US Government Defined

“YOUR WORST”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1 Apr 25, 2011
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT DEFINED

Merriam Webster has many definitions of government. Too many to list here so I picked one I thought was the most balanced and applies to the American form of government.

a : the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it.

b : the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out.

However, none of the definitions defined what US government has become and always was.

Nietzsche said, "Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen."

From the founding fathers to today, our government (politicians) have been good at only one thing. Kicking the can down the road for future generations to deal with. Of course, the problem with that cowardly way of governing is the problem becomes a crisis before it is addressed. While gutless governing is obvious today very little is said about our so-called enlightened "founding fathers." As with most things in America and human nature, first there's the hoax that morphs into myth that soon becomes fact.

Take the Civil War as an example of "kick the can." Six hundred thousand humans died and many more thousands suffered unnecessarily because the founding fathers wouldn't face the slavery question some 85 years earlier and to make things worse it took another 100 years to actually start freeing the slaves. The former "slave states" of Dixie are still fighting the Civil War and refuse to admit the war was about slavery as all wars are to some extent.

From the acceptance of the great hoax and myths come secrecy, lies masquerading as official truth, illegal wars, false imprisonment, Empire, corporate media and corporate controlled government and courts, free-market lies, vote tampering and gerrymandering, zero accountability, war crimes, Guantanamo Bay, fascism, tyranny, false exceptionalism and glaring corruption, eminent domain, trampling of our Constitutional guarantees.

Eliminate the hype, hoax, myth and flamboyant lies and there wouldn't be much left. Nothing but lip-service promises of free enterprise, equality and smoke and mirrors, rather like the Federal Reserve.
nina

Canada

#2 Apr 25, 2011
the US civil war was not about slavery in terms of human rights

the US civil war was about economics and how slave labour gave the south an economic advantage - and that the south wasn't wanting to be lesser than the north

the north only freed the slaves to reduce the southern labour pool and in hopes of the slaves rising up and creating a second front inside the southern lines

revisionism doesn't help you resolve a matter when only by acknowledging it, can you actually deal with it.

the founding fathers were more enlightened than most of their day, but do not impose modern sensibilities and make them into that level of visionary

most founding fathers owned slaves, so slavery was never an issue for them - all the people they thought of as human had rights

and humans were male landowners

if the founding fathers had a more modern sensibility, then gender would have been explicitly made equal and it wasn't - women didn't get to vote in the initial US government, either.

and slaves were not going to get more consideration than free women.

“YOUR WORST”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3 Apr 25, 2011
nina wrote:
the US civil war was not about slavery in terms of human rights
the US civil war was about economics and how slave labour gave the south an economic advantage - and that the south wasn't wanting to be lesser than the north
the north only freed the slaves to reduce the southern labour pool and in hopes of the slaves rising up and creating a second front inside the southern lines
revisionism doesn't help you resolve a matter when only by acknowledging it, can you actually deal with it.
the founding fathers were more enlightened than most of their day, but do not impose modern sensibilities and make them into that level of visionary
most founding fathers owned slaves, so slavery was never an issue for them - all the people they thought of as human had rights
and humans were male landowners
if the founding fathers had a more modern sensibility, then gender would have been explicitly made equal and it wasn't - women didn't get to vote in the initial US government, either.
and slaves were not going to get more consideration than free women.
Sounds like a southern redneck dancing around the slavery question.

Slavery was always an issue as it has been sine those poor Hebs claimed they excaped slavery....yes it was economic...duh. If it wasn't there would be no slaves. Was it immoral, even then? YES.

Next time you think slavery was about something besides slavery,like state rights bullshit, ask a black person.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#4 Apr 27, 2011
Noah Sunder wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like a southern redneck dancing around the slavery question.
Slavery was always an issue as it has been sine those poor Hebs claimed they excaped slavery....yes it was economic...duh. If it wasn't there would be no slaves. Was it immoral, even then? YES.
Next time you think slavery was about something besides slavery,like state rights bullshit, ask a black person.
Next time you deny the holocaust happened, ask a jew. You're so full of shit you probably have a toilet permanently attached to your mouth.

“YOUR WORST”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5 Apr 27, 2011
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Next time you deny the holocaust happened, ask a jew. You're so full of shit you probably have a toilet permanently attached to your mouth.
Oh my...my jewgay admirer shows up on another thread to stalk me...can't you work on your GED someplace besides at the computer?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#6 Apr 28, 2011
Noah Sunder wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh my...my jewgay admirer shows up on another thread to stalk me...can't you work on your GED someplace besides at the computer?
Oh, so you hate gays as well as deny the holocaust?

