Democracy, your days are numbered.

I occurred to me the other day that nothing really ever lasts, without regular maintenance buildings would crumble and even with it they still would someday fall. The same goes for cultures and civilizations, over time they evolve beyond what they once were or die out. Then it came to me that government is the same way. We’ve seen many that times over no one government has ever withstood the test of time. If Rome could fall so easily it’d be hubris to think it couldn’t happen to us. By growth or by sword democracy in the U.S. will fall.

If you’ve been paying attention to the state of our system you’ll see that the feud between Democrats and Republicans is getting fiercer. Shenanigans like the Texas democrats running away and seeking refuge in nearby Oklahoma and the “Government Shutdown” of the Clinton era are merely portents of things to come. Hell now the parties have taken to suing each other (or threats of anyhow) at every turn, and it scares me greatly to think that the people we put in office to arbitrate over the proper way to run our govt. are in need of arbitration themselves. So I have to wonder if our democracy is going to fall due to outside influences in a future I’ll likely never live to see or if it’s going to collapse upon itself sooner that I’d like to think. Still the end result will be the same, which is that Democracy in the U.S. is not as absolute as we might think.

Your thoughts?
What do you think will happen to the U.S. government? Will it fall and if so how, or will it evolve?

The Texas senators went to New Mexico.

As for the US government, it's certainly not going to fall. It's been evolving from day one, and will continue to do so.

The basic principles of democracy will always be with us.

What democracy? :p

The empire will fall just like any other empire in history. That's all I have to say about that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icepop

That's all I have to say about that!

---

Good, because I've already heard enough out of you.

:yuck:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShineAqua

Your thoughts?
What do you think will happen to the U.S. government? Will it fall and if so how, or will it evolve?

---

Any student of history will tell you what happens to empires. They fall. There is no way that the US will avoid that fate, especially when you consider the corruption, inequality, and the current state of affairs. It is well beyond repairable. It's really just a question of what will happen and when it will happen - that is truly anyone's guess. It's not a matter of "outside sources" either. The problem is within and it is an astounding lack of true democracy. Regardless, because I believe in and care about the people my hope is that whatever happens goes down as peacefully as possible. :)

My own personal hunch is that the past few years have made it obvious that the end is a lot sooner than I previously thought. The gross inequality on the global and national scale is bound to give sooner or later. The rate at which the cracks are becoming more and more visable to the common man is just increasing. The audacious gauntlet which has been laid down by the greedy will eventually catch up to them. Change is in inevitable. I just hope it's more of a "transition" than World War III, even if it is incredibly unlikely. :\

...

That's all, I'm out. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OmniGear

The Texas senators went to New Mexico.

---

Sorry, a thread here had them going to Oklahoma, but whatever you get the point.

Quote:

---

As for the US government, it's certainly not going to fall. It's been evolving from day one, and will continue to do so.

The basic principles of democracy will always be with us.

---

The basic principle of democracy may always be with us (the
global community) but all it would take to lose them here in the states is one power hungry president and an army willing to back him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sggg

Any student of history will tell you what happens to empires. They fall. There is no way that the US will avoid that fate, especially when you consider the corruption, inequality, and the current state of affairs. It is well beyond repairable. It's really just a question of what will happen and when it will happen - that is truly anyone's guess. It's not a matter of "outside sources" either. The problem is within and it is an astounding lack of true democracy. Regardless, because I believe in and care about the people my hope is that whatever happens goes down as peacefully as possible. :)

My own personal hunch is that the past few years have made it obvious that the end is a lot sooner than I previously thought. The gross inequality on the global and national scale is bound to give sooner or later. The rate at which the cracks are becoming more and more visable to the common man is just increasing. The audacious gauntlet which has been laid down by the greedy will eventually catch up to them. Change is in inevitable. I just hope it's more of a "transition" than World War III, even if it is incredibly unlikely. :\

...

That's all, I'm out. ;)

---

So...what exactly will happen? What big change is going to take place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShineAqua

The basic principle of democracy may always be with us (the
global community) but all it would take to lose them here in the states is one power hungry president and an army willing to back him.

---

This isn't Nazi Germany, man.

