The supreme court reserves the right to interpret the constitution as they see fit,
courts can do interpretations as long as they remain within the law. they cannot reinterpret its meaning to add conditionals to it. freedom exists. it cannot be conditionalized.
Also, how could we forget all of those nonexistent people who died because of these information leaks?
yeah, like who ? like the nonexistent people whose names never got out because wikileaks has been censoring their names with the help of 4 major new media outlets ?
or, the nonexistent people who did not die, even if they have voluntarily and while being paid, helped perpetrate what filth is being exposed in the documents ?
i mean, gee, you sign up to be a double agent, in order to arrange drone strikes which kill countless innocents, but, if your name gets out, youre dead.
and somehow, good people are supposed to feel sorry for that. because.... really, why are we supposed to feel sorry for them ?
... who try to put conditions to freedoms. like '.... if you arent doing x' or '........ if you arent for y'.
are there ANY conditions, prefixes or suffixes regarding the freedoms in bill of rights, human rights declaration, or the first amendments of american constitution ?
are there ANYthing that says 'you have freedom of x IF....'.
there arent.
leave aside that, on top of this, it says GOD GIVEN and INALIENABLE rights there. this means, the rights are inalienable. inalienable means inalienable, period - no conditions of national secrets, or trade secrets, or other kind of prefixes or suffixes to the amendment.
if something is inalienable, there can be no excuse made to make it otherwise.
yet we see a lot of people around internet now, in forums, trying to justify hampering of these inalienable freedoms with various excuses. 'national security' 'government property', 'your intent'.
there is no wordage like 'national security', 'government property', 'intent' in the documents that determine the modern civil principles and rights we have today. they are called rights, because they ARE inalienable, natural rights of people.
arguing otherwise, is betraying to these principles and papers. they include declaration of human rights, bill of rights, and various constitutions including the american constitution. what's appalling is, doing this call them 'patriotic'. since when going against one's own country's founding principles, leave aside constitution, has become patriotic....
In terms of planetary science, the magnetopause is the outermost boundary of the region controlled by a planet's magnetic field. It separates the magnetosheath and the magnetosphere. It is the location where the outward magnetic pressure of a planet's magnetic field is counterbalanced by the solar wind plasma.
for example, you bought up slavery before. is slavery really still an acceptable practice?
it isnt. however, its still continuing.
you should read the details on the abolition of slavery in brazil. after abolition, plantation owners set up economic situation so that, slavery, in practice continued for a long time, despite being abolished.
no history does not repeat itself, it goes through cycles, and those cycles change over time. such that, on the grand scale of things social progress is real: slavery, racism, women's rights, civil rights, etc.: compared to roman times, there is a long term movement away from bad practices. really
progress is real. 80% of american public have to work 10-16 hours in minimum wage jobs, still not being able to make ends meet, and live in shabby conditions.
yet, slavery is gone.
if you compare the standard of living for an average plantation owner to a contemporary slave, and the standard of living of a current megacorporation owner to the standard of an average minimum wage earner today, you will see similar disparage.
yes, there has been progress. things have changed. TECHNOLOGICALLY. whereas the most luxury transportation was a luxury cart or a luxury yacht back in those centuries, now it is a personal jet, and superyachts.
80% of american public get 15% of the income. top 1% gets 50, and top 7% gets a whopping 72%.
things have not changed. the pyramid that was there back then, translated itself into modern terms. you are still on the same place in the pyramid, your grand grand.... grandfather was.
what a dreary mind you must have, i'd hate to inhabit it
dreary mind, is much more preferable than naivete, or being deceived.
Surely, that was staged as some kind of irony, or some kind of joke, right ? Because if otherwise, its even hard to start explaining what is wrong with this situation. There are SO many of them...
You say that they didn't have any weapons, yet this article [ishtarsgate.com] talks about men being ceremoniously buried with weapons made of obsidian. Other references I came across suggest that there is no sound basis for concluding that they had a matriarchal society (or that they didn't. There is insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion one way or the other).
they had matriarchal societies. however, anatolia is a migration region. and matriarchal societies were eventually overcome and destroyed by patriarchal, migratory hordes. due to the size of anatolia compared to the size of communities present then, it was possible to have numerous different cultures. that continued even until alexander the greek's time.
