Political Crossfire Forums

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8933

Bah, again, my apologies for improper word choice. I meant to state "The same reason they already haven't."

agentkgb wrote: That reason isn't out of the goodness of their hearts, it's because we still have some power and would stop them. If the government had absolute power, nothing would stop them.

Perhaps I should explain more. I'm not saying we do away with elections (which is the only check the people have against government), or the Constitution (which is the only check government has upon itself); I'm asking that in between elections, and within the limits of the Constitution, what would be wrong with government dominance?

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

LostSoul3412 wrote: Bah, again, my apologies for improper word choice. I meant to state "The same reason they already haven't."
I do it too all the time.
LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: That reason isn't out of the goodness of their hearts, it's because we still have some power and would stop them. If the government had absolute power, nothing would stop them.

Perhaps I should explain more. I'm not saying we do away with elections (which is the only check the people have against government), or the Constitution (which is the only check government has upon itself); I'm asking that in between elections, and within the limits of the Constitution, what would be wrong with government dominance?
If they had absolute control then there would be no physical way to ensure that we would get to have elections or that they would follow the consitution.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8933

agentkgb wrote: If they had absolute control then there would be no physical way to ensure that we would get to have elections or that they would follow the consitution.

Is there a physical way to ensure it now?

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: If they had absolute control then there would be no physical way to ensure that we would get to have elections or that they would follow the consitution.

Is there a physical way to ensure it now?
Since the military isn't made up of government officials, yes we could revolt.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8933

agentkgb wrote: Since the military isn't made up of government officials, yes we could revolt.

Yes it is. The military is a government organization, and as such, any members of such are government employees.

Also, the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces, which means that the military is until the authority of government officials.

Also, if the government controlled everything, would your power to revolt be taken away?

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: Since the military isn't made up of government officials, yes we could revolt.

Yes it is. The military is a government organization, and as such, any members of such are government employees.
That was poorly written my bad. The military is made up mostly of soldiers who are more citizen than they are government officials.

LostSoul3412 wrote: Also, the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces, which means that the military is until the authority of government officials.
Legally, but if the people revolted the military might not follow the orders of the government.

LostSoul3412 wrote: Also, if the government controlled everything, would your power to revolt be taken away?
It would cease to exist. If the government had the ability to control without most of the military and police (if the government's power to rule came from itself and not the people), it could make successful revolt impossible.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8933

agentkgb wrote: That was poorly written my bad. The military is made up mostly of soldiers who are more citizen than they are government officials.

That's debatable, but it's speculation on either side so I'll refrain from arguing that point.

LostSoul3412 wrote: Legally, but if the people revolted the military might not follow the orders of the government.

Again, speculation.

LostSoul3412 wrote: It would cease to exist. If the government had the ability to control without most of the military and police (if the government's power to rule came from itself and not the people), it could make successful revolt impossible.

Do you think a successful revolt is possible now?

johnflesh · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 503 Location: Texas

"What's so horrible about absolute government control?"

From what I have gathered of the follow up posts to such a question, I am assuming this would be domination of our own self-control/power, through government?
Interesting question, as are many in this forum/thread.

For starters, I have yet to read an attempt at explaining how absolute government control would help anyone. Even the government. I have seen replies like 'so' and 'that is debatable' but yet even on a politcal debate forum I see little debating from the stand-point of absolute government control being a good thing, that benefits the U.S. and it's citizens. So go there, if you will.

My question is; how would absolute government control help anyone?

And to answer your question, however obtuse:

The government should be controlled, absolutly, by the people who put and keep it in power. The only reason the government has as much control as they have lately, is because of the complacentcy of the people it is built to protect. I'd imagine (yes imagine) that if the government was given total control, you'd not have the right, or facilities to ask such a question. If control was absolute enough, you'd not know such questions exist.

Oh yeah, and there is one other thing that makes absolute control wrong... it is called freedom. Since this new word 'security' has entered into every single aspect of our lives, we tend to forget without freedom, there is no security, just absolute control. Unless you want to give up all of your freedoms so mommy and daddy can tell you what to do, to absolutly control you, I suggest resisting any kind of total control. Otherwise you may start thinking that absolute control is a good thing.

It would be rather unfortunate if someone (the us citizens) were to lay total control in the hands of anyone but themselves. I have a feeling the people who'd wish such a thing can't do much for themselves without the government at this point. Take control and grow up.

johnflesh · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 503 Location: Texas

Kamel wrote: Lincoln started the civil war, Wilson entered the US into WWI, FDR sent the US to WWII, which was ended by Truman who dropped two atomic bombs, yet nobody says anything about any of them. The left started the conspiracy theories so they can take control of the united states, and it looks like their plan is working because of idiots that believe in them.