I ask you what the f*ck you are doing here and you are too cowardly to give me a straight answer.

Go back to your f*cking cult of shame and don't come back here you holocaust denying homophobic tw*t.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#7 Apr 28, 2011
Read your post again and you will realise you are dumb as 4 nuts 4 empty lightbulbs and at least 3 pieces of junk mail.

Pay attention to the icons next to your post retard.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#8 Apr 28, 2011
I'm not jewish by the way, I just give a sh*t about events that happened a long time ago that brain damaged retards like yourself deny.
Amused

Billerica, MA

#9 Apr 28, 2011
nina wrote:
the US civil war was not about slavery in terms of human rights
the US civil war was about economics and how slave labour gave the south an economic advantage - and that the south wasn't wanting to be lesser than the north
the north only freed the slaves to reduce the southern labour pool and in hopes of the slaves rising up and creating a second front inside the southern lines
revisionism doesn't help you resolve a matter when only by acknowledging it, can you actually deal with it.
the founding fathers were more enlightened than most of their day, but do not impose modern sensibilities and make them into that level of visionary
most founding fathers owned slaves, so slavery was never an issue for them - all the people they thought of as human had rights
and humans were male landowners
if the founding fathers had a more modern sensibility, then gender would have been explicitly made equal and it wasn't - women didn't get to vote in the initial US government, either.
and slaves were not going to get more consideration than free women.
You are right that the Civil War was more about economics than it was a crusade for human rights for slaves. What you overlook is that the North's industry was based largely on textile manufacturing, which was profitable because of cheap southern cotton. Yankee mill owners were deeply complicit in the slave trade, because they well knew that while they piously outlawed slavery in northern states, they made their money from a system that only worked because slavery existed in the south.(Of course, in colonial times, the ancestors of the mill owners were even more directly involved in actually importing slaves as one leg of the "triangle trade". England was supporting the south because English cotton mills were in direct competition with New England's mills, and the English saw an opportunity to open a new supply source cheaper than the existing one. One of the often overlooked keys to the Union's victory was the naval blockade of southern ports that kept the south from financing their war effort with the profits of foreign cotton sales.
nina

Ottawa, Canada

#10 Apr 28, 2011
Noah Sunder wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like a southern redneck dancing around the slavery question.
...
clearly your confirmation bias is blocking your reading comprehension
nina

Ottawa, Canada

#11 Apr 28, 2011
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
. What you overlook is that the North's industry was based largely on textile manufacturing,....
thank you for that bit of information - which actually confirms my point that the civil wasn't about the north being upset over slavery - since they continued to benefit from it indirectly

the south wanted to leave and that would have increased the cost of doing comparatively slave free business in the north

which, makes you wonder a little bit that when jobs started being outsourced overseas because labour was cheaper than in the US - because there were no human rights, unions, environmental protection act

why didn't anyone consider that the US was effectively still struggling with the issues that caused the civil war - labour vs management - in fact, it's a battle over the form of capitolism

pure capitolism, uncaring of the people who power the economic engine

or socialized captiolism, where there's environmental, labour and consumer protection?

the reality is that the few who benefit, benefit the most in the short and immediate term by the explotation of the masses

but we can't keep pumping poo into the environment or burning through the labour forces

after a while, all of this comes back on us - the pollution, dead zones in the oceans, desertification of arable land, increased cancers, shorter lifespans

there isn't a god who's going to fix all our bad behaviour - and, if there was a god, we would all be collectively condemned, not rewarded for how we've treated the planet
Amused

Billerica, MA

#12 Apr 29, 2011
nina wrote:
<quoted text>
thank you for that bit of information - which actually confirms my point that the civil wasn't about the north being upset over slavery - since they continued to benefit from it indirectly
the south wanted to leave and that would have increased the cost of doing comparatively slave free business in the north
which, makes you wonder a little bit that when jobs started being outsourced overseas because labour was cheaper than in the US - because there were no human rights, unions, environmental protection act
why didn't anyone consider that the US was effectively still struggling with the issues that caused the civil war - labour vs management - in fact, it's a battle over the form of capitolism
pure capitolism, uncaring of the people who power the economic engine
or socialized captiolism, where there's environmental, labour and consumer protection?
the reality is that the few who benefit, benefit the most in the short and immediate term by the explotation of the masses
but we can't keep pumping poo into the environment or burning through the labour forces
after a while, all of this comes back on us - the pollution, dead zones in the oceans, desertification of arable land, increased cancers, shorter lifespans
there isn't a god who's going to fix all our bad behaviour - and, if there was a god, we would all be collectively condemned, not rewarded for how we've treated the planet
There was an intermediate step in the outsourcing, that's still going on today. The mill workers in the north began to unionize at the turn of the 20th Century, with the Bread and Roses strike in Lawrence MA as one of the turning points. The mill owners began, during the depression, and once the unionization process was nearly complete, to move their operations down south, where the workers were not yet unionized. Off-shore outsourcing began when the unions gained a foothold in the southern textile mills.