Basically, your knowledge of Scandinavian history is much the same...mostly propaganda with little basis in actual observable fact.
yeah. i will now just go into typing a huge heap of text telling about the invasions of scandinavian tribes into NW roman empire, and the culture change they brought..... not. i dont have that much time.
As for where the positive traits of Western Civilization come from, they come from Christianity
i didnt know i was attempting to discuss with a witless zealot. excuse me, im bailing out of this discussion.
Maybe he was too lazy to log on or trust the terminal he was on?
from my experience with making remarks that can annoy zealots/conservatives/extremists, i kinda know that whenever someone posts a comment like that, they are generally one of them. subjective of course...
In other words, you're just making shit up. Kind of like the rest of your posts on any subject.
hello, cowardly conservative. great to see that you are participating, well, anonymous.
lets say all of my views and information is made up. i still have much more spine than you, since i have the guts to actually voice it myself, instead of posting anonymous like spineless cowards.
if they hit, as much as they hit, they have a huge effect on magnetosphere. and also can cause failures in electrical, electronical equipment.
it is also possible that by presurizing earth's magnetic field, they are affecting all creatures on the planet. (Since all gets affected by the magnetism). shrinking magnetic field also means more cosmic rays coming in, i presume.
energy of the blast, its emissions, may increase heating of the planet, i presume. but i dont remember it well.
Overall, having exchanged several comments with you, I have to conclude that you are either incredibly naive about human nature, or just plain stupid.
no, its just that you are not learned on human history.
current western civilization is the product of a long string of developments migrations, and migrations of ideologies starting from middle east (generally caanan) to america. it starts from caanan, moves to anatolia, greece, then to italian peninsula, then to british isles while touching france, and then merging with the scandinavian influence, it springboards from there to usa.
almost all the positive traits you like about western civilization, come from scandinavian influence. (im not scandinavian). stuff about democracy, tolerating others (there wasnt tolerance even in ancient greece), equality of people and so on, has roots in that culture. (even in middle ages catholic church wasnt able to bring repression to scandinavia, 2nd most traded product was bras that made breasts look bigger), anything that you dont dislike, elitism, profiteering, manipulation and repression, are of middle east origin. the only exception is, a HUGE organizational structuring coming into the mix in italy, rome. which was not seen before in any known civilization. however ironically, this is the place where the elitism structure, slavery concepts, and usage of economy to dominate masses, despite they are technically (legally) free had first been perfected. (latifundia owners manipulating grain market to bankrupt and enslave/enforce small farmers). resulting in a mind boggling scale of enslavement and exploitation from all masses of the society, leave aside enslaved peoples. at the onset of the destruction of roman empire, the empire was almost totally a slave state, and this was one of the major reasons causing its downfall - the middle classes which carried the republic were there no more, and the lower classes had no reason to fight the intruders.
this has only been broken by the liberating influence of the migrations. scandinavian tribes, tho called barbarians, had quite democratic/egalitarian societies. chieftains were elected, and everyone was equal, with small variations. no ownership - the land, produce were owned by everyone, anyone could use it, wouldnt matter if it was a scandinavian or a roman slave or a patrician.
however in a few centuries, the established roman elite, through the help of the catholic church structure they were now running (almost all of the elites moved into the catholic church at the onset of middle ages), has been successful in recreating a hierarchy mechanism. which we know as the basis for feudalism as of today.
this has been cooked into near perfection in britain. seemingly more freedom was allowed to serfs, but all that was done was to keep them controlled by allowing them very minor liberties in attempting to become elites. you could, if the heavens aligned well, start from being a serf and work your way through a small knighthood through marriages, purchase of land and whatnot. the basis for nobility, was, the amount of land owned. ironically almost all such new nobles tried to dodge the title of nobility, and the knighthood responsibility that came with it, because it was VERY expensive to maintain a knight's equipment and entourage. however, despite that, they became perpetrators of the system - see, for they have succeeded ! they made it !!
