Thread: How free are we?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I didn't know the media worked for the government.

Wow, that's funny, I didn't know I said that they did.

What I am saying is that the people who own the media are the same people who buy off politicians. Surely you don't believe the Government is pure and untainted from corrupt corporation lobbyists with agendas. If you do, then I guess there's nothing more that needs to be said to you.

No one is speaking for all Americans. I defy you to tell me you've not generalized a group of people. And do tell us, a great one, what constitutes a discussion worthy of your eyes?

Originally Posted by Rainman

Wow, that's funny, I didn't know I said that they did.

I know you didn't. A common symptom of ass-talkitis is not even realizing what you're saying since none of your thoughts are connected or based in reality. You said when people get suspicious of the government, the media promptly finds a story to distract them from their suspicians, such as "queers getting married." What are the implications of that statement?

Originally Posted by Rainman

What I am saying is that the people who own the media are the same people who buy off politicians.

You don't know that. I assume you're a young person who is still in school like most of the people here, but you're telling me you somehow got some inside information from the world of political intrigue? You are rambling on about things you couldn't possibly know, how is that not talking out of your ass? The government and the media are closer to being enemies than business partners.

Originally Posted by Rainman

No one is speaking for all Americans. I defy you to tell me you've not generalized a group of people. And do tell us, a great one, what constitutes a discussion worthy of your eyes?

Generalizing would be if I said "everybody" was talking out of their ass. I said "some of you," which was directed at a select few and is not a generalization but a truthful statement. A real discussion would involve less ass-talking, more facts and more logic.

Originally Posted by Rainman

Think about it... how much shit has been passed and overlooked by dumb shit stupid, mind-warped Americans in the best interests of protecting our precious "freedom?!"

Originally Posted by Rainman

The Government and the elite are systematically removing our actual freedom in the name of of "preserving" it!

Originally Posted by Rainman

And as soon as any of the idiots get a feeling anything "fishy" is going on, what does the media decide to do?

"Uh... hey! Look over there... queers are trying to get married! <distract><DISTRACT>"

Originally Posted by Rainman

It really is mind control, in a form. It really is mass brainwashing. I agree with Tausaur, (I think it was him) who said that media is at least a reflection of ourselves. But I disagree, man... I think it's a reflection of how we THINK we WANT to be. Or at least that's how it originally began, and now we're so screwed into it, that all of this mind melting garbage is entertainment for us; this is what we are.

Just in case you forgot.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Generalizing would be if I said "everybody" was talking out of their ass. I said "some of you," which was directed at a select few and is not a generalization but a truthful statement. A real discussion would involve less ass-talking, more facts and more logic.

Rhetoric works both ways, and you're pretty much as guilty as anyone else in this thread.

Just couldn't go without being said.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Rhetoric works both ways, and you're pretty much as guilty as anyone else in this thread.

Just couldn't go without being said.

Except techincally what I said wasn't rhetoric. (And my earlier comments weren't directed towards you.)

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I don't like how some of you here think you can speak for all Americans, like you're the enlightened ones and everyone else is just stupid. I'm American and I don't agree with a lot of what has been said here. It looks to me like a bunch of people talking out of their asses rather than a real discussion.

If you feel that the current state of affairs is being misrepresented, why not share your opinion on the subject? Why are we free, and how free are we? Is the current government sticking to the american ideals and principles of liberty, or have the sold us up the creak without a paddle?

I honestly don't get it. We are supposed to be a capitalist country with free speech and a free market, yet we bailed out all these failing companies. WTF. How is that a free market or even capitalist policy? That is politicians paying back the asswipes who put them in power.

We have free speech, but you only get heard if you have enough money, and the market is rigged so that the same people keep making more money and the value of it continually declines(though in reality it isn't based on anything, which is a big problem itself).

