

65% support this war. according to the new york times, usa today, and so on.

your theory on popularity rising to not seem unamerican is retarded. remember vietnam?

my god .. . most americans could care less about anything that goes on.. much less care what anyone thinks when they state their opinion.

and no one said ever that if you don't say "under god" you are unamerican. i could care less if someone did a strip dance during the pledge. no one cares. no one cares. no one cares.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Rick

You really wont like this.
SOCIAL SECURITY IS A PYRAMID SCHEME.
THERE IS NO "LOCKBOX" OR "TRUST FUND"
It was doomed to failure from its inception. Socialism always has been. My hope is that it dies ASAP because there is no way in hell it will be around when I get old.
THERE IS NO "LOCKBOX" OR "TRUST FUND"
just a huge stack of "I o U"s The money they get goes straight into the general fund where they "give us free education" and other programs.

eh.

SS is the only portion of the government that has consistently shown profit. Without it our government would have gone bankrupt probably 30 years ago*. "Doomed to failure from its inception" seems like a stretch for a program that has been in existence for seventy years and been profitable all along.


*In reality, we wouldn't have gone bankrupt. We would have had to vastly cut expenditures in other sectors of the government.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Rick
...even you idiot almighty atheists believe in a god, you think he is man, you just wont admit it. If you lack a religion, then you really just lack a brain because you cant realize that your belief system is indeed a religion. GROW A SPINE!

You mean things like infanticide, redistribution of wealth, and a complete rejection of the basis of where all rights come from: GOD. Deliberate attempts at illegally rewriting the constitution by tricking everyone including the courts that the phrase "separation of church and state" is contained in the constitution.

Ah Rick, up to your usual standards of posting I see.

You little antisodomist you, your own posts certainly do obliviate the need for anyone else to make fun of you...

Back to your old "All Athiests really believe in God" argument again eh? That brings back old times. Back a long time ago when you first came on the board and first made a fool of yourself, you remember, thats back when you pretended to have a PhD for a while, before admitting you were in fact had no university degrees at all, of any kind...

Ah memories...

[Marilyn Manson]

Verm, you're the only one who responds to his posts. Leave him be.

Incidentally, he shouldn't really make his posts so long, anyway. A one sentence post would some up all his arguments nicely.

[queball]

Originally posted by acropolis
eh.

SS is the only portion of the government that has consistently shown profit. Without it our government would have gone bankrupt probably 30 years ago*. "Doomed to failure from its inception" seems like a stretch for a program that has been in existence for seventy years and been profitable all along.


*In reality, we wouldn't have gone bankrupt. We would have had to vastly cut expenditures in other sectors of the government.

What do you mean? How can anything make a profit by giving out money?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by queball
What do you mean? How can anything make a profit by giving out money?

He might mean the social security fund type thing. Presumably the US Treasury holds billions of dollars (for future pensions, etc). Not all of it is paid by current workers. There was a lot of talk in the Clinton years of investing it in the stock-market. I presume it's lent as bonds now. Maybe...

[acropolis]

Originally posted by queball
What do you mean? How can anything make a profit by giving out money?

It's a program. It puts a 7% tax on the first 70K or so dollars you make, so it makes ~$500B a year. It sends out checks to a bunch of people to the tune of maybe $450B a year.

And so of course with the $50B 'profit' from the program we buy tanks and invade iraq.

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
He might mean the social security fund type thing. Presumably the US Treasury holds billions of dollars (for future pensions, etc). Not all of it is paid by current workers. There was a lot of talk in the Clinton years of investing it in the stock-market. I presume it's lent as bonds now. Maybe...

nah. it's treated just like any other income by our government.

but you can look at the receipts and see the income from the SS tax and you can see the expenses of the SS program in our budget, and the income is much bigger than the expense.

[queball]

Originally posted by acropolis
It's a program. It puts a 7% tax on the first 70K or so dollars you make, so it makes ~$500B a year. It sends out checks to a bunch of people to the tune of maybe $450B a year.

And so of course with the $50B 'profit' from the program we buy tanks and invade iraq.
nah. it's treated just like any other income by our government.

but you can look at the receipts and see the income from the SS tax and you can see the expenses of the SS program in our budget, and the income is much bigger than the expense.

So Rick's comments are accurate, except in your differing definitions of success and failure. The money is used for other purposes, and it is a pyramid scheme, and there is no security on getting the money you give back. Correct?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Rick
Obviously our Judeo-christian heritage should be completely trashed, and with it our whole justice and legal system. Murder should be legal, some religions think its right, therefore we are oppressing them if we have laws like that. Polygamy is even more popular in other religions, and same with pedophilea, we should legalize those too, or we are oppressing people.

