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.
I'm just curious. I hope you'll be honest... Would you do away with the republic if given the chance?
Do you feel this country has never been great, and the constitution an outdated paper?
LOL.. You hope I'll be honest? I speak nothing but truth to power Steven.
As for doing away with our Republic, I don't see a reason to. It's not perfect by far but it's one of the better systems of government in the world.
Was the country ever great? Whether it was ever great or not is in the eye of the beholder. Any answer can't be proved and would be subjective and not objective. In my opinion from 1776 to 1966, give or take, this country was hell for black folks. We didn't share equal rights and we had to fight tooth and nail for every inch of progress we made. We were up against founding principles that were hypocritical and a ingrained opposition to civil and human rights. The black experience in America is vastly different then the white experience. Are you following me?
The constitution delineates the national framework of our government. This framework changes with time and situation. The framers created mechanisms to both take away and add to this framework. Do some things become outdated? You're damn right! And when that happens we the people have the option to amend an outdated piece of paper...
When you have a former secretary of state with over 30 years of first hand political experience barely leading a casino owner, you tell me what is wrong with this country...
To be fair, none of this is actually new. It is just more widely-known.
It is naive to believe that at some time in the past, politicians, and our government, were somehow honest and noble, and have only suddenly become corrupt in the past few elections.
I mean, early America literally had something called the "spoils system". Which to a large extent, still exists today.
Politicians weren't noble in 1790. They weren't noble in 1826. They weren't noble in 1860. They weren't noble in 1900, or 1930, or 1950, or 1970, or 1990, or 2016. And that isn't limited only to America. Politicians aren't noble in England, or Germany, or Russia, or anywhere. They are all the same. They are humans, not angels.
Whether they go by the name of democracy, or monarchy, or communist government. All governments have exactly the same goal, more power. And in this world, money is power. Thus, the singular goal of all governments, is more money. In most cases, this takes the form of "economic growth". And from this economic activity, government can then extract greater tax revenue.
With greater taxes, nations can build larger armies, develop/buy better technology(especially weapons technology), and bribe or otherwise economically dominate their neighbors. America is powerful, only because we have the largest economy in the world. And our economic size is to a large extent the byproduct of the sheer territorial size of America.
The idea that government exists for the benefit of the people is naive and silly. No government in the history of mankind has ever in any honest sense, existed for the benefit of the people(including so-called "socialists" governments, their lust for power was even more obvious). The only people who have ever mattered to any government in history, are the elites/plutocrats/aristocrats who actually hold the power.
All you are to your government, is a resource, a laborer, a consumer. Why would anyone honestly believe that Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump cares about them?
This is the most-relevant portion in the context of what we are discussing.
Quote:
"Modern states have reached precisely this point. Christianity serves them only as a pretext or a phrase or as a means of deceiving the idle mob, for they pursue goals which have nothing to do with religious sentiments. The great statesmen of our days, the Palmerstons, the Muravievs, the Cavours, the Bismarcks, the Napoleons, had a good laugh when people took their religious pronouncements seriously. They laughed harder when people attributed humanitarian sentiments, considerations, and intentions to them, but they never made the mistake of treating these ideas in public as so much nonsense. Just what remains to constitute their morality? The interest of the State, and nothing else. From this point of view, which, incidentally, with very few exceptions, has been that of the statesmen, the strong men of all times and of all countries from this point of view, I say, whatever conduces to the preservation, the grandeur and the power of the State, no matter how sacrilegious or morally revolting it may seem, that is the good. And conversely, whatever opposes the State's interests, no matter how holy or just otherwise, that is evil. Such is the secular morality and practice of every State...
The existence of one sovereign, exclusionary State necessarily supposes the existence and, if need be, provokes the formation of other such States, since it is quite natural that individuals who find themselves outside it and are threatened by it in their existence and in their liberty, should, in their turn, associate themselves against it. We thus have humanity divided into an indefinite number of foreign states, all hostile and threatened by each other. There is no common right, no social contract of any kind between them; otherwise they would cease to be independent states and become the federated members of one great state. But unless this great state were to embrace all of humanity, it would be confronted with other great states, each federated within, each maintaining the same posture of inevitable hostility. War would still remain the supreme law, an unavoidable condition of human survival.