I feel like I have a relative degree of freedom. But to say that we are a free country is a broad overstatement. I can't even smoke weed in my own house(supposing I owned one) legally. I had absolutely no power to stop the Iraq war from happening or the bailout. These were major fucking issues, there should be at least some kind of a vote, at least so that politicians are aware of public opinion. Sure, I could go stand on a street corner and protest, but that accomplishes little to nothing. So long as the republicans and democrats are in power, we have little to no power to change our government for the positive, because you have 2 groups of dumb, just plain dumb fucks, vying for power and control. The two party system is a failure and we need to change this. Personally, I'd rather we get rid of the whole government and switch to a kind of voluntarist system, based locally within communities, but I see this as unlikely to happen in the near future. But at the very least we need to get rid of this ridiculous electoral college. It serves no purpose other than to keep anyone who isn't a Retard or a Dumbass from getting elected(not that the office of president has any real power to change the situation anyway. In hindsight, I need to stop trying to think of how to fix the government, it's the government. This is like trying to fix your stove so that it doesn't burn you; violence is inherent in the system).

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Curt Kobain killed himself because he was a depressed drug addict with with bipolar disorder and hated the world and had a shitty childhood.

I would bet that if it weren't for the mtv consumer culture he wouldn't have done this, but his music probably wouldn't have been nearly as good.

So? Make a difference and lead by example.

Freedom and freewill are two completely different things.

Originally Posted by stonedape

If you feel that the current state of affairs is being misrepresented, why not share your opinion on the subject? Why are we free, and how free are we? Is the current government sticking to the american ideals and principles of liberty, or have the sold us up the creak without a paddle?

I honestly don't get it. We are supposed to be a capitalist country with free speech and a free market, yet we bailed out all these failing companies. WTF. How is that a free market or even capitalist policy? That is politicians paying back the asswipes who put them in power.

We have free speech, but you only get heard if you have enough money, and the market is rigged so that the same people keep making more money and the value of it continually declines(though in reality it isn't based on anything, which is a big problem itself).

I feel like I have a relative degree of freedom. But to say that we are a free country is a broad overstatement. I can't even smoke weed in my own house(supposing I owned one) legally. I had absolutely no power to stop the Iraq war from happening or the bailout. These were major fucking issues, there should be at least some kind of a vote, at least so that politicians are aware of public opinion. Sure, I could go stand on a street corner and protest, but that accomplishes little to nothing. So long as the republicans and democrats are in power, we have little to no power to change our government for the positive, because you have 2 groups of dumb, just plain dumb fucks, vying for power and control. The two party system is a failure and we need to change this. Personally, I'd rather we get rid of the whole government and switch to a kind of voluntarist system, based locally within communities, but I see this as unlikely to happen in the near future. But at the very least we need to get rid of this ridiculous electoral college. It serves no purpose other than to keep anyone who isn't a Retard or a Dumbass from getting elected(not that the office of president has any real power to change the situation anyway. In hindsight, I need to stop trying to think of how to fix the government, it's the government. This is like trying to fix your stove so that it doesn't burn you; violence is inherent in the system).

I think we are no more or less free than the people of the stone age. Even in a prehistoric tribe of humans there is a social order, and in a social order the more powerful individuals control and influence the group to a certain extent. Just like in a group of gorillas, the silver back gets a highly disproportionate amount of the females while many of the less powerful males go without sex at all. In a group of gorillas, you have to stay in check or you answer to the silver back. That sort or relationship exists all over the animal kindom, even a pride of lions has a social order, or a bee hive. Societies can't function without order. Oneironaut made a good point when he said many people mistake freedom with being able to do whatever you want. You technically can do whatever you want, but there are consequences for your actions. Many people mistakenly see the enforcement of laws for the good of the society as a breach of human rights, granted laws can sometimes go too far. There have been many oppressive regimes in history, but America is not one of them. You can say what you want, pursue the career you want, marry who you want (unless you're gay but hopefully we change that soon,) travel where you want, go to school where you want, the list goes on and on. When you talk about the media controlling minds and influencing people, it is no more influencial than your family and friends. We look to other people to see how to behave, to see what is considered acceptable and what isn't. I believe someone already mentioned it, but the media is more a reflection of the social order that already exists than an institution of deliberate mind control.

