Topic: Opinion on the US - page 14. (Read 18959 times)

Is it really your country?
You have Russian name. Also, what you mean under "weird dollar thing"?

i said not one

Not even this one?

I wish all american haters and talking with aplomb about corruption and so on leave the country for Russia, Cuba, North Korea where their socialist ideas already fulfilled. They don't even know what they talking about.
They just should remember that not one bloody revolution brought anything good anywhere. To destroy something is easy. To build something is hard.

I'm divided on the issue. I've lived in and traveled through about 2/3rds of the country.

I definitely do not see the United States of America as America. The people and the government are completely at odds, though most of the people don't seem to see it. the USA is a charter corporation by any rational definition. America, well, the word is a description of a place, and also a set of sometimes contradictory ideals.

Over the course of 45 years, I've watched those ideals go from largely being lived by the people (but never the government) to just about complete abdication of individuality in some places (like Western Pennsylvania and Southern California). 10 years ago, I would have said that leaving was the only option. That the experiment was too corrupted to continue, the people at large too stupefied to do a damn thing about it.  Now I'm not so sure. I keep running into people, especially younger people, who are just plain fed up with the antics of mordor The District of Columbia. And they are everywhere. Not a majority, yet, nor even enough of a mass to tip the scales, but it's a growing tide. I have high hopes for the ideals and idealism of the american people. But I can't see it getting better without getting a lot worse. I would hope that when it falls down (and it must, at this point. They've gone too far on too many things to ever right the ship), that it goes down more like the old USSR rather than what I see as more likely.

Revolution. People like to talk about revolution, but nobody sane wants it to happen. There is no guarantee that what comes out the other side will be worth living in. There is no chance of a revolution without massive bloodshed. And to be perfectly honest, I think that the USA would use it's nukes on it's peasants if they revolted. It isn't collectively long sighted enough to realize that doing so would be the end of it's viable existence. Nobody would trade with it ever again, and the USA doesn't have a monopoly on weapons of mass destruction. But they want that power...

So, as a father, I feel it fairly incumbent on me to physically leave before it gets that far. I don't currently have the resources to do it. But my wife and I have both come to that conclusion. But I at least hold out some hope that those who choose to stay might turn it around. Not a lot, but still...

Your viewpoint is interesting, though I don't know anything about you other than what you wrote in this post. I agree, to a lesser degree, with some parts of it. I was going to ask why you don't move to France or Russia or Zimbabwe or ________ but I think you alluded to something when you said you were not referring to the "nation of people". Does this mean you hold out hope for what it could be (i.e. what the actual people could make it), or that you've given up entirely on the US and you're just waiting for it to fall apart enough to reassemble the pieces?

Police state 101, No thanks, they use strong arm terrorism covered up as a "fight against terrorism" to get what they want

Irony poster child ^^
Why so glum, chum?  CHEER UP!

This is a common argument: "if the government doesn't provide it, nobody will."

The state doesn't build any roads; the state pays people to build roads.  If you've ever given somebody money for or to do anything, you've accomplished what the state is capable of.

Now consider how a business usually functions:

Group A wants/needs something.
Group B can give/perform that something for a profit.

Ergo, business; this is especially true when Group B does not gain, except for profit, for helping Group A, such as building roads they'll never drive on.  So the question is: if the state no longer held a monopoly over road building, would nobody, not a single person, not even the road builders who are paid by the state to build roads, step up and form a business around building and maintaining roads?

I would like to believe, after so many successful businesses surrounding far more trivial matters, we're capable of roads.

You're total ignorant.

I am rather dedicated. I'm better with words than with a placard in the streets (been there, done that), and I have been DEEPLY involved in politics.

What I found was that those who seek office should NEVER have any form of power over anyone but themselves, because they INTEND to use it for personal gain, or their personal vision of hell paradise. Being an anarchist at my age is not a reactionary or unreasoned position. It might be for the very young, a sort of diffuse teenage rebellion, but for those of us with some years under our belts, the philosophies of liberty are not abstracts or simply a topic for discussion amongst friends or internet fora.

Some basic truths about the United States of America. The corporation, not the nation of people.

One. The system cannot be reformed. Why? Because it works as it is intended. No, not the bullshit they sell you on the idiot box, the ACTUAL intent. Which is to gain as much power in the hands of a few "elites" as possible without fomenting a revolution. The "federalists" (imperialists, if we're to be honest and historically accurate) recalled very well the vast uncertainties and suffering caused by a full scale revolution. But unlike the "anti" federalists (who were ACTUALLY federalists rather than imperialists), the Federalists wanted a strong central government FOR THE PURPOSE of making the United States (plural, at the time) into one great empire. It took them a few decades and an otherwise unnecessary war, but they pulled it off. From 1865 onwards, nearly everything they have done has had the express purpose of expanding and consolidating the central authority. They have succeeded brilliantly. Alexander Hamilton would be immensely proud of the current government.

Two. Those who would rule want power like a drowning man wants air. I have personally met almost all of the current senate and about half of the current congress at earlier stages in their so-called careers. There is not one of them that I think this untrue of, except Dr. Ron Paul who I'm unsure of. That he is sincere in his beliefs, I have no doubt. But I'm not certain whether he has that lust for power. Unlike the whole rest of them, he was a gentleman to the staff. I give him points for that, and for much of his philosophy. But he sought power at the Imperial court, and he got it for many years. That makes him dangerous, even if his intentions are good. Which I am not certain of. The rest of them would throw their mother in front of a freight train for one more vote. And I AM certain of that.

Three. Voting is futile. You are given a very limited choice. You do not vote on law or regulation. You have no choice in that at all. The United States of America is not the Swiss Confederation. Citizens have privileges and duties, not rights. Nor real power. You can't even own the property you live on in any real sense. As Emma Goldman said, if voting could change anything, they would make it illegal. Contrary to the popular saw, voting TAKES AWAY your right to bitch, as you are supporting the system, regardless of the outcome.

I have much more, but that's enough to chew on for now.

My significant other is from a country with a King. There's no asking questions, and your family may disappear if you say something like "He's an idiot".

Yeah, the USA is the worst country ever...

Maybe we need to be more like Gandhi and "be the change"  instead of sitting on a PC complaining about it. If there's anything bad about America, it's that we blame everybody else. Change some crap if you don't like it.

Corrupt politicians? Do you even know where the word lobbying comes from?
Starving kids? Easy fix.
Too much debt? Set the example first.
Too few services? GET INVOLVED.
Too many services? GET INVOLVED.
Don't like something? GET INVOLVED.

At least write a friggin' letter. It worked for America in 1776 and 1863.

Really?  Can you drive your Honda Civic over rivers and through forests, or do you need a maintained road?

Some level of government is necessary when people gather in groups, if only to pay for shared services.  It's the reach of the government that is important - you guys have given your road builders way too much power.

Yes, I do find we are always in complete agreement; what you're saying is the truth.  There is no such thing as a necessary evil, there is only the good we cannot see.  But to be frank, I can't think of any evil that didn't consider itself necessary; humans always believe the evil they're doing is necessary or else they wouldn't do it.  Behind every villain is good intent and a winding road to hell.

In the case of democracy, the necessary evil is propagated in the idea that a law passed by majority vote is moral, when in reality it can be anything; if 6 out of 10 people agree that rape is lawful, it doesn't become any more moral than before.  If the foundation of law is morals and ethics, then democracy is, by its very nature, an invalid form of government, for there is a paradox in democracy: if the people are knowledgeable enough to effectively participate in a democracy to ensure that all laws are ethical and justice is upheld, they would have no need for a democracy; they would be anarchists.

I know that was tongue in cheek (and I think we're on the same page at least 90 percent of the time) but I would like the larger audience to think about that phrase.

"necessary evil" and "choosing the lesser evil" are two phrases that grind my gears.

I will state as a fact that while always present, evil is NOT necessary, and that if you are going to deliberately choose evil, as in elections, then you should not be a pussy. Go ahead and choose the greater evil. If you are actually trying to escape evil, arm up and don't participate in the farce known as democracy.

But it's a necessary evil

It seems to be a rule that the more powerful a government gets the worse it's behaviour.  Logical when you think about.  They are just people.   People with very few restraints on their behaviour.  People who get away with invading and killing other people and destroying vast amounts of property over and over again.

Unless you are unlucky enough to be a neighbor of China:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Tibet_(1950)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

Such a peaceful people, the Chinese.  They even play nicely over fishing rights:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands


If the Chinese would play nice with their neighbors, the US 7th Fleet could come home.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Seventh_Fleet

DragonBoy, take your propaganda elsewhere. 

I wish I could disagree with you. But I can't. Since they changed the composition in '01, it don't even make a decent joint.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=580GyjDTlc8