Every state, federated or not, would therefore seek to become the most powerful. It must devour lest it be devoured, conquer lest it be conquered, enslave lest it be enslaved...
The State, therefore, is the most flagrant, the most cynical, and the most complete negation of humanity. It shatters the universal solidarity of all men on the earth, and brings some of them into association only for the purpose of destroying, conquering, and enslaving all the rest. It protects its own citizens only; it recognizes human rights, humanity, civilization within its own confines alone. Since it recognizes no rights outside itself, it logically arrogates to itself the right to exercise the most ferocious inhumanity toward all foreign populations, which it can plunder, exterminate, or enslave at will. If it does show itself generous and humane toward them, it is never through a sense of duty, for it has no duties except to itself in the first place. If it treats a conquered people in a humane fashion, if it plunders or exterminates it halfway only, if it does not reduce it to the lowest degree of slavery, this may be a political act inspired by prudence, or even by pure magnanimity, but it is never done from a sense of duty, for the State has an absolute right to dispose of a conquered people at will.
This flagrant negation of humanity which constitutes the very essence of the State is, from the standpoint of the State, its supreme duty and its greatest virtue. It bears the name patriotism, and it constitutes the entire transcendent morality of the State. We call it transcendent morality because it usually goes beyond the level of human morality and justice, either of the community or of the private individual, and by that same token often finds itself in contradiction with these. Thus, to offend, to oppress, to despoil, to plunder, to assassinate or enslave one's fellowman is ordinarily regarded as a crime. In public life, on the other hand, from the standpoint of patriotism, when these things are done for the greater glory of the State, for the preservation or the extension of its power, it is all transformed into duty and virtue. And this virtue, this duty, are obligatory for each patriotic citizen; everyone is supposed to exercise them not against foreigners only but against one's own fellow citizens, members or subjects of the State like himself, whenever the welfare of the State demands it.
This explains why, since the birth of the State, the world of politics has always been and continues to be the stage for unlimited rascality and brigandage, brigandage and rascality which, by the way, are held in high esteem, since they are sanctified by patriotism, by the transcendent morality and the supreme interest of the State. This explains why the entire history of ancient and modern states is merely a series of revolting crimes; why kings and ministers, past and present, of all times and all countries -- statesmen, diplomats, bureaucrats, and warriors -- if judged from the standpoint of simple morality and human justice, have a hundred, a thousand times over earned their sentence to hard labor or to the gallows. There is no horror, no cruelty, sacrilege, or perjury, no imposture, no infamous transaction, no cynical robbery, no bold plunder or shabby betrayal that has not been or is not daily being perpetrated by the representatives of the states, under no other pretext than those elastic words, so convenient and yet so terrible: "for reasons of state."
No sooner are these words uttered than all grows silent, and everything ceases; honesty, honor, justice, right, compassion itself ceases, and with it logic and good sense. Black turns white, and white turns black. The lowest human acts, the basest felonies, the most atrocious crimes become meritorious acts.
We have seen that every state, under pain of destruction and fearing to be devoured by its neighbor states, must reach out toward omnipotence, and, having become powerful, must conquer. Who speaks of conquest speaks of peoples conquered, subjugated, reduced to slavery in whatever form or denomination. Slavery, therefore, is the necessary consequence of the very existence of the State.
Slavery may change its form or its name -- its essence remains the same. Its essence may be expressed in these words: to be a slave is to be forced to work for someone else, just as to be a master is to live on someone else's work. In antiquity, just as in Asia and in Africa today, as well as even in a part of America, slaves were, in all honesty, called slaves. In the Middle Ages, they took the name of serfs: nowadays they are called wage earners. The position of this latter group has a great deal more dignity attached to it, and it is less hard than that of slaves, but they are nonetheless forced, by hunger as well as by political and social institutions, to maintain other people in complete or relative idleness, through their own exceedingly hard labor. Consequently they are slaves. And in general, no state, ancient or modern, has ever managed or will ever manage to get along without the forced labor of the masses, either wage earners or slaves, as a principal and absolutely necessary foundation for the leisure, the liberty, and the civilization of the political class.