So far this is the best and most entertaining conspiracy I've read to date. Thanks for that.

Hint: the conspiracy theories in circulation have little to do with political gain. If you knew much about any of them, however ridiculous they are, you'd know it has nothing to do with the left or the right. Most conspiracy theories are about total control of the masses, so tell me... why would a group that seeks total domination need to get approval through votes from the people it is set to control?? Why would 'the illuminati' (for instance), need us to vote them into power??

You see, what people say about political gain through conspiracy is in it of itself a conspiracy. If there was a conspiracy from the left or the right, it wouldn't come down to dominating legistlature, lol... My point is, they wouldn't try to get us to vote for them, they'd just take power.

So the whole, the left start conspiracy theories to take control of the US is a laugh. If you put the word 'right' where the word 'left' is, I'd laugh just the same.

Also: I'd like to see some substantiation at how easy it would be to turn off the internet. Personally if I was a conspirator, looking for domination, I'd let you talk all you want in these forums so you actually think you make a difference, have an opinion, or matter at all whatsoever.

If I was going to control the world, it wouldn't be through domination, it would be by getting all of you to think you were free while all you do is fund the system that keeps you funding the system.

Mighty Oak · Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:47 am Post subject:

johnflesh wrote: "What's so horrible about absolute government control?"

From what I have gathered of the follow up posts to such a question, I am assuming this would be domination of our own self-control/power, through government?
Interesting question, as are many in this forum/thread.

For starters, I have yet to read on attempt at explaining how absolute government control would help anyone. Even the government. I have seen replies like 'so' and 'that is debatable' but yet even on a politcal debate forum I see little debating from the stand-point of absolute government control being a good thing, that benefits the U.S. and it's citizens. So go there, if you will.

My question is; how would absolute government control help anyone?

And to answer your question, however obtuse:

The government should be controlled, absolutly, by the people who put and keep it in power. The only reason the government has as much control as they have lately, is because of the complacentcy of the people it is built to protect. I'd imagine (yes imagine) that if the government was given total control, you'd not have the right, or facilities to ask such a question. If control was absolute enough, you'd not know such questions exist.

Oh yeah, and there is one other thing that makes absolute control wrong... it is called freedom. Since this new word 'security' has entered into every single aspect of our lives, we tend to forget without freedom, there is no security, just absolute control. Unless you want to give up all of your freedoms so mommy and daddy can tell you what to do, to absolutly control you, I suggest resisting any kind of total control. Otherwise you may start thinking that absolute control is a good thing.

It would be rather unfortunate if someone (the us citizens) were to lay total control in the hands of anyone but themselves. I have a feeling the people who'd wish such a thing can't do much for themselves without the government at this point. Take control and grow up. Good post.

Snake · Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:22 pm Post subject:

johnflesh wrote: Hint: the conspiracy theories in circulation have little to do with political gain. If you knew much about any of them, however ridiculous they are, you'd know it has nothing to do with the left or the right. Most conspiracy theories are about total control of the masses, so tell me... why would a group that seeks total domination need to get approval through votes from the people it is set to control?? Why would 'the illuminati' (for instance), need us to vote them into power?? Oh? I don't know anything about the conspiracy theories? The conspiracy theories that choke the internet, the theories that are more prevalent than actual research? The theories I can't go an hour without hearing? Yeah there's no way I know way I could possibly know something about these stupid theories, even though they're everywhere.... :roll:

Quote: You see, what people say about political gain through conspiracy is in it of itself a conspiracy. If there was a conspiracy from the left or the right, it wouldn't come down to dominating legistlature, lol... My point is, they wouldn't try to get us to vote for them, they'd just take power. :rofl: And how exactly do you get 300 million (est) Americans used to democracy and voting to accept the rule of someone who just 'takes power'? You'd have rioting in the streets, riot squads killing people, just pandemonium and chaos. Pretty counter productive, imo.

Quote: So the whole, the left start conspiracy theories to take control of the US is a laugh. If you put the word 'right' where the word 'left' is, I'd laugh just the same. No more a laugh than OMG! Bush and Cheney crashed planes into the twin towers and Pentagon!!!

Quote: Also: I'd like to see some substantiation at how easy it would be to turn off the internet. Personally if I was a conspirator, looking for domination, I'd let you talk all you want in these forums so you actually think you make a difference, have an opinion, or matter at all whatsoever. Electro magnetic pulse, for one. For being a conspiracy believer, you lack any imagination. You think the government doesn't have controll over the internet? You think all the servers are all just privately owned, and roam free from all control? You'd be mistaken

Quote: If I was going to control the world, it wouldn't be through domination, it would be by getting all of you to think you were free while all you do is fund the system that keeps you funding the system. That contradicts your statment at the top, where you said: "If there was a conspiracy from the left or the right, it wouldn't come down to dominating legistlature, lol... My point is, they wouldn't try to get us to vote for them, they'd just take power". You do realise this, right? To effectively do that, you get the people to vote for you, the best way to do it without question is to make the other side look worse than you.