That scenario is so far fetched it's not even funny.

all empires have some span of "life span" right - a couple hundred years or something? I can agree with the post above regarding all empires eventually falling... To me, as a person living in Houston, the Enron scandal was another 'starting' crack in the seemingly shiny world of corporate America, and it seems as the years go by, the pollyannaish facade that has been built up in America is starting to decay and get worn away from the inside out. Who knows what'll happen though...

Roman Empire < 3000 Years
American Republic < 300 Years
New(er) World Order < 3 Years


Got Milk?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OmniGear

So...what exactly will happen? What big change is going to take place?

---

Neither he, nor I, never claimed to have all the answers. Like he said it "is truely anyones guess" as to what will happen but it will happen

Quote:

---

.This isn't Nazi Germany, man.

That scenario is so far fetched it's not even funny.

---

At one point the thought of a civil war was far fetched. Now when you get accepted to one of the military academys' down here they make you sign an oath of loyalty to the south should we find ourselves in annother civil war.

I'd also like to note that if all the loonies who are "preparing themselves for the comming race war/civil war/war against american tyrany etc." were to organize, they'd prove to be a sizable force. Ineffective and incompetant maybe, but still large enough to pose a problem for the military.

I have faith and confidence that whatever ills our Democratic government may suffer from now, Arnold will surely fix them after being sworn into office, with double-barrell shotgun and gatling gun in-hand :D

It'll all be taken over by the corporations. Read The Best Democracy Money Can Buy by Greg Palast. Especially if you're considering voting next year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OmniGear

This isn't Nazi Germany, man.

That scenario is so far fetched it's not even funny.

---

Germany was democratic before the Nazis took power, you know.

The US system is pretty outdated compared with most other democratic countries, and unfortunately the balance of power really isn't in the hands of common people any more. It's only a matter of time before everyone realized that it's time for a serious change (hopefully for the better).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShineAqua

Sorry, a thread here had them going to Oklahoma, but whatever you get the point.

---

Actually, they are in New Mexico now, not Oklahoma.

I can't honestly imagine that things are going to continue on their current path. Whether that means an end to the United States brand of "democracy", I can't say. In my own opinion, I'd actually prefer major changes to the way U.S. government operates. Everything is secrets and lies. For some reason the goverment won't release the entirety of the 9/11 report and we still have't found anything in Iraq. That's just the current administration.

In reality, I don't see things changing any time soon. Most people don't really care about the stuff that goes on every day in this country and until people pay attention, the government will continue to take them from behind.

SC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShineAqua

Sorry, a thread here had them going to Oklahoma, but whatever you get the point.

---

No, you had it right. Like about 48 of them fled to Oklahoma a few months ago, and 11/12 of them have now fled to New Mexico... The governor called a special summer session since they bailed out last time to stop a vote on redistricting... But, of course, there they went again... slippery rascals... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sggg

The gross inequality on the global and national scale is bound to give sooner or later. The audacious gauntlet which has been laid down by the greedy will eventually catch up to them. Change is in inevitable. I just hope it's more of a "transition" than World War III, even if it is incredibly unlikely. :\

---

Why, if I didn't know any better, I'd say comrade sggg was talkin' about a...oh, i dunno, perhaps a...REVOLUTION REVOLUTION REVOLUTION!!!11 ;) The shackles of oppression and injustice can no longer contain those yearning to be free!! The time is upon us...

*fervorously shakes clenched fist in the air*
http://rigg.servegame.com/ib_html/uploads/fist.gif

Well, all joking aside, it does seems we're headed for a clash of civilizations... sggg, you don't have to give me nightmares about it, though ;)... Got enough to worry about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightWolve

No, you had it right. Like about 48 of them fled to Oklahoma a few months ago, and 11/12 of them have now fled to New Mexico.

---

Why would anyone want to flee to Oklahoma? Most of the time people are fleeing from Oklahoma. My information is a little sketchy since I've only been back in the U.S. for a little over a week now.

Revolution isn't all the much of a joke. The U.S. came about thanks to a revolution. Sometimes it's healthy to start over from scratch, see if there is a better way of doing things. At this point, I'm open to any suggestion that will keep people like "dubya" and "Ahnuld" from obtaining or even running for political office.

