

hide menu
Anonymous commenting is allowed
User avatar #2 - trollofhalo (10/02/2013) [-]
I think it'd be cool if the citizens made their own government but that could cause another civil war.
User avatar #119 to #2 - thedungeonmaster (10/03/2013) [-]
*Would definitely cause another civil war. I don't think people as a whole are ready to lead.
User avatar #88 to #2 - avengingthefallen (10/03/2013) [-]
It is indeed a sad state of affairs when it is within the accepted nature of government to retain its power and territory through any means necessary regardless of how well- intentioned and peaceful the methods through which any sort of secession or seizure of power can be. When describing Radical thought, it's always divided between two groups of people: those who advocate peaceful resolution (in the case of most Democratic Socialists, and varying degrees of Communists and Anarchists) and those who advocate or foretell revolution (Many communists, including Marxists and Leninists, and the other half of Anarchists)

I advocate to Anarchism for the most part (but I still consider myself only to be on the basic fundamentals of it, so no one bother trying to get me into a detailed debate about it) and while it's obviously incredibly reasonable to assume that violence is inherently authoritarian in its nature, and against anarchist principles of being against any sort of coercive action, simply because it is the nature for the state to crush any opposition and threat to its power, it is inevitable that any sort of radical social movement, peaceful as it may start out to be, will stay peaceful. I myself want to remain as peaceful as I can, but it's sad for me to say that there will be no radical, world-wide social change as most radical ideologists like to predict, unless the radical faction is willing to put the blood on their hands. It's the paradox of trying to come to peaceful resolution.
User avatar #54 to #2 - mattmuch ONLINE (10/03/2013) [-]
There would also be death by exile.
#22 to #2 - heroofkvatch (10/03/2013) [-]
that's called socialism.

which is what everyone seams to be afraid of
User avatar #30 to #22 - Ruspanic (10/03/2013) [-]
Citizens making their own government isn't called socialism.
User avatar #20 to #2 - rugyakuku (10/03/2013) [-]
Which we need.....
User avatar #31 to #20 - dwarfman (10/03/2013) [-]
What we need is reforms, both sides need to corporate. Why is it always children calling for us to spill the blood of our countrymen?
#197 to #31 - rugyakuku (10/05/2013) [-]
Im not a child bub. Also if you think the governments going to corporate with the people, youre retarded. Not one of the congressmen has to even get Obama care. Nor do they even have to pay taxes. All we are is a bunch of cattle to them. They dont care. What we need is a civil war, we need to push back. Thats how this country got started in the first place. You say we need reform. how do you suppose we get it? Sign a piece of paper that will just be thrown in the trash? Believe me I know war is never the answer, but it sure as hell gets 						****					 done.
User avatar #198 to #197 - dwarfman (10/05/2013) [-]
So do something about it. Not sit on your computer and cry about it. It will not come to civil war. And if it does it will be put down like the last one.
#199 to #198 - rugyakuku (10/05/2013) [-]
oh yes wahh wahh wahhh
#12 to #2 - dwarfman (10/03/2013) [-]
Nor is there the support for a second civil war Unless you ask ultra conservatives that are still upset their glorious leader Paul is a failure at obtaining any real political office.

FDR semirelated (Best president since Teddy)
#80 to #12 - bann (10/03/2013) [-]
He also said **** your rights to everyone who spoke out against him as a "war time measure", including his illegal 3rd and 4th terms.
User avatar #85 to #80 - dwarfman (10/03/2013) [-]
That wasn't illegal until after his presidency. Unlike Achimp, you're just an uneducated moron preaching his parent's beliefs.
#114 to #85 - bann (10/03/2013) [-]
Such hostilities...

Actually that was my history teacher's words, though I see he was wrong, as was I. Man was some 70 years old and has said some outlandish things so I suppose I should be too surprised.