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

LostSoul3412 wrote: Do you think a successful revolt is possible now?
Under extreme circumstances, yes. The government's power to rule rests with the military and the police, therefore ultimately with the people. If the government had some kind of mind control (which I don't believe they do, but do believe is possible) or weapon that wasn't a kind of brute force thing, then the power to rule would come from whoever had such a weapon (the government), making successful revolt unlikley.

johnflesh · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 503 Location: Texas

Kamel wrote: Oh? I don't know anything about the conspiracy theories? The conspiracy theories that choke the internet, the theories that are more prevalent than actual research? The theories I can't go an hour without hearing? Yeah there's no way I know way I could possibly know something about these stupid theories, even though they're everywhere.... :roll:

I have checked out a lot of the theories, makes for good entertainment, but nothing more. I am not sure what you think you know but you sure do have the left pinned in a corner since you figured them all out, huh? Buncha conspiracy theorist using lies and conspiracy theories to get into to Washington to control the U.S... lol. As I said, best and most entertaining theory I've heard.

Yeah the left isn't my choice of party but I doubt I can simply generalize that they ALL are conspiracy nuts trying to take over America, I'd look like an idiot, huh? Thanks for making that fairly clear. LOL.

Quote: :rofl: And how exactly do you get 300 million (est) Americans used to democracy and voting to accept the rule of someone who just 'takes power'? You'd have rioting in the streets, riot squads killing people, just pandemonium and chaos. Pretty counter productive, imo.

What you wrote was my point exactly. See here again we agree but you seem to like the extreme of things. Comprehension is a must to participate here...

Evidently you are having trouble with sarcasm as well. From now on, just for your sake, I will be sure to put [/sarcasm] where needed as to not confuse you or make you think I am a lefty. Cool? Cool...

Quote: No more a laugh than OMG! Bush and Cheney crashed planes into the twin towers and Pentagon!!!

See now you get it, I knew you would. The idea that you are compairing your 'the left are all conspiracy theorist trying to conspire' their way into American control' is a bit out there, but hey, who am I to judge? But if I had to answer this if it were a question, it would be:

Both your conspiracy about the left and the conspiracy about 911/ Bush/ and airplanes are equally profound and result in little applicable discussion without proof. Otherwise it just seems like garbage spewing from the mouth. :)

Quote: Electro magnetic pulse, for one. For being a conspiracy believer, you lack any imagination. You think the government doesn't have controll over the internet? You think all the servers are all just privately owned, and roam free from all control? You'd be mistaken

EMP? LOL too funny. So the EMP is going to only wipe out power to the internet. Like there is a plug to the internet, that could be pulled instead, but no... lets EMP the hell out of EVERY CITY IN THE US, and hope it hits the internet only. LOL. If this is the imagination you speak of, yeah I lack it, because it is ridiculous and complete baseless garbage. Show me proof that there is some technology with EMP that attacks only internet or computers, then we will go from there.

I don't believe in conspiracy, you know why??? Because it is a conspiracy. I spelled it plain and simple for you there. No comprehension needed.
Conspiracy is built on the absence of information. Without information it is true or false. Has absolutly nothing to do with belief.

Aren't you the one that thinks all the left is out to get America? I think you have a few questions to ask youself on that one...

Quote: That contradicts your statment at the top, where you said: "If there was a conspiracy from the left or the right, it wouldn't come down to dominating legistlature, lol... My point is, they wouldn't try to get us to vote for them, they'd just take power". You do realise this, right? To effectively do that, you get the people to vote for you, the best way to do it without question is to make the other side look worse than you.

You realize why? Yeah,.. yep.. that whole sarcasm thing again. Sigh. I addressed that above so you can go back and read that if you still have troubles.

Shall I compress this? Sure why not.

The left is out to get america, through the use of conspiracy. Needlessly complicated plots and entanglements that cost millions of dollars, innocent lives, and not to mention, loads of time. As well, IF the government so chose, they can EMP your area, without knocking out other electricty, only hit the internet providers and if there are those, like me, who DO OWN PRIVATE SERVERS as well... knocking out 'the internet.'

Awesome...

Until next time? take care.

Snake · Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:17 pm Post subject:

You do realize the 'left trying to dominate the white house" was a joke, right? I thought that was obvious. Sarcasm doesn't translate well into the typed word (anyone can tell you that) and the 'emp' was also a joke, hence "For being a conspiracy believer, you lack any imagination". And you're scalding me about comprehension skills....