SC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spacecowboy

Why would anyone want to flee to Oklahoma? Most of the time people are fleeing from Oklahoma. My information is a little sketchy since I've only been back in the U.S. for a little over a week now.

---

WB btw; we wondered what happened to our "favorite" Iranian, aside from Abobo :).

Yeah, here it goes (it was 58 of them the first time around). Didn't really matter what state, as long as the cowards got protection across the border.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spacecowboy

Revolution isn't all the much of a joke. The U.S. came about thanks to a revolution. Sometimes it's healthy to start over from scratch, see if there is a better way of doing things.

---

Well, our revolution was a successful one at that :). Forgive me if I'm not interested in more atm, especially by ideologies (revised or not) that liquidated millions in the past...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spacecowboy

At this point, I'm open to any suggestion that will keep people like "dubya" and "Ahnuld" from obtaining or even running for political office.

---

Heh, still bashing Bush I see - now that's the SC I remember... And hey, give Arnold a chance... Ya never know :p. "Conan the republican" does have a nice ring to it.

America seems to have been founded on the principles of revolution. However, at this point the idea would seem, to me, to be a detriment to getting anything done. Look at the way we live our lives. So much seems founded on revolution that no real revolution has much of a chance of taking place. We just see too much of it every day. Not necessarily real revolution, mind you, but enough action to make us think that things are changing.
Many people seem caught up in personal revolutions, brought on by the media playing on our insecurities: Beauty, sexuality, clothing, etc... too busy to really look at the bigger picture?
Mind you, I'm fresh out of college, and so seeing many ideas and events as sucking up to The Man or not. Just thought I ought to impart my bias.

Anyway, I would agree that recent events, especially what I see as a government working towards a tyrannical driving of the economy into the ground, seem one of a multitude of signs that the nation's situation is quite dire.

On the other hand, every generation whines about how "these punk kids" are going to be the end of us, so what do I know?

It doesn't take much to make a Hitler. Just a really bad depression and lots of stupid people.

As far as the US there might be a new reform party someday. I don't know who will back it however sense the wealth of the nation seems to already back the two current parties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShineAqua

The basic principle of democracy may always be with us (the
global community) but all it would take to lose them here in the states is one power hungry president and an army willing to back him.

---

...and a Congress willing to sign away its balance-of-power guaranteed in the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedCoKid

...and a Congress willing to sign away its balance-of-power guaranteed in the Constitution.

---

I doubte that will mean much against millitary force. Ink on paper only means as much as people want it to mean. It probably won't mean much compared to the fear of death.

Assuming he was talking about a coupe backed by the millitary.

Everyone just ignore that. I feel cranky today.

I don't see anything wrong; same as it's ever been. And everyone knew there was going to be something along the lines of civil war, that's why they specifically forbid even bringing the topic up within the first 20 years after the Constitution was put into place.

With regard to republicans: OMFG TEH BIG GAY ALEPHANT!111

Regard to subject: Doesn't bother me in the slightest. :s

Now the Bush family's ties to the Bin Laden's is well known by now. Did you know about the Bush family ties to Hitler? George W. Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, had his stocks in Nazi steel manufacturing removed by Congress in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Green

Now the Bush family's ties to the Bin Laden's is well known by now. Did you know about the Bush family ties to Hitler? George W. Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, had his stocks in Nazi steel manufacturing removed by Congress in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

---

Nothing wrong with that. No one knew what Hitler was up to at that point. He took power completely legally, and turned Germany round into a successful nation. I'd want stocks in his steel too.

Nazi!

"When the revolution comes
some of us will catch it on TV
with chicken hanging from our mouths
you'll know it's revolution
because there won't be no commercials
when the revolution comes"
-Last Poets..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icepop

What democracy? :p

The empire will fall just like any other empire in history. That's all I have to say about that!

---

I've been of this school of thought for some time now.

Neo-Roman Empire = USA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maruchan

"When the revolution comes
some of us will catch it on TV
with chicken hanging from our mouths
you'll know it's revolution
because there won't be no commercials
when the revolution comes"
-Last Poets..

---

We want revolution,
Constant evolution,
Start your engines, blow your fuses, burn the bridges to the future,
This is our solution...
We want revolution.