That said, I was merely commenting on him, I loved him for his policies and handling of the world war. Upon research however, his decision to run for a 3rd term, breaking an almost 200 year tradition was quite controversial, though not strictly illegal.
#117 to #114 - bann (10/03/2013) [-]
As for the **** your rights thing, I was referring to this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship

Essentially this lead to the idea of the FCC and our present NSA. Granted it didn't directly lead to these things, but it never really went away after this.
User avatar #27 to #12 - achimp (10/03/2013) [-]
In my humble opinion, FDR was quite an awful President. Not only did he fail to recognize Pearl Harbor, but he expanded government to such a point that people depended on it; which, once again in my opinion, is never good.
#29 to #27 - dwarfman (10/03/2013) [-]
>Failed to recognize Pearl Harbor, best war time president in history
>Prepared the nation for WWII, mobilized in full in mere weeks
>New Deal provided work during the depression
>AMG he expanded the government, in the middle of depression and war
>Military increase = expanded government, only Ike tried to stem it afterwords

You serious bro?
User avatar #33 to #29 - achimp (10/03/2013) [-]
First off, no need for red thumbs. Shows a bit of immaturity on your part; I was simply expressing my opinion in a very respectful way, intended to prompt a reasonable debate.

New Deal provided work in the depression, for mere pennies and it was never really successful in getting us out of the Depression, in fact, one could argue it drove us DEEPER into the depression.

THe military **** was mainly his generals - we had fantastic generals at the time (some of which warned FDR of an impending attack), if you want to attribute some of that to FDR, I'll concede.

You speak of expanded Government as if it was a good thing. It's not. It leads to a loss of privacy as well as personal responsibility and the free market.
User avatar #36 to #33 - dwarfman (10/03/2013) [-]
The free market is great until for 10+ years larger companies are too scared to hire just because of uncertainty. The masses are left without work and demand change, this is how communism takes hold. I support the actions of FDR for that reason, otherwise we would have not been prepared at all for the war. He had no opportunity to wind down what he had created. The expanded government was a result of the military build up from the war. Ike ran on this and attempted to contract the government (Mainly the rabid military industry complex). Blaming FDR for our modern problems is nonsense. Makes you sound like a Paul supporter.
User avatar #41 to #36 - achimp (10/03/2013) [-]
I'm not blaming FDR, I'm simply stating he's not the saint progressives make him out to be. The Free market faces ups and downs, it has worked for many more years than 10.
And you're right, the military was grown during the time, but this was only a result of times - with war in Europe, the US would have been stupid not

War, and incredible technological advancement are the only things that ever have gotten the US, or anyone for that matter, out of a depression, or large recession.

The expanded government was in part due to the programs FDR used to create jobs.
User avatar #43 to #41 - dwarfman (10/03/2013) [-]
Again I debated that last point, I feel that most of the expansion came from the military build up (Which I would never argue against considering the circumstances). I support government intervention as Keynes described. It must be regulated, like the economy. As recession periods end the government must not involve itself in the economy. During growth periods it must regulate or we have the great collapse of 2008. The economy of the next two decades was fueled by the cold war and picking over the carcass of the Axis (And stealing their best technologies).
User avatar #44 to #43 - achimp (10/03/2013) [-]
I see now that you believe in Keynesian economics, probably that New Keynesian economics.

Our argument boils down to this: You believe the gov't should mess with the economy, I do not. Neither of us will most likely budge on this point and therefore this conversation is pointless.

It's been a pleasure.
User avatar #45 to #44 - dwarfman (10/03/2013) [-]
I wouldn't say New Keynesian. The tradition method was far more conservative with it's approach. After entering the work force, I can say that private companies alone will not lift us out of recessions. They're so risk adverse now they are unwilling to invest, and keep billions out of the economy. That said I am rather disappointed with the O-man's efforts so far.
User avatar #47 to #45 - achimp (10/03/2013) [-]
If there were not loopholes, or special interest groups, government involvement would be almost unnecessary, other than the FDA and those type organizations.
User avatar #49 to #47 - dwarfman (10/03/2013) [-]
Right there. Hit the nail on the head. That requires a massive overhaul. We could go so far as to drop the corporate tax rate too if we actually collected from them. Anything to avoid a Value-Added tax.
User avatar #53 to #49 - achimp (10/03/2013) [-]
It's also the problem with the Tax Code, Health Care regulations - we are so embroiled in pages and pages of bureaucracy that it is impossible to understand anymore, and we just keep adding more. Hell, Obamacare might be good for the country, but we have no ******* clue because it's just another stack of paper on top of a mountain of other laws.