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8933

johnflesh wrote: For starters, I have yet to read an attempt at explaining how absolute government control would help anyone. Even the government. I have seen replies like 'so' and 'that is debatable' but yet even on a politcal debate forum I see little debating from the stand-point of absolute government control being a good thing, that benefits the U.S. and it's citizens. So go there, if you will.

The purpose of this thread isn't to establish that absolute control is a good thing, merely an attempt to establish that it is not a bad thing.

johnflesh wrote: My question is; how would absolute government control help anyone?

Order, justice, rule of law.

johnflesh wrote: The government should be controlled, absolutly, by the people who put and keep it in power.

That's not the case, and I don't agree, but that's a different point for a different day.

johnflesh wrote: The only reason the government has as much control as they have lately, is because of the complacentcy of the people it is built to protect. I'd imagine (yes imagine) that if the government was given total control, you'd not have the right, or facilities to ask such a question. If control was absolute enough, you'd not know such questions exist.

Perhaps I should explain the added context: the Constitution is still in place, and elections are still held. The period of absolute control, comes inbetween elections, and within the bounds of the Constitution. (Basically, the current system. The truth is that we've been in a state of absolute control since 1789.)

johnflesh wrote: Oh yeah, and there is one other thing that makes absolute control wrong... it is called freedom. Since this new word 'security' has entered into every single aspect of our lives, we tend to forget without freedom, there is no security, just absolute control. Unless you want to give up all of your freedoms so mommy and daddy can tell you what to do, to absolutly control you, I suggest resisting any kind of total control. Otherwise you may start thinking that absolute control is a good thing.

I hate President Bush as much as the next thinking individual, and I'm not attempting to connect my argument to his actions in anyway, as most of his actions violate federal law, and the Constitution. Personally, I think he should be charged as a criminal.

johnflesh wrote: It would be rather unfortunate if someone (the us citizens) were to lay total control in the hands of anyone but themselves.

The people have never had power. It's always rested with the state and federal governments.

johnflesh wrote: I have a feeling the people who'd wish such a thing can't do much for themselves without the government at this point. Take control and grow up.

Dependency does not equate to philosophy. Individuals will always be free of government, and those dependent become slaves. That is why it is any government's desire to turn the citizenry into slaves, and it is the individual's responsibility to operate their own existence.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8933

agentkgb wrote: Under extreme circumstances, yes. The government's power to rule rests with the military and the police, therefore ultimately with the people. If the government had some kind of mind control (which I don't believe they do, but do believe is possible) or weapon that wasn't a kind of brute force thing, then the power to rule would come from whoever had such a weapon (the government), making successful revolt unlikley.

The police and military are nothing more than a weapon. Government, on the other hand, is the weapon master, and the law provides the proficiency to operate such a weapon.

Violent revolts and revolutions would never be tolerated, nor successful. Even the expressed desire to organize such a revolt is criminal activity.

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: Under extreme circumstances, yes. The government's power to rule rests with the military and the police, therefore ultimately with the people. If the government had some kind of mind control (which I don't believe they do, but do believe is possible) or weapon that wasn't a kind of brute force thing, then the power to rule would come from whoever had such a weapon (the government), making successful revolt unlikley.

The police and military are nothing more than a weapon. Government, on the other hand, is the weapon master, and the law provides the proficiency to operate such a weapon.
The military is more than a weapon, it's a group of people. They have to have some reason to do what they do: either they must agree with it or be afraid enough not to resists.
LostSoul3412 wrote: Violent revolts and revolutions would never be tolerated, nor successful. Even the expressed desire to organize such a revolt is criminal activity.
That's why it could only happen in extreme circumstances. Only if most of the population agreed with it.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8933

agentkgb wrote: Only if most of the population agreed with it.

By this, do you mean at least 51%, or more than ~80%?

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

agentkgb wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Violent revolts and revolutions would never be tolerated, nor successful. Even the expressed desire to organize such a revolt is criminal activity.
That's why it could only happen in extreme circumstances. Only if most of the population agreed with it.
This is an utterly collossal (and extremely dangerous) misconception of history.

I don't know if there's ever been a revolution anywhere in history that was supported by more than about 3% of the population..

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

psholtz wrote: agentkgb wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Violent revolts and revolutions would never be tolerated, nor successful. Even the expressed desire to organize such a revolt is criminal activity.
That's why it could only happen in extreme circumstances. Only if most of the population agreed with it.
This is an utterly collossal (and extremely dangerous) misconception of history.

I don't know if there's ever been a revolution anywhere in history that was supported by more than about 3% of the population..
True. If most of those who had the power to conduct such a revolt did not disagree and enough of those who had that power decided to then I guess. It depends on the circumstances.