The state has a monopoly on the use of violence, and violence is always left in its wake -- it feeds on it. There really isn't anything we can do about it. If voting could change the system the politicians would outlaw it. As I see it anyway: Any government will continuously confiscate wealth and amass power until it is total (totalitarianism). The only things that will stop it are a collapse of the monetary system (so it can't make war); the people no longer view it as legitimate and its power withers away; or it is crushed by overwhelming violence from an invading force. LOL, none of them are anything to look forward to. So just enjoy your life and piss on Washington.
Attempting to minimize what the Cold War did to secrecy in American government is a big FAIL. We lost a president to assassination who was very against secrecy. An mp3 of his famous speech. Can't believe the site is not letting me post the full link. algoxy.com/psych/audio/jfk_secrecy.mp3 Do you believe the GAO's accounting for black budget expenditures? Why? http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/3.11/patton_pr.html Those people don't see why there is still an immense black budget when the Cold War is supposed to be over. Are you special?
Really, "any government". Major cognitive distortion of minimization. Do you advocate allowing it all because you think nothing can be done. Whatta wimp, a true fizzle. Or maybe you are hoping everybody will read what you post and want to give up on change? Boy, those infiltrators of government doing all this bad shit really like that stuff.
Is this ^ ^ the best you got? Of course you don't know who Dean Martin was, but he recorded a song a half-century ago and one line in it was: ". . . the world is the same you never change it . . . " It was true then, is true today and will be true tomorrow. Governments exist to coerce, plunder, destroy, and kill, and will do all of them to the extent that they think they can get away with it.
I'm sure you are not 183 years of age, and Deano was a serious alcoholic. Meaning that he never worked his way through the cognitive distortion of generalizations you attempt to glorify while leaving out the ideal of government, for, of, and by the people. That was the best you had. You have not seen enough to know how secrecy is created along with contempt for the human condition, by abusive exploitation of the unconscious mind leading to the developments of the type governments you describe.
The point of all of my threads and posting, for the most part is to underline the path through a completely lawful and peaceful revolution. Article V is our right to alter or abolish, codified. Article V is controlled by constitutional intent. Only the people, as "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" can define constitutional intent. The definition of the root purpose of free speech is prime constitutional intent. All we have to do is begin agreeing upon that, and we have started a legal process that ends up "overthrowing the men that" HAVE perverted the constitution. The strategy is the concept of preparatory amendment in order to assure all amendments have constitutional intent. If we do not do this, organizations like ALEC, (the Koch bros.) will work for an unconstitutional convention, then we are really screwed. We can agree on prime constitutional intent, no matter how conditioned we are by media etc. However, we will have to use our own hearts and minds and forget social pressures, because they are false on the internet.
From Cornell Law School's Legal Dictionary: 18 U.S. Code § 2331 - Definitions<div><div><div><div>Current through Pub. L. 113-163. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.) </div><div> US Code Notes <div><div><div style="font-size:1em;text-align:right;">prev | next (4) the term “act of war†means any act occurring in the course of-<div style="margin-left:20px;">(A) declared war; ( B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or (C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and </div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div> comprehensive, provide, 113 S. 987 : information, media, news, connected, persons - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331 We're certainly engaging in acts of war. So of course we're "at war". Edit: Ignore the smiley face. That's how GC interpreted section "B".
No, he is a legitimate anarchist and has expressed similar views on an array of topics. If you want to accuse people of being "infiltrated" and "cognitively distorted" (again), please start a thread so all of it is in one spot, like you did before.
Depends how good your vocabulary is I guess. Just to clear up I wasn't being sarcastic either, I still believe Insurgency is a much more accurate description of current events at the moment. "An insurgency is an armed rebellion against a constituted authority (for example, an authority recognized as such by the United Nations) when those taking part in the rebellion are not recognized as belligerents."
No, it would not. Supporting one side of a war does not mean you are at war, just involved in someone elses war. Working with paramilitary can be an assistance to a nation and parsed to mean we are not working with a government's military forces. So, while it may have a stench like a skunk it might just be someone's weed. providing military assitance and advisors (Foreign Military Defense (FID))has long been a loophole, especially when the host nation invites you in as a guest. This goes into why we did not send military help into Lybia, it could have been seen as an act of war or illegal invasion to assit Benghazi since we were not invited to cross international boundries.
LMAO @ people who think you can use a piece of paper to overthrow the most powerful government the world has ever seen.
Nothing like efforts of empty ridicule and cognitive distortions of attempts to minimize the power of informed majority opinion to expose true intents.
Why do you keep saying cognitive distortion? Just say brainwashing. The people are brainwashed do you not realize that the way you have been talking has aa lot to do with people hating on you? Right or wrong doesn't matter. Your obviously here to spread an idea. But obviously people aren't listening. Why do you think they aren't listening? Do you think accusing them of being brainwashed or "cognitive distortions" will convince them to take you seriously?! You gotta learn how to talk to people Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app