-Covenant

I think that our dependance of foreign labor for basic manufacturing really hurts our ability to reconstruct if a country such as China decides to stop trade. We are too much of a service industry, and inexperience with manufacturing will be very detrimental if there are needs for warehouses to manufacture war goods.

I'm not saying that the US government will fall anytime soon, but over time, we shall become more of a self-dependent nation, while also holding calm foreign relations. Otherwise, the US will eventually lose power, and another country will become in the limelight. I'm just curious if when power does weaken (it's inevitable), whether the country will remain unified or split up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by red_war_machine

Nothing wrong with that. No one knew what Hitler was up to at that point. He took power completely legally, and turned Germany round into a successful nation. I'd want stocks in his steel too.

---

Legally...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brisco Bold

Legally...?

---

Yep. His party won a bunch of seats in the election. Pres. Hindenburg nominated him for chancellor and he was confirmed by one vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brisco Bold

Legally...?

---

Yep.

<DIV><DIV style="MARGIN: 0px 1mm; tab-stops: 18.8pt">In November 1932 elections the Nazis again failed to get a majority of seats in the Reichstag. Their share of the vote fell – from 230 seats to only 196. </DIV><DIV style="MARGIN: 0px 1mm; tab-stops: 18.8pt"> </DIV><DIV style="MARGIN: 0px 1mm; tab-stops: 18.8pt">Franz von Papen (a friend of Hindenburg) was Chancellor, but he could not get enough support in the Reichstag. Hindenburg and von Papen were having to govern by emergency decree under Article 48 of the Constitution. They offered Hitler the post of vice-Chancellor if he promised to support them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brisco Bold

Legally...?

---

Yep.

Source:

<DIV><DIV style="MARGIN: 0px 1mm; tab-stops: 18.8pt"><FONT size=2>[quote]In November 1932 elections the Nazis again failed to get a majority of seats in the Reichstag. Their share of the vote fell – from 230 seats to only 196.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brisco Bold

Legally...?

---

:wtf: Aren't you a history major or something? The fact that Hitler took power legally is like common knowledge.

Yep.

Source:

<DIV><DIV style="MARGIN: 0px 1mm; tab-stops: 18.8pt"><FONT size=2>[quote]In November 1932 elections the Nazis again failed to get a majority of seats in the Reichstag. Their share of the vote fell – from 230 seats to only 196.

Yep.

Source:

<DIV><DIV style="MARGIN: 0px 1mm; tab-stops: 18.8pt"><FONT size=2>[quote]In November 1932 elections the Nazis again failed to get a majority of seats in the Reichstag. Their share of the vote fell – from 230 seats to only 196.

Yeah, I am.

In 1933 Hitler burnt the reichstag, blamed it on the commies, got the Prez to declare a state of emergency that suspended all human rights, then set out to kill and rough up all politcal opponents he hadn't killed and roughed up already. Then on March 23 of 1933 Hitler passed the Enabling Act which effectively eliminated the Reichstag, making Hitler the sole emblem of power in Germany. He then took apart the Weimar Republic, arguably the best constitution the world had seen.


Before this he was only Chancellor. Yes he had a large share of seats in the reichstage, but this was due to corporal discipline administered by his thugs to political opponents and the econmic climate. The state of emergency allowed him to take full control.

In books, Hitler's rise is always referred to as "legally" not legally. :p

Well he was voted in by the people, and that's all that matters to me! :p

Do you wanna quiz me about the last American election too? :)

Yeah...who won? ;)

Hitler didn't exactly "take power" legally. :wtf:

Where you guys are confused is that the Nazis did win a national election (without a majority of the votes, mind you). Hitler truly gained his power by seizing the Chancellory. The old guard thought they could use Hitler and his party but Hitler got the last laugh my manipulating them and seizing and consolidating all the power in the country. Once Hitler became Chancellor the word "legal" was meaningless, he had all the power.

That's it in a nutshell, it should not be hard to find more information about this if anyone is curious.


ps. This situation is not that comperable to the US. The US' problems are quite different. The problem is the danger of an evil man or evil party all of a sudden seizing power. The problem is who already has the power (and the money) and the fact that the common citizens have none and no chance to get it, because of the way the country was designed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sggg

ps. This situation is not that comperable to the US. The US' problems are quite different. The problem is the danger of an evil man or evil party all of a sudden seizing power. The problem is who already has the power (and the money) and the fact that the common citizens have none and no chance to get it, because of the way the country was designed.

