Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

War

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 6:58:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think that there should be a national referendum before we ever go to war. After all, it is the lives of American citizens at stake, they should have direct say over the actions of our military. We should renew support for the ludlow Amendment, except this time remove the provision for attack by a foreign belligerent power. This way, we will never have a "government war," but rather only honest wars for the defense of people and liberty.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 7:05:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Horrible idea. It would be a clear step in the direction of direct democracy--the tyranny of the majority.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 7:06:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/29/2011 7:02:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Why stop there? Why not create a referendum for all legislation to keep it more "honest"?

The cost and magnitude of war necessitates national agreement, its a matter of life and death,... but mere legislation is not as dramatic. I agree that there should be national agreement on legislation, but a country-wide referendum would be too inexpedient and unfeasible. We convey this national agreement through representatives, and for mere laws, this is enough.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 7:09:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/29/2011 7:06:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/29/2011 7:02:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Why stop there? Why not create a referendum for all legislation to keep it more "honest"?

The cost and magnitude of war necessitates national agreement, its a matter of life and death,... but mere legislation is not as dramatic. I agree that there should be national agreement on legislation, but a country-wide referendum would be too inexpedient and unfeasible. We convey this national agreement through representatives, and for mere laws, this is enough.

I'm a noninterventionalist, but do you really expect that system to actually make sense?

I agree--it is a matter of life and death--but the argument can easily be made that such a decision would put in the hands of the uneducated, easily swayed, masses could lead to horrible consequences.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 7:10:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/29/2011 7:05:16 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Horrible idea. It would be a clear step in the direction of direct democracy--the tyranny of the majority.

There is no such thing as tyranny of the majority. The majority embodies the desire, mind, and action of any given conglomerate. Therefore, the majority can make laws for the conglomerate. If the minority is unsatisfied, it may either try to BECOME the majority, or simply leave the conglomerate.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 7:13:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/29/2011 7:10:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/29/2011 7:05:16 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Horrible idea. It would be a clear step in the direction of direct democracy--the tyranny of the majority.

There is no such thing as tyranny of the majority. The majority embodies the desire, mind, and action of any given conglomerate. Therefore, the majority can make laws for the conglomerate. If the minority is unsatisfied, it may either try to BECOME the majority, or simply leave the conglomerate.

Really? Holy sh1t. So you're adopting the stance that--if you don't like it, GTFO.

What you're doing is argumentum ad populum. Also, please respond to my above comment. Thank you.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 7:17:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/29/2011 6:58:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
I think that there should be a national referendum before we ever go to war. After all, it is the lives of American citizens at stake, they should have direct say over the actions of our military.

A.) Soldiers are putting their lives on the line not civilians.
B.) Soldiers are property of the Government

We should renew support for the ludlow Amendment, except this time remove the provision for attack by a foreign belligerent power. This way, we will never have a "government war," but rather only honest wars for the defense of people and liberty.

How about we just make requirements for war?
For example X has to happen before we can go to war.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 7:18:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/29/2011 7:09:19 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/29/2011 7:06:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/29/2011 7:02:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Why stop there? Why not create a referendum for all legislation to keep it more "honest"?

The cost and magnitude of war necessitates national agreement, its a matter of life and death,... but mere legislation is not as dramatic. I agree that there should be national agreement on legislation, but a country-wide referendum would be too inexpedient and unfeasible. We convey this national agreement through representatives, and for mere laws, this is enough.

I'm a noninterventionalist, but do you really expect that system to actually make sense?

I agree--it is a matter of life and death--but the argument can easily be made that such a decision would put in the hands of the uneducated, easily swayed, masses could lead to horrible consequences.

You're essentially making the argument that the people cannot collectively govern themselves. The majority would have to be uneducated for such a scenario. In which case, I say let the majority be free to make its own decisions whether they be good or bad.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 7:18:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/29/2011 7:05:16 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Horrible idea. It would be a clear step in the direction of direct democracy--the tyranny of the majority.

Agreed
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 7:20:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/29/2011 7:10:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/29/2011 7:05:16 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Horrible idea. It would be a clear step in the direction of direct democracy--the tyranny of the majority.

There is no such thing as tyranny of the majority. The majority embodies the desire, mind, and action of any given conglomerate. Therefore, the majority can make laws for the conglomerate. If the minority is unsatisfied, it may either try to BECOME the majority, or simply leave the conglomerate.