You also mentioned that you aren't free because you had no say in the Iraq war, the government bailouts, and your voice isn't heard unless you have money. In a democratic nation, the citizens should have a say in major events, but those issues don't effect freedom. Freedom isn't about the ability to influence other people, it's only about yourself. You have the freedom to move to a new country if you don't like the old one. You also have the ability to rise to a position of power if you work hard and are competent, that's what it means to be free.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Except techincally what I said wasn't rhetoric. (And my earlier comments weren't directed towards you.)

It actually was. Not a single thing you said in that post had any stated fact behind it. It was simply your assessment of other people's views. Alone, it was no more substantial than anything anyone else has said in the thread.

And I wasn't sure if you were talking about me or not, but I just had to point that out.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

It actually was. Not a single thing you said in that post had any stated fact behind it. It was simply your assessment of other people's views. Alone, it was no more substantial than anything anyone else has said in the thread.

And I wasn't sure if you were talking about me or not, but I just had to point that out.

The fact was that people were talking out of their asses, the point was to challenge their views. Were my comments not warranted? Do you feel their portrayal of the government was honest and factual? I don't think it was, which is why I spoke up.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Originally Posted by Rainman

What I am saying is that the people who own the media are the same people who buy off politicians. Surely you don't believe the Government is pure and untainted from corrupt corporation lobbyists with agendas. If you do, then I guess there's nothing more that needs to be said to you.

You don't know that. I assume you're a young person who is still in school like most of the people here, but you're telling me you somehow got some inside information from the world of political intrigue? You are rambling on about things you couldn't possibly know, how is that not talking out of your ass? The government and the media are closer to being enemies than business partners.

Actually, in January, the Supreme Court made a ruling on corporations being in political campaign financing. They gave corporations the green light for unlimited financing and involvement in politics. Of course, corporate influence in politics has been happening for a long time through lobbying, but it was gradual. Now corporate influence will be an in-your-face run away train.

I've read of talks about it being repealed etc.. That isn't going to happen. The reason it isn't going to happen is because there was little to no uproar by Americans. A majority either don't care or don't really understand the implications of what doorway the ruling actually opened. The ruling's wording was so broad that foreign corporations can participate. That means U.S. politics is the playground of China, Russia, etc..

The media is a corporation, which they do practice bait and switch all the time. Is the government messed up? No, that is not the way to look at things. What is messed up are some of the people in the government. Two very different perspectives with two completely different meanings.

Believe it or not, I was actually self-grooming myself to be a Congressman in about twenty years. I had a platform, back-up plan if it fell through, and everything. Due to the ruling in January, I dropped the idea like a hot potato because it is no longer viable. There will never be enough like-minded people in the Congress or Senate etc. to actually make a difference towards the betterment of the U.S.. Now I'm going with my back-up plan, which is to still pursue Science based degrees and do what I love.

Does this mean I've given up as an American. No, I've come up with another strategy that anyone intelligent and with a moral compass can accomplish.

Freedom in the United States is under extreme attack. The healthcare bill that got passed just made us a lot less free. The government isn't just going to tax your voluntary activities. They are about to tax the Hell out of you just for existing.

Democrats are trying to ditch the Second Amendment and put an enormous dent in the First Amendment. They want to put people in jail for "hate speech". They also want to force people off the air if the views they express political views that are not balanced by expressions of the opposite views. The Fourth Amendment no longer exists when it comes to automobiles, except on paper. Republicans have been okay with that situation for a while now. A cop can pull you over for supposedly "swerving" and then claim he smells drugs and search your car. If he finds nothing, you have no complaint that can go anywhere. If he finds drugs, he can say he obviously had a reason to search your car. A cop faces no legal consequences for searching your car, EVER. There is no Fourth Amendment when you are in an automobile.

There are many cases of where freedom slipped away in a hurry in Europe. The same thing is happening in the United States. How a big government lover who surrounds himself politically with despiser of the United States and who never really did anything except make it to a state senate and then very quickly get into the U.S. Senate and do nothing worth mentioning there got elected president of the United States just because he is a good speaker is one of the scariest things I have ever seen. Freedom in the United States is in major trouble.