And as people say we should raise taxes on the rich, I bang my head against the wall because it won't do anything - hte rich don't pay taxes, they hire accountants and find loopholes so they don't have It's what anyone would do, it just needs to be stopped. Raising tax rates won't close loopholes.

It was creepy - when I first saw the original comment in this chain, I disagreed with it - but now, after realizing the **** we're in, I have to agree. There's nothing wrong with being rich, let me get that right across - I'm no 99% hippie douche, but the tax code needs to be reformed. And anyone involved with politics, now and in the future won't do that; it doesn't help them.
On the other hand, the general populace is too easily manipulated by the media, and any revolution or political movement could easily get out of hand and lose track of any ideals. Not only that, but society has placed sports stars and sluts ahead of any real leaders; valuing entertainment over enlightenment, so any leader that is chosen by citizens would most likely be a ******** . I don't mean to sound like an elitist, I'm sure I could choose no better; but we are in a bad place right now.
User avatar #56 to #53 - dwarfman (10/03/2013) [-]
Ya know why the constitution is a great document? Simplicity. If I was to pass an amendment it would state future laws must be written in plain language and get the point across. Removal of loopholes and a refinement of taxation means we collect more money from corporates and higher earners. And you're right: There's nothing wrong with being rich. What is a problem is cry about how you're so oppressed because you pay a higher tax rate, or threatening to move to Singapore because of a disagreement with the IRS.

**** get an IRS agent with backbone enough to enforce tax laws for religious organizations. (It clearly states they must not ever be politically involved to keep their tax exemptions) Remove the bush tax cuts, shrink the military, and most importantly: Audit the entire government. Enforce performance standards afterwords.
User avatar #59 to #56 - achimp (10/03/2013) [-]
Throw out the entire tax code. Throw it out! Start from scratch, no exemptions, no ******** .

The military, eh, well, cut some waste. I don't want to shrink it though.
User avatar #61 to #59 - dwarfman (10/03/2013) [-]
That's the problem it's sooo much waste. Hell the DCAA can't even tackle it all. I am not saying close our bases abroad and such. We owe that to our allies and must enforce our dominance.
#14 to #12 - vonspyder (10/03/2013) [-]
The democrats would lose a civil war...they dont have any guns.
#18 to #14 - dwarfman (10/03/2013) [-]
I love that your assume I am a democrat, and that I don't own firearms. More so I know plenty registered democrats that own guns. Not all supporters of the party are bleeding heart liberals. Oh and by the way: The South lost. It will never rise again, your party (Democrats) has already turned on you. Nice try though.
#190 to #18 - vonspyder (10/04/2013) [-]
hey, egomaniac, where did you see me talking about you? thats a rhetorical question; i didnt. Go have eat a snickers, you get cranky when youre hungry.
User avatar #32 to #18 - theuglypanda (10/03/2013) [-]
Why do you assume that he assumes you're a democrat? No where does he even hint to that. You could have just said that you know plenty registered democrats that own guns. Instead you made an ass out of yourself.
User avatar #6 to #2 - devilofscience (10/03/2013) [-]
I've got a stick do you think people could rally behind the stick revolution?
User avatar #21 to #6 - theshadowed (10/03/2013) [-]
Can I be Stick Minister
User avatar #5 to #2 - ImmortalBaconEater (10/03/2013) [-]
I'm sorry to break it to you but thats how we got our government in the first place.
User avatar #187 to #5 - trollofhalo (10/03/2013) [-]
Then all of a sudden Civil War.
#15 to #5 - hopskotch (10/03/2013) [-]
I'm glad someone said it, because I was about
User avatar #101 to #15 - killerliquid (10/03/2013) [-]
"to­." disappears when commented on FJ
#102 to #101 - killerliquid has deleted their comment [-]
#193 to #103 - hopskotch (10/04/2013) [-]
3 tries and still nothing?
User avatar #196 to #193 - killerliquid (10/04/2013) [-]
I did the first one on purpose.
#7 to #5 - elaxx (10/03/2013) [-]
This. ^ But he might refer to a direct democracy. With hundreds of millions of citizens that would be at least slightly problematic though.
User avatar #3 to #2 - ZeGerman (10/02/2013) [-]
That's what America needs. A reset.
 Friends (0)