It doesn't matter anymore. The US government has so removed itself from anything even remotely resembling the law that the only reason the people don't rise up is a combination of fear and pure indoctrination. No one, except some university professors and misguided youths on this site, actually considers the government a legally valid entity.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
If no one considers them a legally-valid entity, why would they feel obliged to pay taxes?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Fear and/or indoctrination.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
If they are indoctrinated... wouldn't they believe they are a legally-valid entity via said indoctrination? I'm sure it's more than just youth and some professors that give validity to the government. (I understand the fear as a means to pay taxes, though).Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
My issue with reality is just fine, you just don't understand the definition of a democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
I'll clarify. By indoctrination, I mean that most people have a kind of cognitive dissonance when it comes to considering the objective legality of the government. They are indoctrinated to believe that the government needs to comply to some other legal order, that they themselves write. It's not a rational position derived from some common law basis, it's just their default position.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
Then you have people like Omnis, who feel the need to personally defend the government. This a case of hyper-indoctrination.
Wrong. I did no such thing. I simply clarified the definition of a democratic government for you. Claiming the government can do whatever it wants is false.
The difference between you and I is I would not have the wealthiest make the decisions for this country. I would give every man a vote for what kind of society is to be legitimized.
Did Obama just sign this damn thing into law???
That's what I'm seeing on a lot of 'fringe' sites, but I'm at work and don't have much time to do a lot of checking up on it. Can someone please verify whether or not it's true? :?
Yes I hear a few days ago he wasn't going to veto it.
Great. :?Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Last thing I've heard is that he abandoned his commitment to that veto..
Correct. So the law is essentially set to pass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meeps
Oh well. Maybe I'll run into some of you in a terrorist detention center one day! We can talk about dreams... since we could escape from prison there! A much-needed relief from the daily workings of a concentration camp for "terrorists" and "enemies of the state."
The sort of sickly amusing part of this is that when push comes to shove, the authorities are going to do what they are going to do with or without this law. Its a sham and its getting harder and harder to deny it.
This goes against everything I believe in. I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just saying any person who thinks "the government can do whatever they want" and is not currently stock piling bombs is a waste of fucking life in my opinion. Not even a monarchy is free of its responsibility to the constituency.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
The reason our government does whatever it wants is because the people that created our government, the banks and major industries, are winning the PR war. They have people fooled into thinking being poor means you're lazy and being critical means you're a communist/terrorist. Furthermore, they have people fooled into thinking our Polyarchy is a democracy.
I'll just leave this right here.
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
Bring down the go-over-men t!
Sounds like terrorist talk. TO THE DETENTION CENTER FOR YOU!Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
(Also, I didn't know whether or not I should have posted that quote from the Declaration of Independence; I think that document may be outdated... it doesn't sound like something our governing body would very much like us to say about them... even though it's one of their own founding documents. I'd suggest using it as a doormat, but then the Constitution would serve no purpose... that's pretty much it's only function now.)
The fact is, the first revolution was only ever half finished to start with.
Thought his was interesting.
Two Retired Four-Star Generals write NY Times, demanding that President Obama veto NDAA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/op...ever.html?_r=1
The American Revolution? Was it really even a revolution in the first place?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Looks like Obama is not signing it :) He left it unsigned when he went to Hawaii, pocket veto ftw.
He'll sign it. If he was going to veto it because of its unconstitutionality, he would have called a press conference and said just that. It would have scored him a HUGE bonus in the polls for the next election, as he would be 'the defender of rights'. My guess is that he'll sign it in the most sneaky way possible, away from the press, and probably during some other crisis so that no one notices.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
I actually do think it's a pocket veto. If he wanted to veto it, Congress could easily find a 2/3 majority to override it (it was passed with overwhelming support.) A pocket veto is the only way he could get it vetoed without Congress over-riding it. He'd have to sign it in two days, will he be back from Hawaii by then?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
If he does sign it... well screw him.
I don't know why you have so much faith in his intentions. Since he took office, he hasn't made one single mention of repealing the Patriot Act, which in terms of civil rights, is a far more damaging piece of paper than this bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
Then why did he leave it, he knows the protectors of the constitution won't let him just sneak it by. The ACLU is ever vigilant with things like this. He knows that if he signs it, the ACLU will notice, release a statement against it, and his numbers will drop again. This isn't something that he can just sign and sweep under the rug.