We can morally arrive at these values independently of some god figure holding a gun to our heads. This has been shown many times on these boards.

Originally posted by Rick
so we should cater to the lowest common denominator? oh wait that would mean it is offensive to people who people who have values that require certain things. Guess what you cant have it both ways.

It is an inconsistency that America is both the land of 'political correctness' and also has this in its constitution. It's quite easy to cater for almost all options, without descending to including every possibility. It's like electron orbitals in physics.

Originally posted by Rick
What "one religion" believes in a god? Moron, every religion believes in a god, even you idiot almighty atheists believe in a god, you think he is man, you just wont admit it. If you lack a religion, then you really just lack a brain because you cant realize that your belief system is indeed a religion. GROW A SPINE! I've yet to hear of a person injured because they say "under god" cept maybe you, you probably melt into a puddle every time you pick up money because it says "IN GOD WE TRUST" (or maybe you melt because you don't have a spine)

Atheism is defined as the nonbelief in a god. That's where the word comes from. 'A-theist' 'Not A Theist' 'Does Not Believe in God'. It also discriminates against against polytheistic religions, and as its originators were Christians, against Judaism and Islam as well. But of course they don't worry about offending Muslims.

Originally posted by Rick
And yet the president made the MORAL (I know that word hurts you) and the right decision and fought to protect the unity of the country, but I'm sure you think that since the people didn't support it, its a bad decision.

The US was bubbling away quite nicely without paying any attention to Iraq. Did anyone really care what was going on for most of the 90's? Did we hear any comment on Iraq until the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon?

Originally posted by Rick
Sorry but in this country we elect leaders who will then make the hard, unpopular but necessary decisions. Thats what is supposed to keep us from being a democracy, and there is no shortage of intrinsically bad things that should be said of those. (Say the majority doesn't like ATHEISTS!!!!!! So what, have a vote and KILL EM!!! After all, the majority is always right?)

A more valid comparison is that the President decides all atheists should be killed, and goes ahead despite mass protests.

Originally posted by Rick
Clearly it says in the constitution that we should have social security, and if the president wont protect it then he should be dammed to hell...errr...he is out of control.(opps apparently they wrote that section in invisible ink)

Well, Clinton struck about 60% or so off social security, and encouraged states to remove people by not introducing or enforcing legislation to grant those removed from welfare a better chance for employment.

Social Security works as well as any other section of the economy, and America already has an absolutely immense poverty rate, so removing these peoples' source of income, especially with the current depression, is hardly going to help matters.

Originally posted by Rick
So the president is supposed to listen when a couple people protest? Millions protested ending slavery, should they have been listened to?

And considering that only about 50% of the populace voted, 10,000 person demonstrations are rather impressive, and are probably the largest seen since Vietnam.

Originally posted by Rick
Wise old men who had lived life and knew about reality.

Wise Old Men like George W Bush, who has done nothing but fail in industry, only to be helped out by his father's friends?

A valid point is a valid point whatever its source. The messenger is unimportant.

Originally posted by Rick

To quote a spoof interview with Richard Dawkins, 'There you go, bringing GOD into it again'.

Morality is independent of the existance of a higher being. If you cannot see this, then simply look at Buddhism.

And the flaming isn't appreciated.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Verm, you're the only one who responds to his posts. Leave him be.

I know MM, its a blind spot of mine. I'm sorry.

But I have never seen or known anyone so deserving of the realisation of how silly he looks, or the contempt in which everyone holds him. Our dear little antisodomist is a shining spotlight of ignorance and infantilism.

I know everyone else knows this, I just want to make sure he knows it.

[Subatai]

Note: creating a threat where you only want US Citizens to post has the same likelyhood of success as creating a thread where only people who still actively play Planetarion should post.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by queball
So Rick's comments are accurate, except in your differing definitions of success and failure. The money is used for other purposes, and it is a pyramid scheme, and there is no security on getting the money you give back. Correct?

I would say that when the government starts a program that meets all of its objectives, is deeply loved by the public, and produces a net positive cash flow for the government, it is a success, from any decent definition.

And it's definitely not a pyramid scheme either, but he is right in that there is no security about getting your money back.

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

The US was bubbling away quite nicely without paying any attention to Iraq. Did anyone really care what was going on for most of the 90's? Did we hear any comment on Iraq until the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon?

As to Iraq pre-9/11, in 1998 Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz sent a joint letter to Clinton arguing that we should invade Iraq to protect our oil interests. It went nowhere.

In 2001, the same two were on GWB's staff and argued that we should invade Iraq to stop terrorism.

So it isn't entirely correct to say that the Iraq invasion never came up before 911.

[MrL_JaKiri]

I meant in the general populace, not two war mongering republicans.