except for the major religion factor (reaching back to caanan) effecting the migrations to usa, the only difference in between the old and the new system is, the serfdom concept was legally lifted - everyone could move about, and attempt to become lords by acquiring wealth. however at no point like in roman empire, they could become barons or dukes that held power, because it was impossible for them to amass that much in the system in a lifetime or 2-3 lifetimes.
so the ruling hierarchy always remains the same. the difference now is, you elect the king, jus
The current U.S. government (nor those of any Western European country) looks nothing like them.
they are like them. the only thing that you are erring in, is thinking that direct repression is worse than indirect oppression.
ie, it would be more 'totalitarian' if police suddenly knocked down your door. but, its not that totalitarian when visa cancels your cards, amazon kicks you off hosting, banks freeze your funds, and some dipshit manufactures rape charges by wiiiidely interpreting a law. it is oppression, but, it is done indirectly, and behind excuses.
in a totalitarian society, you would expect police to show up your door for talking about assange. because, you are as dangerous as anyone else, in such a system.
however in a capitalist system like usa, you are only as dangerous as the funds and amenities you have. if you were wealthy, and becoming dangerous, the system would start removing you from itself, by the same means it is trying to remove wikileaks.
and it may come to that too - dont mistake - if, they can remove wikileaks as a source, they will go after anyone who is disseminating, sharing, or talking that information, through the same means. its just that they werent able to remove wikileaks.
in the end, if all boils down to some schmocks talking in conspiracy forums, they will be satisfied. because, they do know that you have NO power to do anything. because doing anything requires finances, power.
in a totalitarian system like you know, the system propagates itself with ideology. that is why, someone talking against the ideology is a direct danger.
in a capitalist (postmodern feudalism) system, system propagates itself with wealth structures. in this system, anyone having enough power to do anything (finances, means to do anything) without adhering to the existing hierarchy, is a danger to the system.
both remove the danger to themselves. the means of doing that, differs.
The key thing is that even you admit that totalitarianism involves the masses being "made to conform", not convinced to conform.
being 'convinced' to conform, ends up with conforming.
and 'convincing' takes a lot of forms.
One of those is that the masses are afraid to not conform, not afraid in the, "People will think badly of me if I do that" way, but in the "People from the government will come and do bad things to me if I do that" way.
absolutes. if you mix in 10 different ways to make someone conform to something from 10 different concepts, it doesnt make what it ends up as, less totalitarian. in the end, you MAKE someone conform to what you want.
indeed people are not afraid to not conform because 'people will think badly of me' (despite even that being a factor), but, instead, they are pushed into the depths of the society, to lower levels, and even prosecuted if need be (as in the case of assange).
basically, you are put in a position that you cant survive/persist in the society. first, you are pushed into depths, lower levels, if you still insist, it is made impossible for you to continue existing in the society.
of course, by the time you reach that point, you are already out of being a threat for the establishment. for example, if the wikileaks crowd were just people blabbering about in conspiracy forums, the establishment wouldnt give 2 shits about them.
That men are unable to stop having sex once they've started is the lamest excuse I've heard in a long time.
you are either not a man, or havent had sex yet. or, you are not sexually mature.
this is an evolutionary design. the pregnancy needs to be ensured. ejaculation is the means to do it. it should take place as soon as possible, from nature's view.
considering the monkeys which are these bodies evolved from were nested in trees at the start, and had to mate among branches, hanging about.
why has a 200 year old country come to dominate the world?
for a certain set of values, yes, that's the reason. a set of values you dislike. that's ok, you don't have to like them
except your problem is that any country that weakens in its competition with the usa starts making up for its lagging credentials by BECOMING MORE LIKE THE USA
let me tell you why.
because it followed the precise same line of development like the roman empire. and early roman republic.
a slave empire, built on conquest of others, thriving on slave labor, maintaining a strong army, with an organized, structured society which gives its citizens the PROMISE (not the actual possibility) of making it out to higher ranks.
and like all systems that work like that, it is eventually deteriorating into an empire, fascism, bit by bit, because conquests have stopped, and the frontiers are out.
this is why the study of history is ultimately important. it shows what happened, how it happened, and tells us what are the probable routes from this point on, are.
'effective' does not mean good. your problem is not differentiating in between that too. rome was a very efficient state, yet, majority of its citizens were either slaves, or lower ranks of the society.
ironically, even in 2008, in united states, 1% top of the society takes 51% of everything, whereas bottom 80% gets only 15%. this income distribution is worse than the 33%, 33%, 33% division of rights from the produce from the land in middle ages to peasants, church and the lord.
you are living in the early stages of a new roman empire, unless its thwarted.
from the start, i have said that, what matters was the END result. and it wouldnt matter whether the control was exercised by state, through state, or by private parties, through state, or by private parties, through private parties.
that being said, you will find a lot of differing definitions of totalitarianism, even in its dictionary meaning :
do you believe anything you have written in your list of the crimes of the usa would stop?
ooof course not !!!
just that, usa is the biggest perpetrator at this moment, due to its social setup, the culture of its citizens (which enables self aggrandizement of power as a good thing and respectable), and its current laws and rules.
had it gone away, the next most usable, exploitable, suitable country would be used by the elite of the society in that manner.
usa us a good indicator of what can happen, and what is wrong with it. we are using it as an example. it is a battleground. if these ills can be fixed there, where they are most skewed, they can be fixed in other places too.
Slashdot Mirror
The supreme court reserves the right to interpret the constitution as they see fit,
courts can do interpretations as long as they remain within the law. they cannot reinterpret its meaning to add conditionals to it. freedom exists. it cannot be conditionalized.
Also, how could we forget all of those nonexistent people who died because of these information leaks?
yeah, like who ? like the nonexistent people whose names never got out because wikileaks has been censoring their names with the help of 4 major new media outlets ?
.... really, why are we supposed to feel sorry for them ?
or, the nonexistent people who did not die, even if they have voluntarily and while being paid, helped perpetrate what filth is being exposed in the documents ?
i mean, gee, you sign up to be a double agent, in order to arrange drone strikes which kill countless innocents, but, if your name gets out, youre dead.
and somehow, good people are supposed to feel sorry for that. because
i see where this is going: you're a grade a certified wackjob
we are done discussing. good evening.
... who try to put conditions to freedoms. like '.... if you arent doing x' or '........ if you arent for y'.
....'.
....
are there ANY conditions, prefixes or suffixes regarding the freedoms in bill of rights, human rights declaration, or the first amendments of american constitution ?
are there ANYthing that says 'you have freedom of x IF
there arent.
leave aside that, on top of this, it says GOD GIVEN and INALIENABLE rights there. this means, the rights are inalienable. inalienable means inalienable, period - no conditions of national secrets, or trade secrets, or other kind of prefixes or suffixes to the amendment.
if something is inalienable, there can be no excuse made to make it otherwise.
yet we see a lot of people around internet now, in forums, trying to justify hampering of these inalienable freedoms with various excuses. 'national security' 'government property', 'your intent'.
there is no wordage like 'national security', 'government property', 'intent' in the documents that determine the modern civil principles and rights we have today. they are called rights, because they ARE inalienable, natural rights of people.
arguing otherwise, is betraying to these principles and papers. they include declaration of human rights, bill of rights, and various constitutions including the american constitution. what's appalling is, doing this call them 'patriotic'. since when going against one's own country's founding principles, leave aside constitution, has become patriotic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetopause
In terms of planetary science, the magnetopause is the outermost boundary of the region controlled by a planet's magnetic field. It separates the magnetosheath and the magnetosphere. It is the location where the outward magnetic pressure of a planet's magnetic field is counterbalanced by the solar wind plasma.
for example, you bought up slavery before. is slavery really still an acceptable practice?
it isnt. however, its still continuing.
you should read the details on the abolition of slavery in brazil. after abolition, plantation owners set up economic situation so that, slavery, in practice continued for a long time, despite being abolished.
no history does not repeat itself, it goes through cycles, and those cycles change over time. such that, on the grand scale of things social progress is real: slavery, racism, women's rights, civil rights, etc.: compared to roman times, there is a long term movement away from bad practices. really
progress is real. 80% of american public have to work 10-16 hours in minimum wage jobs, still not being able to make ends meet, and live in shabby conditions.