The Majority does not speak for the entire community.
The Government is meant to benefit the entire community, not just the majority or the minority.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 7:20:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/29/2011 7:17:27 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/29/2011 6:58:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
I think that there should be a national referendum before we ever go to war. After all, it is the lives of American citizens at stake, they should have direct say over the actions of our military.

A.) Soldiers are putting their lives on the line not civilians.

Soldiers are citizens of the United States who serve their country.
B.) Soldiers are property of the Government

Soldiers are the property of government like a citizen is the property of the government.

We should renew support for the ludlow Amendment, except this time remove the provision for attack by a foreign belligerent power. This way, we will never have a "government war," but rather only honest wars for the defense of people and liberty.

How about we just make requirements for war?
For example X has to happen before we can go to war.

That leaves the door open for technicalities and corruption.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 7:21:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/29/2011 7:18:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/29/2011 7:09:19 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/29/2011 7:06:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/29/2011 7:02:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Why stop there? Why not create a referendum for all legislation to keep it more "honest"?

The cost and magnitude of war necessitates national agreement, its a matter of life and death,... but mere legislation is not as dramatic. I agree that there should be national agreement on legislation, but a country-wide referendum would be too inexpedient and unfeasible. We convey this national agreement through representatives, and for mere laws, this is enough.

I'm a noninterventionalist, but do you really expect that system to actually make sense?

I agree--it is a matter of life and death--but the argument can easily be made that such a decision would put in the hands of the uneducated, easily swayed, masses could lead to horrible consequences.

You're essentially making the argument that the people cannot collectively govern themselves. The majority would have to be uneducated for such a scenario. In which case, I say let the majority be free to make its own decisions whether they be good or bad.

That doesn't change the fact that (to steal from DanT) it is not the civilians who are putting their lives in danger--it is the VOLUNTARY soldiers. Not only that, but, in our republic, Congress declares war--unless our entire legislature is tyrannical, Congress would never declare a war that the majority of Americans don't agree with.

As far as Iraq, if one went back, they would see that, indeed, the majority DID support the war at the time.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 7:23:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/29/2011 7:21:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/29/2011 7:18:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/29/2011 7:09:19 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/29/2011 7:06:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/29/2011 7:02:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Why stop there? Why not create a referendum for all legislation to keep it more "honest"?

The cost and magnitude of war necessitates national agreement, its a matter of life and death,... but mere legislation is not as dramatic. I agree that there should be national agreement on legislation, but a country-wide referendum would be too inexpedient and unfeasible. We convey this national agreement through representatives, and for mere laws, this is enough.

I'm a noninterventionalist, but do you really expect that system to actually make sense?

I agree--it is a matter of life and death--but the argument can easily be made that such a decision would put in the hands of the uneducated, easily swayed, masses could lead to horrible consequences.

You're essentially making the argument that the people cannot collectively govern themselves. The majority would have to be uneducated for such a scenario. In which case, I say let the majority be free to make its own decisions whether they be good or bad.

That doesn't change the fact that (to steal from DanT) it is not the civilians who are putting their lives in danger--it is the VOLUNTARY soldiers. Not only that, but, in our republic, Congress declares war--unless our entire legislature is tyrannical, Congress would never declare a war that the majority of Americans don't agree with.

As far as Iraq, if one went back, they would see that, indeed, the majority DID support the war at the time.

In policy terms, your plan has no solvency. Next.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 7:29:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/29/2011 7:21:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/29/2011 7:18:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/29/2011 7:09:19 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/29/2011 7:06:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/29/2011 7:02:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Why stop there? Why not create a referendum for all legislation to keep it more "honest"?

The cost and magnitude of war necessitates national agreement, its a matter of life and death,... but mere legislation is not as dramatic. I agree that there should be national agreement on legislation, but a country-wide referendum would be too inexpedient and unfeasible. We convey this national agreement through representatives, and for mere laws, this is enough.

I'm a noninterventionalist, but do you really expect that system to actually make sense?

I agree--it is a matter of life and death--but the argument can easily be made that such a decision would put in the hands of the uneducated, easily swayed, masses could lead to horrible consequences.

You're essentially making the argument that the people cannot collectively govern themselves. The majority would have to be uneducated for such a scenario. In which case, I say let the majority be free to make its own decisions whether they be good or bad.

That doesn't change the fact that (to steal from DanT) it is not the civilians who are putting their lives in danger--it is the VOLUNTARY soldiers. Not only that, but, in our republic, Congress declares war--unless our entire legislature is tyrannical, Congress would never declare a war that the majority of Americans don't agree with.