There is no doubt that the media brainwashes. Politics and the media both are just bigg acts. I was watching the Sarah Palin speech and I was almost sick as I am whenever I watch any speech from the media/politics. You can tell that it is an act too. The sheer wording of the speeches can tell you that. Our "representatives" are not people who are speaking their minds, but people who are reading from a script. What is even worse is that if you are familiar with brainwashing or hypnosis, you can tell that they use elements of it. "yes WE CAN America". I don't think that it is very necessary to drive a mantra into people's brain when you are to share your ideas. We need real ideas of real people. One prime example of the kind of person we need would have been Karl Marx. Rather you agree with his philosophy or not is beside the point, but he was someone who had true ideas.

Apart from the politics, Religion is a major contributor. Every time I go to church (I have to go with my parents who are baptist) I feel like I am listening to hypnosis. There is literaly NO difference in the way it is conducted.


-one speaker whom you trust (Preacher)
-repetition of the same message especially that it is so wonderful ( "And it will feel SO good when you do what I say" is probably the most common phrase in hypnosis, whereas "and there is absolutely nothing better than god's love" is most common in church
-Developing a need (hypnosis "and you will NEED to do this, because it is absolutely imperative" church "And you cannot live without god, because you need him if you want to be truly happy")

(also, I am not to say that I am an atheist. To me, it is quite possible that nothing is out there, but I think there may be something we just haven't got it right yet.

However, I would like to say that Hypnosis is not always a bad thing. Certainly, when you are born into brainwashing it is bad, but you must also remember that If someone wants to be Christian and they are basing the opinion from pure fact, they are giving up a freedom to be happy which I can accept.

Lastly, we Brainwash each other constantly. One of the biggest examples I can think of is gender. Of course Our bodies are different, but We dont HAVE to be strong because we are men, and women dont have to be feminine. Racisim is another prime example. We even preform racism on ourselves. Because everyone knows that black people are gangster and that we whites cant play basketball.

Ok, so my solution? increase education. Simply teach how recognize brainwashing and we are good. Now to tell that to the government funded schools...

Originally Posted by sheogorath

There is no doubt that the media brainwashes. Politics and the media both are just bigg acts. I was watching the Sarah Palin speech and I was almost sick as I am whenever I watch any speech from the media/politics. You can tell that it is an act too. The sheer wording of the speeches can tell you that. Our "representatives" are not people who are speaking their minds, but people who are reading from a script. What is even worse is that if you are familiar with brainwashing or hypnosis, you can tell that they use elements of it. "yes WE CAN America". I don't think that it is very necessary to drive a mantra into people's brain when you are to share your ideas. We need real ideas of real people. One prime example of the kind of person we need would have been Karl Marx. Rather you agree with his philosophy or not is beside the point, but he was someone who had true ideas.

Apart from the politics, Religion is a major contributor. Every time I go to church (I have to go with my parents who are baptist) I feel like I am listening to hypnosis. There is literaly NO difference in the way it is conducted.


-one speaker whom you trust (Preacher)
-repetition of the same message especially that it is so wonderful ( "And it will feel SO good when you do what I say" is probably the most common phrase in hypnosis, whereas "and there is absolutely nothing better than god's love" is most common in church
-Developing a need (hypnosis "and you will NEED to do this, because it is absolutely imperative" church "And you cannot live without god, because you need him if you want to be truly happy")

(also, I am not to say that I am an atheist. To me, it is quite possible that nothing is out there, but I think there may be something we just haven't got it right yet.

However, I would like to say that Hypnosis is not always a bad thing. Certainly, when you are born into brainwashing it is bad, but you must also remember that If someone wants to be Christian and they are basing the opinion from pure fact, they are giving up a freedom to be happy which I can accept.