---

Like I said. Neo-Roman Empire.

Common citizens have no chance at money or power? That sounds damn self-defeatist if you ask me. Of course you won't get anywhere if don't think you can, and thinking you can only serves as the motivation. I'm not going to be a blind-fool and say anyone with a hope and a dream can get what they want, because that just isn't true. But if that hope and dream drives someone to work like hell toward their goal, I think they can get where they want. Call me a foolish optimist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sggg

. This situation is not that comperable to the US. The US' problems are quite different. The problem is the danger of an evil man or evil party all of a sudden seizing power. The problem is who already has the power (and the money) and the fact that the common citizens have none and no chance to get it, because of the way the country was designed.

---

I don't really understand this mindset. Do you guys really think extreme wealth is that far out of your reach? It doesn't seem that way to me - and I don't come from a wealthy family, I was raised by a single parent, so on. I'd be more pessimistic about my future if I knew I had 60% tax rates beating me down, destroying my ability to compound savings.

I make twice as much as the average American now, and I'm 22 fucking years old - why? Of course, I'm not saying I have power, or money, now, but I've got a good shot at it, if I want it.

Sure, Bush Jr. came from a fine line of distinguished Connecticutians, but what about Reagan, or Clinton? Schwartzenegger was an Austrian immigrant who moved here 35 years ago, and now lives in a $18 million house and has a good shot on becoming the governor of the 5th largest economy in the world simply by dint of force of character.

I think a lot of people have very little chance at getting money, or power - like those of you who think like sggg, for example. That's hardly society's fault.

Accumulation of wealth by the few at the expense of the masses is a reality in the US. The whole "American Dream" is based on it. A large portion of the population is living below the poverty line barely able to afford housing / food, etc. and an elite few are able to accumulate ridiculous amounts of wealth ... this is not a democracy.

democracy has nothing to do with distribution of wealth, its the voting system. The stength of the american system is that people can accumulate wealth according to their work ethic and their abilities. despite the far left claptrap the net breeds, one does not accumulate nor maintain a sizeable fortune by being lazy nor incompetent. there are wealthy in every corner of the world, just because they get taxed more in certain countries than others does not mean that the wealth is any more fairly distributed , they still could raise the standard of living of the poorer by sacrificing more of their wealth, but that stifles the very spirit of economic progress, why work harder if you gain noting more for your labor? This whole thread is a sour grapes fest for the far left, we get the point, you dont like bush, we got it, now you can go back to grumbling about the evils of capitalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icepop

Accumulation of wealth by the few at the expense of the masses is a reality in the US. The whole "American Dream" is based on it. A large portion of the population is living below the poverty line barely able to afford housing / food, etc. and an elite few are able to accumulate ridiculous amounts of wealth ... this is not a democracy.

---

Well, this isn't a democracy so much as it is a republic, but neither have much to do with personal wealth. A place where all of the population is relatively equal in terms of finances would be a socialist country.

Besides, the elite few with a ton of money are the ones giving me a job should I want one. :p

Back on topic here, one of the many signs that a nation is in it's twilight are in it's lack of adherence to the principles on which it was built. They are first compromised for the good of the people - this is where we're at (read: U.S. Patriot Act, it's a small sacrifice :rolleyes: ) - followed by some healthy reinterpritations so convoluted that lawers would blush at their mastery over the art of bastardizing a language, and finally out right betrayal of said principles.

Annother problem is over legislation. If you told George Washington that someday the govt. would be able to tell you what to eat, what to drink, what not to do to your body/life and so on he would've never bothered taking office. Fat tax? Why bother? It's just annother means by which the govt. would exert it's supremecy over the poor masses (the most likely to eat at fast food places) while catering to the rich and taking an almost totalitarian approach to "helping us make healthier choices." They'd outlaw stress before they outlaw tobacco or liquor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icepop

Accumulation of wealth by the few at the expense of the masses is a reality in the US. The whole "American Dream" is based on it. A large portion of the population is living below the poverty line barely able to afford housing / food, etc. and an elite few are able to accumulate ridiculous amounts of wealth ... this is not a democracy.