No, actually propaganda can fool people. That explains WWI. This Amendment could come with the abolition of federal propaganda agencies such as the Committee on public Information (world war one)
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 7:31:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/29/2011 7:23:40 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

In policy terms, your plan has no solvency. Next.

It's not my plan, its a rehash of the Ludlow amendment. It solves the problem of unnecessary war, so long as it has a provision against federal propaganda.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 7:33:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/29/2011 7:29:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/29/2011 7:21:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/29/2011 7:18:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/29/2011 7:09:19 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/29/2011 7:06:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/29/2011 7:02:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Why stop there? Why not create a referendum for all legislation to keep it more "honest"?

The cost and magnitude of war necessitates national agreement, its a matter of life and death,... but mere legislation is not as dramatic. I agree that there should be national agreement on legislation, but a country-wide referendum would be too inexpedient and unfeasible. We convey this national agreement through representatives, and for mere laws, this is enough.

I'm a noninterventionalist, but do you really expect that system to actually make sense?

I agree--it is a matter of life and death--but the argument can easily be made that such a decision would put in the hands of the uneducated, easily swayed, masses could lead to horrible consequences.

You're essentially making the argument that the people cannot collectively govern themselves. The majority would have to be uneducated for such a scenario. In which case, I say let the majority be free to make its own decisions whether they be good or bad.

That doesn't change the fact that (to steal from DanT) it is not the civilians who are putting their lives in danger--it is the VOLUNTARY soldiers. Not only that, but, in our republic, Congress declares war--unless our entire legislature is tyrannical, Congress would never declare a war that the majority of Americans don't agree with.

No, actually propaganda can fool people. That explains WWI. This Amendment could come with the abolition of federal propaganda agencies such as the Committee on public Information (world war one)

That was WWI...y'know...1914? This is...2011, last time I checked.

If you were truly concerned about propaganda, the Amendment would include restriction of news propaganda...which IS plain ol' tyranny.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 7:40:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/29/2011 7:33:00 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

That was WWI...y'know...1914? This is...2011, last time I checked.

lol. Incomplete comparison. You don't actually explain what has changed to make such action improbable in modern times. I'm supposed to take this as a refutation?

If you were truly concerned about propaganda, the Amendment would include restriction of news propaganda...which IS plain ol' tyranny.

media has no coercive power....federal propaganda is no where near comparable to media propaganda.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 7:45:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/29/2011 7:40:02 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/29/2011 7:33:00 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

That was WWI...y'know...1914? This is...2011, last time I checked.

lol. Incomplete comparison. You don't actually explain what has changed to make such action improbable in modern times. I'm supposed to take this as a refutation?

If you were truly concerned about propaganda, the Amendment would include restriction of news propaganda...which IS plain ol' tyranny.

media has no coercive power....federal propaganda is no where near comparable to media propaganda.

Are you kidding me? Seriously? "Media has no coercive power?" Then, to provide a counterexample, please explain how a presidential election is in now way influenced by media propaganda.

And, as to my previous refutation, my point is is thus--in this day and age, there really is little to no federally provided pro-war propaganda. Practically ALL the propaganda you see today is privately generated. And, societally speaking, there is little chance that such a WWI-era fed prop will arise again.

Furthermore, could to enlighten me as to how the presence of propaganda relates to the main proposal as something other than a by-product?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 7:52:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/29/2011 7:45:19 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

Are you kidding me? Seriously? "Media has no coercive power?" Then, to provide a counterexample, please explain how a presidential election is in now way influenced by media propaganda.

Got me there, I can't think of a situation. I see what you're saying.

And, as to my previous refutation, my point is is thus--in this day and age, there really is little to no federally provided pro-war propaganda. Practically ALL the propaganda you see today is privately generated. And, societally speaking, there is little chance that such a WWI-era fed prop will arise again.

Furthermore, could to enlighten me as to how the presence of propaganda relates to the main proposal as something other than a by-product?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 7:55:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/29/2011 7:52:14 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/29/2011 7:45:19 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

Are you kidding me? Seriously? "Media has no coercive power?" Then, to provide a counterexample, please explain how a presidential election is in now way influenced by media propaganda.

Got me there, I can't think of a situation. I see what you're saying.

And, as to my previous refutation, my point is is thus--in this day and age, there really is little to no federally provided pro-war propaganda. Practically ALL the propaganda you see today is privately generated. And, societally speaking, there is little chance that such a WWI-era fed prop will arise again.

