Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yep and then once you get rid of your SSN you can now no longer get a job, [NOT TRUE]
so you will be free until you die of exposure or starvation ... This only works for people who are independantly wealthy own large tracts of income producing property or have managed to put together a successful buisness so they no longer need to be an employee. For most people giving up their SSN is not practical and can be dangerous. In the end times when we are no longer able to buy or sell we will die, 99% of people can not exist in a vacuum for very long as our world is far too inhospitable.
Though millions are misled to believe they cannot live nor work without "their number" that is completely false. No law compels participation and no law punishes non participants.
“The Social Security Act does not require an individual to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work within the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one...”
- - - The Social Security Administration
Contact the SocSecAdmin yourself, for your own personalized letter. Then go ask (politely) "your" representatives in government to send you a copy of THE LAW that compels participation in FICA, or punishes non-participants.
You will then discover one the GREATEST FRAUDS perpetrated upon a nation.
The only way your born equal is if there were absolutly no inheritance, upon someones death it all went back in the "pot" so to speak. Thats the only way all men are born equal. Inheritance skews the outcomes of the republic, certian familes can start to control vast weath and have substantial influance on the government, that is why we now have crony capitalism. VERY few become a billionares being born with nothing and working their way up with out an inheritance or some extremely bizzare circumstances.
You may be confusing "economic equality" the equal status under the law. In many European nations, the people were divided at birth, into nobles and commoners. That does not happen in America, where all are born equal (before the law) - none are born HIGHER. However, they may descend in status afterward.
Remember - those founders who you seem to consider as Gods - they LOVED the French Way (Jefferson) as well as the British Way. In fact, our system is really supposed to be the best of both.
You have an interesting opinion, but the fact remains that (a) the Founders DESPISED the British Parliamentary system, with it combined legislative and executive branch, and (b) the French Revolution came AFTER the American revolution, yet did not copy America's republican form.
. . .
There is nothing "BRITISH" about the original design for public service.
Government officials were actually far removed from a populist democracy and especially the Parliamentary form with its partisanship.
As originally conceived, the three branches were selected by various means:
1. Legislators, a) Representatives - popular vote of their district, b) Senators - selected by their respective States (by legislature or governor)
2. Judiciary - appointed by the president, approved by Congress
3. Executive, a) president and b) vice president to be indirectly elected, via the Electoral College.
America’s Founders created the Electoral College to prevent the Executive branch from becoming polarized by partisan politics. They despised the Parliamentary system of democracy in England, where the majority party filled the ministerial posts, from Prime minister on down, and who executed the laws enacted with bias for their own party.
The genius of the original E.C. was that the candidate with the most votes would be president, but the next most votes would likely be his rival and his ‘vice’ (pun intended). Thus the V.P. could be the counterbalance to any partisanship or bias in the execution of the laws enacted by Congress, as well as the appointment to executive positions. Sadly, it worked too well and George Washington disliked his V.P., the fiery John Adams (twice elected V.P.!), and sought the amendment that made the E.C. vote for a team.
Before the FRENCH REVOLUTION, France was a monarchy, which Americans did not copy. And after the revolution, the French did not copy our republican form, with its sovereign people.
Article III - The principle of any sovereignty resides essentially in the Nation. No body, no individual can exert authority which does not emanate expressly from it.
The French effectively denied that the individual was a sovereign without subjects.
Frankly, no government, after 1776, adopted a republican form. Only America has it, but 99.999% of its people have no clue what it is or its source.
Hitler, like all fascists and totalitarians, is on the left. That's how the political spectrum works. Left is where government control lies.
People on the right don't like to associate themselves with Hitler. So they want him somewhere else than on the right. But where else can they put him? The only place that's left.
You may be confusing "economic equality" the equal status under the law. In many European nations, the people were divided at birth, into nobles and commoners. That does not happen in America, where all are born equal (before the law) - none are born HIGHER. However, they may descend in status afterward.
Your right that even if you are born poor in the USA you have the opportunity to work your way up which is preferable to a cast system for sure, but lets not pretend that we don't have a sort of pseudo royalty in the USA as well through inheritance and family control and power base.
But at the end of the day I would take the US system over the European model, the biggest reason being the ability to choose my own fate, I am not told at 16 years old whether I am going to be a plumber or an engineer I can make a go of engineering even with a 3.5 high school GPA. Being told what my profession will be is kind of a bad deal. But at the same time I like the idea of dismantling power structured families that are trying to use their vast wealth to alter the course of the country and will of the people.
If they just want to sit in their lake house and hang out fine but so many of them are engaged in nefarious political activities and we need mechanisms to make examples out of such families and strip their wealth and make them paupers if they want to try to usurp the nation.
People on the right don't like to associate themselves with Hitler. So they want him somewhere else than on the right. But where else can they put him? The only place that's left.
That actually doesn't explain why Hitler is on the right, other than you said so. Sorry, all dictators and fascists are on the left, by definition. The only actual difference is liberals think they can get away with liking some and not others. So even liberals grasp that it would be poor form to like Hitler, but they have no problem liking Mao or Castro, who both killed lots of people.
That actually doesn't explain why Hitler is on the right, other than you said so. Sorry, all dictators and fascists are on the left, by definition. The only actual difference is liberals think they can get away with liking some and not others. So even liberals grasp that it would be poor form to like Hitler, but they have no problem liking Mao or Castro, who both killed lots of people.
Pol Pot, Mao and castro did not kill filthy rich Jews though so its ok .
Even stallin does not get as bad of a rap as Hitler though he killed way more poor Russians, but they were not filthy rich jews. Hitler had to have known that the back lash would be severe for going after families like rothschilds and the like if he lost. Granted he should have cherry picked the ones to put in camps and trump up charges of crimes against the state and the NAZI's would not have been hung if they only killed a few hundred key scoundrel jews who were mucking up the financial institutions.
I wonder if the issue was a lack of monitoring so you did not know who was who because once you start the witch hunt the filthy rich jews are going to hide out and do other smart things, they did not get rich being dumb but most of them were unethical. Now days you could target key people and use satalites tracking cell phones etc to narrow down who you want to go away and leave the bakers and dounut makers to live their lives.
In pre WW2 Germany - You might get the ones at the tippy top who were highly visible in the banking systems but what about their families who would then take over once things settled down or their other business associates? The poor economic conditions in Germany was like a cancer choking out their entire society ... just like what is slowly happening here in the USA ...
Smart evil people are going to figure out loop holes around the system to fleece other people, that's just what they do and sometimes the only way to flush them all out is to round them up and get rid of them, the problem was the NAZI's were evil themselves and were not discriminating THAT was the issue.
That actually doesn't explain why Hitler is on the right, other than you said so. Sorry, all dictators and fascists are on the left, by definition. The only actual difference is liberals think they can get away with liking some and not others. So even liberals grasp that it would be poor form to like Hitler, but they have no problem liking Mao or Castro, who both killed lots of people.
Authoritarians and Plutocrats and even Oligarchies are on the right.
For example, Putin is far right. Authoritarian and personal control of most of the countries assets (he and his friends).
It's a fact we don't have to argue. Fascism is (usually) defined as being far-right. It includes these main parts:
Authoritarianism - a "strong" leader who will fight for the people.
Corporatism - close collusion between Corporations and the State.
Nationalism - the State is everything.
def "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."
The "idea" of the Russian Revolution was communism...which really never happened because they ended up losing 20-30 MILLION people people in the war AGAINST Fascism and by then everything was too screwed up to fix.
Mao - he was LEFT. That was the idea there. In fact, Mao and the Chinese HATED RUSSIA....why? Because they felt Russia sold out real communism (which was true)...this is why Mao cuddled up to Nixon (one reason - to **** off Russia)
I'm not going to claim communism works. It doesn't. I am also not going to claim either Fascism or "our system" of Corporate Control works. They don't.
IMHO and by every measurement that matters, the best system of government for advanced countries is Social Democracy in the mold of countries like Germany, Denmark, etc.
At the same time, the same doesn't go for everyone. Believe it or not, the Chinese are MUCH happier with their current form of Government than Americans are. No comparison. And, it's not because they don't know about the other forms. Millions of educated Chinese travel the entire world, live here and elsewhere and hundred of millions are on the internet. They like having a government that is creating high speed train networks, modern airports, increased standards of living, etc - far faster than ours is.
They look at our "do nothing" congress and laugh. Who the heck would want that (they think)?
Authoritarians and Plutocrats and even Oligarchies are on the right.
Wrong, they're all on the left. Like I said, any centralized government power structure is a leftist motif. In fact, any of their poor ideas invariably lead to authoritarianism and oligarchies. The reason liberals are trying to say that it's "on the right" is because they're trying to tell themselves that liberalism is "good," so only "good" things can come from liberalism. Meanwhile, the left is embodied by people who think they know better than everyone else, so they have to impose their will on them, which always requires a large government structure, and eventually progresses to using force to subjugate dissent. That's fact. That's the spectrum of the left.
The only spectrum on the right is tending towards freedom, with total anarchy on the far right. Most people are ignorant, so they say "aren't anarchists leftists?" No, leftists use anarchy (e.g., rioting) to disrupt existing government structures to seize power, but leftists are not anarchists. Leftists hate real anarchy, which involves "might equals right." They're always trying to come up with ways to shield themselves from real life and consequences, not to expose themselves to risk and harm.
As soon as you started talking about Putin, I realized how little you knew of political reality. You equate Putin with the right because Hillary Clinton said so. Putin is a representative of the old Soviet Union and both are/were solidly on the left, sorry to tell you. He's not "on the right" because Hillary Clinton claims he's against her. Only someone who had almost no understanding of political theory would consider that superficial trait to be relevant. That's like people who claim that Stalin opposed Hitler, so obviously Hitler was on the right. No, both were on the left, but both wanted power -- that's hardly difficult to understand.
Wrong, they're all on the left. Like I said, any centralized government power structure is a leftist motif. In fact, any of their poor ideas invariably lead to authoritarianism and oligarchies. The reason liberals are trying to say that it's "on the right" is because they're trying to tell themselves that liberalism is "good," so only "good" things can come from liberalism. Meanwhile, the left is embodied by people who think they know better than everyone else, so they have to impose their will on them, which always requires a large government structure, and eventually progresses to using force to subjugate dissent. That's fact. That's the spectrum of the left.
The only spectrum on the right is tending towards freedom, with total anarchy on the far right. Most people are ignorant, so they say "aren't anarchists leftists?" No, leftists use anarchy (e.g., rioting) to disrupt existing government structures to seize power, but leftists are not anarchists. Leftists hate real anarchy, which involves "might equals right." They're always trying to come up with ways to shield themselves from real life and consequences, not to expose themselves to risk and harm.
As soon as you started talking about Putin, I realized how little you knew of political reality. You equate Putin with the right because Hillary Clinton said so. Putin is a representative of the old Soviet Union and both are/were solidly on the left, sorry to tell you. He's not "on the right" because Hillary Clinton claims he's against her. Only someone who had almost no understanding of political theory would consider that superficial trait to be relevant. That's like people who claim that Stalin opposed Hitler, so obviously Hitler was on the right. No, both were on the left, but both wanted power -- that's hardly difficult to understand.
You should write political science books because most of them must be wrong. Fascism is far right, communism is far left. Unless the definition of left is "anything I don't like or that I disagree with and the right is all the good stuff" One thing different from communism or socialism is the belief in capitalism which is not a far left ideology.
I am on the left and will not try to shift the blame of what the communists did onto the left but at the same time I do not like to see people confuse it with fascism or socialism or a social democracy. Fascism is also very different from most modern countries and I would not consider the presidents up to the incoming one as either fascist or socialist and the only reason to leave Trump out of that list is he is not yet in office.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