---

This country offers the opportunity to gain wealth to everyone. I've gone from the poverty line to making two Americans' worth of money, and I'm 22.

Yeah, there are a lot of people who aren't going to be able to be as wealthy as they'd like. I agree, it is kind of sad that something like half of the people in America make less than the average American salary.

Nonetheless, most of the people below that median still live good lives - they have heat, they've got water, a car, cable, libraries, free schooling, scholarships, and the ability to improve themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShineAqua

Back on topic here, one of the many signs that a nation is in it's twilight are in it's lack of adherence to the principles on which it was built. They are first compromised for the good of the people - this is where we're at (read: U.S. Patriot Act, it's a small sacrifice :rolleyes: ) - followed by some healthy reinterpritations so convoluted that lawers would blush at their mastery over the art of bastardizing a language, and finally out right betrayal of said principles.

Annother problem is over legislation. If you told George Washington that someday the govt. would be able to tell you what to eat, what to drink, what not to do to your body/life and so on he would've never bothered taking office. Fat tax? Why bother? It's just annother means by which the govt. would exert it's supremecy over the poor masses (the most likely to eat at fast food places) while catering to the rich and taking an almost totalitarian approach to "helping us make healthier choices." They'd outlaw stress before they outlaw tobacco or liquor.

---

One of the other things the Founding Fathers wanted was a union that could keep seperate from each other. Meaning wht MA does is its own business while FL can do as it will. Now, the federal government owns state government in terms of law-making, governing, etc. The government wants to outlaw fast food, tax cigarettes, tax driving, tell you what is an 'acceptable' age for children to learn about sex, teach political, social, and personal rhetoric in government-run 'public' schools, tell the poor that no, you can't have a voucher for private schools - we created this crap public education system and we're going to continue funneling you down it, like it or not. They use school as 'social conditioning' or social promotion rather than teaching. They tell you whether or not it's alright (welfare is good and you're an uncaring rapist if you don't agree) to believe in something before you're even given a chance to decide whether or not you actually do.

It goes on and on...if Washington knew that a state would be taxing for owning a car, and then tripling the amount, he'd kill himself. Same for property tax, property regulation laws (did you know my grandfather had to construct a wall on top of his his backyard wall because it's illegal to have your water heater visible from the street? WTF?). How come a government can tell you what you can and can't do with a house you paid for, and then tax you on top of that? We use 'freedom of speech' as a reason to criticize everything and everyone for any and no reason whatsoever, some constructive, some not. Then on the same hand, we use seperation of church and state as a reason to persecute religions, rather than the intended purpose to prevent pursecution of those who want to practice whatever they believe in.

To me, the intentions were 'I'm okay, you're okay' or basically, let people be as long as they are self-sufficient. A person makes due on their own, and should have the liberty to do as they please with what they have. I know a lot of retorts to this idea (well, Washington never knew there would be monopolies, he only was thinking of 13 states, not 50, federal government MUST help us, because we can't possibly take care of ourselves, it takes a village to raise a child, et al.) and if you don't agree with me when I say the worse 'downfall' of America is overly socialization, standardization, one-size fits all mentality, then fine. But if I can accept the fact you won't agree with me, accept the fact that I won't with you.

I'm okay - you're okay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShineAqua

Back on topic here, one of the many signs that a nation is in it's twilight are in it's lack of adherence to the principles on which it was built. They are first compromised for the good of the people - this is where we're at (read: U.S. Patriot Act, it's a small sacrifice :rolleyes: )

---

See the Sedition Act of 1798.

Quote:

---

They use school as 'social conditioning' or social promotion rather than teaching. They tell you whether or not it's alright (welfare is good and you're an uncaring rapist if you don't agree) to believe in something before you're even given a chance to decide whether or not you actually do.