Furthermore, could to enlighten me as to how the presence of propaganda relates to the main proposal as something other than a by-product?

WARNING! DERAIL AHEAD!

YAY! I've successfully communicated a point.

That wasn't sarcasm--I really do have trouble communicating certain points--I'm normally a very good speaker/writer, but, in many situations, it's hard to get the point across in the right way.

END OF DERAIL.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 8:19:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/29/2011 7:45:19 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/29/2011 7:40:02 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/29/2011 7:33:00 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

That was WWI...y'know...1914? This is...2011, last time I checked.

lol. Incomplete comparison. You don't actually explain what has changed to make such action improbable in modern times. I'm supposed to take this as a refutation?

If you were truly concerned about propaganda, the Amendment would include restriction of news propaganda...which IS plain ol' tyranny.

media has no coercive power....federal propaganda is no where near comparable to media propaganda.

Are you kidding me? Seriously? "Media has no coercive power?" Then, to provide a counterexample, please explain how a presidential election is in now way influenced by media propaganda.

And, as to my previous refutation, my point is is thus--in this day and age, there really is little to no federally provided pro-war propaganda. Practically ALL the propaganda you see today is privately generated. And, societally speaking, there is little chance that such a WWI-era fed prop will arise again.

Furthermore, could to enlighten me as to how the presence of propaganda relates to the main proposal as something other than a by-product?

Well, "propaganda" is a tricky term. We don't have OBVIOUS pro-war propoganda, but we do have it.

For instance, the fact that there is basically a ban on media coverage of dead American soldiers. I would argue that have 100% of troop coverage be live troops is a form of propaganda.

The recruiting advertisements also use quite biased recruiting techniques.

The thing is, everyone does propaganda. I'd say most of our government's propoganda methods, in MODERN times, are no more harmful or devoius than the market researchers businesses hire.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 8:22:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/29/2011 7:20:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/29/2011 7:17:27 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/29/2011 6:58:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
I think that there should be a national referendum before we ever go to war. After all, it is the lives of American citizens at stake, they should have direct say over the actions of our military.

A.) Soldiers are putting their lives on the line not civilians.

Soldiers are citizens of the United States who serve their country.

True, but not all citizens are soldiers

B.) Soldiers are property of the Government

Soldiers are the property of government like a citizen is the property of the government.

A civilian can't get court marshaled for vandalizing government property simply because they got a tattoo.
A soldier on the other hand, can.

A soldier can also be court marshaled for getting a sun burn.

A soldier chooses to enlist, and when he does he voluntarily gives up substantial rights, and the Government will control a lot of the soldier's life and that of the soldier's partner/spouse.


We should renew support for the ludlow Amendment, except this time remove the provision for attack by a foreign belligerent power. This way, we will never have a "government war," but rather only honest wars for the defense of people and liberty.

How about we just make requirements for war?
For example X has to happen before we can go to war.

That leaves the door open for technicalities and corruption.

Explain, because that doesn't sound right.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 8:26:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/29/2011 8:19:53 PM, Wnope wrote:

Well, "propaganda" is a tricky term. We don't have OBVIOUS pro-war propoganda, but we do have it.

For instance, the fact that there is basically a ban on media coverage of dead American soldiers.

Whoa, what?? There is?
I would argue that have 100% of troop coverage be live troops is a form of propaganda.

The recruiting advertisements also use quite biased recruiting techniques.

The thing is, everyone does propaganda. I'd say most of our government's propoganda methods, in MODERN times, are no more harmful or devoius than the market researchers businesses hire.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:26:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The majority of Americans also thought that we should have gone to war with Spain in the Spanish-American War because the media at the time told them Spain blew up the Maine.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:48:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Anyone who thinks they can legislate against mind control is a fool.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:59:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/29/2011 7:18:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
You're essentially making the argument that the people cannot collectively govern themselves. The majority would have to be uneducated for such a scenario. In which case, I say let the majority be free to make its own decisions whether they be good or bad.

You know what, why not just get rid of Congress? Every time we have a bill up for a vote we can just open up the Polls. While were at it, let's just get rid of the executive branch too. Leadership is overrated.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 3:13:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The mob already rules, most people just aren't aware of it.

People are highly susceptible to mind control however, and we are bombarded with it constantly. Especially here in America.

Belief is the most powerful weapon of control. This has been known since the dawn of civilization.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp