|
|
#1 |
|
FFR Player
|
I was thinking about this idea when i was debating gay marriage, the war in iraq, and abortion in my government class. It becomes more and more apparent to me that with this country's continuing need to have security and order they end up wanting the government to solve the problems associated with this lifestyle. When the people want a set rule for more and more things like gay marriage and abortion we continually give the government more power to decide these things for the country. Now i can eventually see a excess of these conflicts arising which will revert this country back to the way it was before it was created, where congress creates set rules and standards for everyone regardless of the minority. We cant have the ability to govern ourselves while have someone in a higher position govern us as well. Its a give and take relationship and i fear is becoming more and more unbalanced.
Has anyone else considered this revert of government power in relation to the country's needs? |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
#swagdog
|
It sounds to me like you are assuming that Repulicans are going to rule the government for the rest of this country's existance.
Lol, not going to happen. Last edited by travman301; 11-21-2007 at 01:55 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
This thread as stated is missing too much information, contains too much bias and too many assumptions...
Slipstrike, could you perhaps rephrase this in a little more balanced of a way? |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 346
|
hold on, thats why its critical thinking, we need to expand his line of thought.
Anyways, I feel that humans hate to take responsibility. We like to have a leader to make rules so we can feel free and procrastinate about their decision, with the assurance that we did not make these rules and take no blame in decision. However, we also love to feel some kind of devotion to particular thoughts, for example, fighting for abortion and against abortion. From my point of view, theres always a certain amount of equilibrium between government power and citizen views, but it was the order that a citizen technically obeys the ideas of the government. Those who rebel will always be present, but as we are talking about things like abortion and gay marriage, I don't think its to die for or to wage some kind of major conflict. I think I will stop there...I don't want to bring other concepts with a stronger pull/push factor into this comment... |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Beach Bum Extraordinaire
|
It is unbalanced, but I have a feeling it will turn into Russia before it compleatly fails.
Also like Trav said, Since diffirent people with diffirent views come and go at a fairly regular rate, it's hard for us to get stuck in too much of a rut. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 346
|
Quote:
I get the feeling that the US is going to collapse of its own accord, the higher you go, the harder you fall. These issues, gay marriage, abortion and all, they are only within the American border. However, worldwide and internationally, US is being a nuisance, a prime example would be the jig in Iraq, with Bush's failing ambitions on his treasured little oil. Pulling on another country's affairs along with dragging neighbors, Canada, into this nonsense. That, is how US declares supremacy and rises above other countries, but as sept 11 has once shown us, US will be a considerable target for retribution, terrorism, just because its so egotistic and arrogant. You may go on flaming me about this "Canada pulled into the war" but its true. Stephan harper couldn't refuse the calling of bush to help with the US affairs, he didn't want to have a bad record with the US. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
I think you woefully underestimate how ingrained the capitalist ideals are in the American people if you think there is -any- chance of the United States remotely resembling communism.
And while I won't flame you for saying that Bush pulled Canada into the War in Iraq, I will assert that your statement is false. We along with many nations got involved in Afghanistan (and rightfully so) but so far as I'm aware, we have no troop presence in Iraq at all, and are no part of Operation Iraqi Freedom Last edited by devonin; 11-20-2007 at 09:45 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5
|
if the other countries don't obey what the US ask them to do, they cannot export and import, they will lose their stand in global affairs. Cuba is a good example for disobeying stronger force. LOL
----------------------- Still, when Bush called out for the wars, a bunch of people eagerly supported. And those Republicans most of the time win the congress, anyway, that there are nothing really involve communism
__________________
I am dust in the wind, I am coldsunlight. (but just don't ask me what coldsunlight is, ok?) Last edited by coldsunlight; 11-20-2007 at 09:46 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 346
|
I was suggesting that the Americans think of a form of a deviation of the communism idea. It is apparent that US feels that it can interfere with international affairs, and bring "peace" to such issues. That is a form of a forced control much similar to the same aspect in a communist way of thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 | ||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
The embargo forbids -Americans- from doing business with Cubans. Cuba is welcome to trade with anybody else they feel like, but American markets are closed to them. Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
#12 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 346
|
Quote:
Confused or not, its a legitimate answer. I don't actually believe US will EVER be or turning communists, but the ideas they weild are certainly very rash and organized, like an idea from the communist's scrapbook. Last edited by Zythus; 11-20-2007 at 10:00 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 | ||
|
Beach Bum Extraordinaire
|
Quote:
Im in no way saying we are like communist, just that before we fail we will be more like them plus I wrote that when I misread the title as "US Eventual Failur" Quote:
Last edited by MixMasterLar; 11-20-2007 at 10:03 PM.. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#14 | ||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
In my opinion, going into Afghanistan was completely a good choice. That the person claiming responsibility for the 9/11 attacks was known to be involved with that group, and heavily suspected to be located in that country provided an excellent justification for liberating a nation under the control of foreign conquering powers. Iraq is completely different, and that is why Bush lost basically -all- of his support when he moved into the Iraqi theatre. There, the nation was under the control of a domestic government that, no matter how suspect their methods, was elected and holding legitimate authority. It had no connection whatsoever to the Taliban, to Al-Quaeda, or to Bin Laden, and you will never convince me that the US ever thought otherwise, though they liked to claim such very loud and often. Quote:
The US is looking more like a far-right wing authoritarian state, closer akin to facism than communism (See how I neatly avoid getting Godwin'd) and even if many of the ideologies are similar at the extreme ends (The politcal line is a curve not a straight line) their methods and methodologies are completely different. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#15 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 346
|
Quote:
fas·cism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Pronunciation[fash-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. From this definition, its a deviation of communism, not marxist whatsoever. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Um...Facism and Communism are at the exact opposite ends of the political spectrum. Neither one is a "deviation" of the other, they are seperate and distinct political systems.
IE. By posting the definition of Facism you've also pretty well posted a defintion for the exact opposite of actual marxist communism. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 346
|
Quote:
If that isn't a deviation of communism , then I'll eat my newly bought $300 dollar surround sound speaker system for my PC. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Read Marx. I'll expect pictures of the eating process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 346
|
Karl Heinrich Marx (May 5, 1818 – March 14, 1883) was a 19th century philosopher, political economist, and revolutionary. Marx addressed a wide range of political as well as social issues; he is most famous for his analysis of history, summed up in the opening line of the Communist Manifesto (1848): “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”. Marx believed that like all other socioeconomic systems, capitalism will be displaced by communism, a classless society after another transitional period in which the state would be nothing else but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.[1][2]
capitalism will be displaced by communism, a classless society after another transitional period in which the state would be nothing else but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, that what marxism states. ___________ 1.Facism ---------------------------communism--------------2.Marxist they both come back to communism .... |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
And you completely and thoroughly don't understand what the "dictatorship of the proletariat" means as compared to "A facist Dictatorship" Just because the word dictatorship is in both, doesn't mean they are the same.
Consider "Tyrrany" and "The Tyrrany of the Majority" the same word appears in both, the utterly do not imply the same things. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|