Lastly, we Brainwash each other constantly. One of the biggest examples I can think of is gender. Of course Our bodies are different, but We dont HAVE to be strong because we are men, and women dont have to be feminine. Racisim is another prime example. We even preform racism on ourselves. Because everyone knows that black people are gangster and that we whites cant play basketball.

Ok, so my solution? increase education. Simply teach how recognize brainwashing and we are good. Now to tell that to the government funded schools...

Well, in my opinion, that is why the education system should be handled at the state level. It prevents social engineering. A bonus is that it creates competition among the states who are competing for prospective citizens who are looking to reside in a state with a good educational system.

Many things can be solved if states competed with jobs, education, taxes, etc.. Currently, there is little to no competition because states retain little to no sovereignty due to the bloated federal government. In an aspect, it is like Wal-Mart monopolizing everything.

Would citizens be more inclined to pay federal taxes to the state, then the state can decide whether or not the federal government is acting appropriately to deserve such funding or would citizens be more inclined to give it directly to the federal government? Obviously, citizens would be more inclined to pay federal taxes to the state because it is whats in their best interest.

is freedom possible with privatization? the means are available for activating suicide genes in crop seeds (which make only one generation possible) so that farmers are dependent on whoever has dominion over this portion of nature. i believe that in bolivia there was a people's revolt brought about by the privatization of drinkable water including rainwater. if freedom is to be found at some level of our existence, it can be terraced and fenced off like a plot of land.

the natural outcome of this is, as UM pointed out, if you exist you submit in labor, speech... maybe thought at some point, too.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

The fact was that people were talking out of their asses, the point was to challenge their views. Were my comments not warranted? Do you feel their portrayal of the government was honest and factual? I don't think it was, which is why I spoke up.

I'm just saying; when you want to challenge someone's view, do it with facts.

"You're talking out of your ass" is never a sufficient argument, even if you are arguing what you believe to be common sense.

Like I was saying earlier; simply chiming in to say "you're talking out of your ass" (and the like) is no more substantial than anything else anyone has said in the thread. If you have something to contribute, then by all means, contribute. But you can't pose a challenge to anyone's view, with an argument as shallow as "you're talking out of your ass."

Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis

Well, in my opinion, that is why the education system should be handled at the state level. It prevents social engineering.

It wouldn't prevent "social engineering" at all. It would only move such engineering to the state level. Just think about what the biology curriculum would look like in Dover, Pennsylvania if the federal government hadn't intervened. You mean to tell me that downplaying the biological role of evolution and teaching "intelligent design" as an alternative isn't social engineering?

Originally Posted by DuB

It wouldn't prevent "social engineering" at all. It would only move such engineering to the state level. Just think about what the biology curriculum would look like in Dover, Pennsylvania if the federal government hadn't intervened. You mean to tell me that downplaying the biological role of evolution and teaching "intelligent design" as an alternative isn't social engineering?

Your argument is completely illogical. You are giving the premise that "Intelligent Design" would over-take education all across the U.S.. Due to our system of government, if that were the case, then "Evolution" would already be banned from the education system. If education were handled at the state level, some states would pick "Intelligent Design" over "Evolution", but not the majority.

Sure, that is social engineering. The difference is that it wouldn't be organized.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I'm just saying; when you want to challenge someone's view, do it with facts.

"You're talking out of your ass" is never a sufficient argument, even if you are arguing what you believe to be common sense.

Like I was saying earlier; simply chiming in to say "you're talking out of your ass" (and the like) is no more substantial than anything else anyone has said in the thread. If you have something to contribute, then by all means, contribute. But you can't pose a challenge to anyone's view, with an argument as shallow as "you're talking out of your ass."

I disagree, that type of disregard for facts and logic always needs to be addressed. I consider it a worthy contribution to the discussion. There weren't any facts I could challenge with, so I could only use logic. How do you factually prove that aliens have not visited Earth? You can't. Sometimes logic is all you have to rely on. Later in that post I also challenged two points in particular that I disagreed with. When pressed to elaborate on my sentiments, I did so, with logic. When asked for my opinion, I gave it. We may need to just agree to disagree because there is no point in arguing this and I still believe I was right in doing what I did.

Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis

Your argument is completely illogical. You are giving the premise that "Intelligent Design" would over-take education all across the U.S.. Due to our system of government, if that were the case, then "Evolution" would already be banned from the education system.

"Giving the premise that ID would overtake education across the US"? Indeed, that's so illogical that I didn't say anything remotely resembling it, and if you think I did, then kindly point out where. That straw claim has nothing to do with any argument that I was making. It should be pretty clear that I was referring to individual districts or regions such as Dover County and explicitly not the entire nation.

Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis

If education were handled at the state level, some states would pick "Intelligent Design" over "Evolution", but not the majority.

Sure, that is social engineering. The difference is that it wouldn't be organized.

In what conceivable sense is this not "organized"? It's the deliberate and carefully considered choice by a public school board to impose their malformed anti-scientific views on a county's youth! That's about as organized as it gets.

Originally Posted by DuB

"Giving the premise that ID would overtake education across the US"? Indeed, that's so illogical that I didn't say anything remotely resembling it, and if you think I did, then kindly point out where. That straw claim has nothing to do with any argument that I was making. It should be pretty clear that I was referring to individual districts or regions such as Dover County and explicitly not the entire nation.

In what conceivable sense is this not "organized"? It's the deliberate and carefully considered choice by a public school board to impose their malformed anti-scientific views on a county's youth! That's about as organized as it gets.

Not a straw claim, but a merely a misunderstanding.

Okay, what is your point though? I'm talking about states actually using their sovereignty and the benefits associated with them doing so.

How does what you've implied or said apply to what I've suggested through my opinion? Also, that isn't organized because it is isolated.

Then again, if you are using "county level", thinking in terms that there is little to no social engineering on a national scale, I might get where you are coming from and how I may not make sense. "Intelligent Design" vs "Evolution" is the least of people's concern when it comes to social engineering.

Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis

Okay, what is your point though? I'm talking about states actually using their sovereignty and the benefits associated with them doing so.

How does what you've implied or said apply to what I've suggested through my opinion?

I'm only referring to this idea of "social engineering." I'm not presently concerned with the much broader question of how much sovereignty individual states ought to have.

Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis

Then again, if you are using "county level", thinking in terms that there is little to no social engineering on a national scale, I might get where you are coming from and how I may not make sense. "Intelligent Design" vs "Evolution" is the least of people's concern when it comes to social engineering.

The ID issue is just an example. Anyway, my point isn't that so-called social engineering doesn't happen on a national level--clearly it does, although I would argue that this term is a misnomer since we're apparently just referring to the natural process of cultural transmission at various scopes--it's that switching to a state-based system isn't going to solve this "problem." Even if we go so far as to make education the responsibility of individual families, we're going to get "social engineering" in the sense that parents will teach their kids what they personally believe to be right and wrong, true and false, good and bad. I mean hey, if there are other good reasons for turning power over to the states, then great, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that doing so gets us any closer to fostering truly free and independent thought. Even if such a thing is truly desirable, it's certainly not possible.

Originally Posted by DuB

I'm only referring to this idea of "social engineering." I'm not presently concerned with the much broader question of how much sovereignty individual states ought to have.

The ID issue is just an example. Anyway, my point isn't that so-called social engineering doesn't happen on a national level--clearly it does, although I would argue that this term is a misnomer since we're apparently just referring to the natural process of cultural transmission at various scopes--it's that switching to a state-based system isn't going to solve this "problem." Even if we go so far as to make education the responsibility of individual families, we're going to get "social engineering" in the sense that parents will teach their kids what they personally believe to be right and wrong, true and false, good and bad. I mean hey, if there are other good reasons for turning power over to the states, then great, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that doing so gets us any closer to fostering truly free and independent thought. Even if such a thing is truly desirable, it's certainly not possible.

I totally agree to an extent, which the worst that could result from states handling education is a neutral effect as a whole. The point though, is that it definitely wouldn't be bad or harmful, and on the current path things aren't peachy.