The unionization was one of the engines that drove the rise of the middle class in America. In union shops, workers could live relatively comfortably. Mill owners were still quite wealthy, but there was much less of the mindset that they had to wring every possible nickel out of the workers. Some of the mill owners were quite philanthropic, and endowed substantial foundations to carry out charitable works, usually after their death. This willingness to compromise and, at least to a limited extent, share with the workers, blunted the growth of socialism in America. It is interesting to see what will happen as corporate America abandons all pretense of civic mindedness and philanthropy and pursues absolute greed, what will happen. The decline of the middle class and the growing income gap between the wealthiest 0.1% of Americans and the rest of the country, where much of the middle class is sliding back towards being "working poor" may change the social calculus. One of the reasons for the funding of the Tea Party by the wealthy is to create a diversion on the far right to keep people from looking left for answers. Like the joke that a CEO, a public union employee and a tea partier all sat at a table. A waiter brought a plate with a dozen cookies. Immediately, the CEO grabbed 11 cookies. He then turned to the tea partier and said, "be careful, that union guy wants a big part of your cookie."
nina

Ottawa, Canada

#13 Apr 29, 2011
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
... This willingness to compromise and, at least to a limited extent, share with the workers, blunted the growth of socialism in America..."
that willingness to compromise is socialism

people who can participate and obtain benefit in parallel to participation are contented and less likely to revolt

but then the sharing has to be forced - unioniation - then it sets up the fight over the sharing ratio - and pits union vs management and it's the workers who continue to loose.

in my personal situation, I am playing nice with the union to keep my greivance going, but my matter is going to end up in court, where I will be suing the employee for unfairness and the union for failing to represent.

I am hoping to broker a settlement with the employer by the end of May to avoid that, but I still have to convince the employer that they are unfair.

The HQ is realizing the magnitude of my claim and are hoping that I don't - but since I've had to lead them down the garden path to see it, my actual task is to lay it out so that they know that I know - and then we can talk dollars.

It's more cost effect to settle with me, than to correct the problem that I represent - which is widespread unfairness arising from middle management, who've gone off policy and has been empire building when there's no work in need of staffing.

it strikes me that if we actually knew how to behave and treat each other fairly, that we wouldn't need all these rule systems to tell us how to behave.
nina

Ottawa, Canada

#14 Apr 29, 2011
A CEO, a public union employee and a tea partier all sat at a table.

A waiter brought a plate with a dozen cookies.

Immediately, the CEO grabbed 11 cookies, then turned to the tea partier and said, "be careful, that union guy wants a big part of your cookie."

So the tea partier turns on the union guy, who says, "see what happens when you de-regulate and support corporate bail-outs.”

But the tea partier is too busy defending the cookie to comprehend.
nina

Ottawa, Canada

#15 Apr 29, 2011
A CEO, a public union employee and a tea partier all sat at a table.

A waiter brought a plate with a dozen cookies.

Immediately, the CEO grabbed 11 cookies, then turned to the tea partier and said, "be careful, that union guy wants a big part of your cookie."

So the tea partier turns on the union guy, who says, "see what happens when you de-regulate and support corporate bail-outs.”

But the tea partier is too busy:

1. checking to see that the cookie was made in the USA

2. that the cookie was at least assembled in the USA with parts from China

3. defending the cookie from the union guy to listen to him.

this joke was made in the USA with additional parts from Canada

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 19 min Rose_NoHo 6,465
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr positronium 97,022
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr God Breathed 34,314
The atheists trick 3 hr The_Serpent 58
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Sat superwilly 258,608
Where have all the Atheists gone? (Apr '17) Aug 16 ChristineM 163
News Can an atheist win public office in Tennessee? ... Aug 16 Eagle 12 - 15