The most deeply characteristic of every state, as of every theology -- presupposes man to be essentially evil and wicked. By this reasoning, human liberty produces not good but evil; man is by nature evil. How did he become evil? That is for theology to explain. The fact is that the Church, at its birth, finds man already evil, and undertakes to make him good, that is, to transform the natural man into the citizen.
Is it not remarkable to find so close a correspondence between theology, the science of the Church, and politics, the science of the State; to find this concurrence of two orders of ideas and of realities, outwardly so opposed, nevertheless holding the same conviction: that human liberty must be destroyed if men are to be moral, if they are to be transformed into saints (for the Church) or into virtuous citizens (for the State)? Yet we are not at all surprised by this peculiar harmony, since we are convinced, that politics and theology are two sisters issuing from the same source and pursuing the same ends under different names; and that every state is a terrestrial church, just as every church, with its own heaven, the dwelling place of the blessed and of the immortal God, is but a celestial state."
Last edited by Redshadowz; 07-29-2016 at 09:42 PM..
Does no one care that democracy is considered a joke in this country. the leaked e-mails show donors congratulating Obama and others on changing their views after receiving vast sums of cash, of the DNC actively working against Bernie's campaign and talking to the Media (yes, the ones that are suppose to stand up to power) to build a narrative that is best for Hillary. Time and time again reporters have sent a forward of their article to the DNC for approval.
I know a lot of you don't care but this is not a democracy no matter how much you wish to brush it aside as basic everyday corruption. Have we become so cynical we don't care anymore.
We bomb hundreds of countries in the name of democracy yet can't even contain any democracy here. When you search for DNCleaks the list has been cut short on google, twitter has taken it off their trending list, the mainstream media is done talking about it now moving on to the fact that the Russians did it.
THE RUSSIANS!!!
WHO CARES! When corruption is being exposed in your country you shouldn't side with the people in power and cast blame on others like in Turkey and other countries. If the Russians are actually telling you something for the first time that the government has hidden from you maybe you should trust them more!
I'm just saying (as before) when this happens n other western countries (like I have experienced) people don't just sit down and look the other way, they get mad, they riot, they demand answers, and then somehow democracy is kept balanced. Not here though
we're so scared of the truth we just say Trump is bad. I DON"T CARE IF YOU HATE TRUMP! This has nothing to do with him, you should stand up for your country.
Ok, my rant is over now, i'm just mad about the fact this issue is over with and we've all moved on like marry sheep.
What's wrong with the country you ask? Well, really just that globalization has turned what was once a great nation into just another spot of land. Our politicians are idiots who can't fix anything so they go on television shows as their full time jobs.
Not very many people are going to stand up for a country that kills it's police, abuses it's lower and middle classes and is completely out of control. I see all these American flags outside of some peoples homes, and I can't help but think of how little there is to be proud about this country now. It's just another place, like Argentina or Norway or India.
Let the Russians hack. They can't do nearly the damage we've already done to ourselves. Putin may feel bad for us.
LOL.. You hope I'll be honest? I speak nothing but truth to power Steven.
LMAO Good one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHABAZZ310
As for doing away with our Republic, I don't see a reason to. It's not perfect by far but it's one of the better systems of government in the world.
Was the country ever great? Whether it was ever great or not is in the eye of the beholder. Any answer can't be proved and would be subjective and not objective. In my opinion from 1776 to 1966, give or take, this country was hell for black folks. We didn't share equal rights and we had to fight tooth and nail for every inch of progress we made. We were up against founding principles that were hypocritical and a ingrained opposition to civil and human rights. The black experience in America is vastly different then the white experience. Are you following me?
The constitution delineates the national framework of our government. This framework changes with time and situation. The framers created mechanisms to both take away and add to this framework. Do some things become outdated? You're damn right! And when that happens we the people have the option to amend an outdated piece of paper...
It's always about the rights of the individual. Government takes them away. The framers never had that "mechanism" in mind.
Liberalism has dumbed down this country.
They control most of the media, the entertainment industry, and our schools including higher education.
They have enslaved us to a political correctness that has totally stifled free speech and thought. People are losing critical thinking skills as there is only one way to think now -- the liberal way.
If you don't tow the line on open borders, you are a racist -- discussion over.
If you want other ideas and solutions discussed for poverty and minority crime, you are a racist -- discussion over.
If you want law and order restored and police respected -- you are a racist - discussion over.
If you want our government to take Islamic terrorism more seriously -- you are an Islamophobe.
Etc, etc etc,
They haven't dumped down anything. And if you think they control the media and entertainment industry then so what. If you guys are that concerned then why don't you guys get those jobs and control the media
Actually, they have, and it was intentional. It's what happens when 50 years of public educators forcing an equal outcomes agenda in our country's public schools destroys generations of Americans' critical thinking skills.
Quote:
"While students in the bottom quartile have shown slow but steady improvement since the 1960s, average test scores have nonetheless gone down, primarily because of the performance of those in the top quartile. This "highest cohort of achievers," Rudman writes, has shown "the greatest declines across a variety of subjects as well as across age-level groups." Analysts have also found "a substantial drop among those children in the middle range of achievement"
...The contrast was stark: schools that had "severely declining test scores" had "moved determinedly toward heterogeneous grouping" (that is, mixed students of differing ability levels in the same classes), while the "schools who have maintained good SAT scores" tended "to prefer homogeneous grouping [ability/skill-level grouping, aka tracking]."
If attaining educational excellence is this simple, why have these high-quality schools become so rare? The answer lies in the cultural ferment of the 1960s.
THE INCUBUS OF THE SIXTIES
In every conceivable fashion the reigning ethos of those times was hostile to excellence in education. Individual achievement fell under intense suspicion, as did attempts to maintain standards. Discriminating among students on the basis of ability or performance was branded "elitist." Educational gurus of the day called for essentially nonacademic schools, whose main purpose would be to build habits of social cooperation and equality rather than to train the mind."
And if you want more recent proof of the outcome of all the intentional dumbing down, read the Washington Post article I've linked on how millennials' intellectual and critical thinking skills are even worse than the generation's preceding them (below). It shows what a colossal mistake dumbing down schools to try to "socially engineer" a "cooperative" society has been. Now, the general public is both dumb AND less cooperative. Inner-city crime rates, anyone?
Quote:
"This exam, given in 23 countries, assessed the thinking abilities and workplace skills of adults. It focused on literacy, math and technological problem-solving. The goal was to figure out how prepared people are to work in a complex, modern society.
And U.S. millennials performed horribly.
...But surely America’s brightest were on top?
Nope. U.S. millennials with master’s degrees and doctorates did better than their peers in only three countries, Ireland, Poland and Spain.
...The ETS study noted that a decade ago the skill level of American adults was judged mediocre. “Now it is below even that.” So Millennials are falling even further behind."
So now the RNC rigged the system to get Trump in? Ha, ha.. I just had to laugh. That was a good one. Not even you believe that!!!!
I did not see a smoking gun in the dnc emails... Bernie needed votes. He did not get them.
Far as news agencies, there might be a reason they are not up in arms... think about the election cylces and how much money flows to TV, paper, and now internet news agencies. It is scary money...
Are there any still left? Someone will always be able to bring up some dirt on a candidate... people don't live in a vacuum of good. Something they do will not live up to the moral standards of another.
Since you have it all figured out, maybe you should set a goal to run for president. Oh, yea, it would be "too nasty" for you... grand excuse.
Guess you can live your life being angry on the internet and rail against the machine. Good luck with that...
Try to discuss ideas without personal attacks -- more mature.
The point I was trying to make about the system being rigged is that America is a corporate and political oligarchy now rather than a democracy or republic anymore. Here is a study agreeing with that.
It's beyond whether Trump or Bernie got enough votes -- I believe the system is so rigged at the core it doesn't matter anymore. The elitist oligarchy will get the candidate in who they want (Clinton) but I do believe Trump threw a wrench in the elitist machine, but who knows perhaps he was convinced to run precisely because the powers that be knew he was the only person on the planet Hillary could actually beat. LOL
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.