---

I don't recall any overt social conditioning in public
school. Maybe you had passionate teachers or something? I had one that would go on about the constitution and how something great was started in America, and hell, I just figured he cared a lot about it instead of trying to corrupt me into his view as part of a plot by the government =\

The only school I went to that had rampant "conditioning" was the christian private school I was at for a few months(I was at a catholic private school for years before, mind you, so I mistakenly thought this one would be on par). . .well, here's my short comment on that school I made on this site over a year ago:

"I was in a christian school for those few months( I got out quickly).

they taught us to hate Darwin,Marx,Lenin,Freud, and Uncle Tom's Cabin.


I really wish I kept that textbook.
"

It wasn't teaching, there were chapters full of put downs. Making fun of Harriet Beecher Stowe's family and such.

Quote:

---

overly socialization

---

What is this moderate socialization you're alright with?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rezo

The only school I went to that had rampant "conditioning" was the christian private school I was at for a few months(I was at a catholic private school for years before, mind you, so I mistakenly thought this one would be on par). . .well, here's my short comment on that school I made on this site over a year ago:

"I was in a christian school for those few months( I got out quickly).

they taught us to hate Darwin,Marx,Lenin,Freud, and Uncle Tom's Cabin.


I really wish I kept that textbook.
"

It wasn't teaching, there were chapters full of put downs. Making fun of Harriet Beecher Stowe's family and such.



What is this moderate socialization you're alright with?

---

I would have loved to have gone to that school, if only to see people actually take that stuff seriously.

The history book(where all of these topics were brought up) taught creationism. Apparently Noah's five(?) sons seperated to different continents with their wives and started all of the individual races.

The history teacher seemed to be behind most of the topics. He would rant occasionally about how stupid people that believed evolution were. He was also the best teacher there. =\

the PE coach "taught" two of my other classes and would often ditch to play soccer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sggg

Hitler didn't exactly "take power" legally. :wtf:

Where you guys are confused is that the Nazis did win a national election (without a majority of the votes, mind you). Hitler truly gained his power by seizing the Chancellory. The old guard thought they could use Hitler and his party but Hitler got the last laugh my manipulating them and seizing and consolidating all the power in the country. Once Hitler became Chancellor the word "legal" was meaningless, he had all the power.

That's it in a nutshell, it should not be hard to find more information about this if anyone is curious.

---

What? He won a national election, but couldn't take power because they had a system of proportional representation. The President appointed him Chancellor, they merged with another party, and the Enabling Act was passed by the Reichstag as they effectively voted themselves out of existence.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that whatsoever. The act which gave Hitler the power of a dictator was voted for by a majority in the German parliament, after the President had used HIS legal power to declare Hitler leader.

He never "seized" the chancellory, he was given it after a succession of Chancellors had completely failed to improve Germany's economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by red_war_machine

What? He won a national election, but couldn't take power because they had a system of proportional representation. The President appointed him Chancellor, they merged with another party, and the Enabling Act was passed by the Reichstag as they effectively voted themselves out of existence.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that whatsoever. The act which gave Hitler the power of a dictator was voted for by a majority in the German parliament, after the President had used HIS legal power to declare Hitler leader.

He never "seized" the chancellory, he was given it after a succession of Chancellors had completely failed to improve Germany's economy.

---

There is still nothing legal about his rise to power. Roughing up and killing political opponents was not acceptable in the Weimar Constitution. Hitler did this before the Enabling act was passed, before he even became chancellor. It looks legal, but look at the primary documents from the era. Dude, it's not LEGAL.

Ask any scholar. Read any scholarly journal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brisco Bold

There is still nothing legal about his rise to power. Roughing up and killing political opponents was not acceptable in the Weimar Constitution. Hitler did this before the Enabling act was passed, before he even became chancellor. It looks legal, but look at the primary documents from the era. Dude, it's not LEGAL.

Ask any scholar. Read any scholarly journal.

---

Hang on, regardless of that, his appointment as chancellor, and his taking of the reins of power in Germany were both legal. Yeah, okay, there was other stuff. But that doesn't make his appointment as dictator of Germany any less legally solid.

Yeah, but killing people to get there isn't legal. The killing was the necessary condition for "legal" power. So, in order for him to take "legal" control over the government, he has to do something patently illegal (not to mention follow it up with more illegal ish).

As I said, talk to any prof of History, read any scholarly journal; it wasn't legal.

P.S. Contribute more to Pancakes. :)

*peeks in*

Another stupid fucking thread...