.... grandfather was.
yet, slavery is gone.
if you compare the standard of living for an average plantation owner to a contemporary slave, and the standard of living of a current megacorporation owner to the standard of an average minimum wage earner today, you will see similar disparage.
yes, there has been progress. things have changed. TECHNOLOGICALLY. whereas the most luxury transportation was a luxury cart or a luxury yacht back in those centuries, now it is a personal jet, and superyachts.
80% of american public get 15% of the income. top 1% gets 50, and top 7% gets a whopping 72%.
things have not changed. the pyramid that was there back then, translated itself into modern terms. you are still on the same place in the pyramid, your grand grand
what a dreary mind you must have, i'd hate to inhabit it
dreary mind, is much more preferable than naivete, or being deceived.
Its a trap !!!
Surely, that was staged as some kind of irony, or some kind of joke, right ? Because if otherwise, its even hard to start explaining what is wrong with this situation. There are SO many of them ...
proper discussion happens with arguments. if there is none ..
forget it you dont deserve or need an explanation.
people's base motivations and the ways to manipulate them did not change throughout history. it is always repeating itself.
Your "perfect" time in history is prehistoric Anatolia?
indeed, possibly it is. we know a lot about it actually. even this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe
You say that they didn't have any weapons, yet this article [ishtarsgate.com] talks about men being ceremoniously buried with weapons made of obsidian. Other references I came across suggest that there is no sound basis for concluding that they had a matriarchal society (or that they didn't. There is insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion one way or the other).
they had matriarchal societies. however, anatolia is a migration region. and matriarchal societies were eventually overcome and destroyed by patriarchal, migratory hordes. due to the size of anatolia compared to the size of communities present then, it was possible to have numerous different cultures. that continued even until alexander the greek's time.
Basically, your knowledge of Scandinavian history is much the same...mostly propaganda with little basis in actual observable fact.
yeah. i will now just go into typing a huge heap of text telling about the invasions of scandinavian tribes into NW roman empire, and the culture change they brought ..... not. i dont have that much time.
As for where the positive traits of Western Civilization come from, they come from Christianity
i didnt know i was attempting to discuss with a witless zealot. excuse me, im bailing out of this discussion.
Maybe he was too lazy to log on or trust the terminal he was on?
from my experience with making remarks that can annoy zealots/conservatives/extremists, i kinda know that whenever someone posts a comment like that, they are generally one of them. subjective of course ...
In other words, you're just making shit up. Kind of like the rest of your posts on any subject.
hello, cowardly conservative. great to see that you are participating, well, anonymous.
lets say all of my views and information is made up. i still have much more spine than you, since i have the guts to actually voice it myself, instead of posting anonymous like spineless cowards.
I am a man and I find it quite offensive that you think I lose all control as soon as a woman touches my dick.
thats because you have reading comprehension issues.
what parts of 'ejaculation' and vicinity of time near ejaculation you dont understand ?
please, next time you are having real good sex, try stopping right at the time you are going to ejaculate and pull yourself out.
if they hit, as much as they hit, they have a huge effect on magnetosphere. and also can cause failures in electrical, electronical equipment.
it is also possible that by presurizing earth's magnetic field, they are affecting all creatures on the planet. (Since all gets affected by the magnetism). shrinking magnetic field also means more cosmic rays coming in, i presume.
energy of the blast, its emissions, may increase heating of the planet, i presume. but i dont remember it well.
Overall, having exchanged several comments with you, I have to conclude that you are either incredibly naive about human nature, or just plain stupid.
no, its just that you are not learned on human history.
current western civilization is the product of a long string of developments migrations, and migrations of ideologies starting from middle east (generally caanan) to america. it starts from caanan, moves to anatolia, greece, then to italian peninsula, then to british isles while touching france, and then merging with the scandinavian influence, it springboards from there to usa.
almost all the positive traits you like about western civilization, come from scandinavian influence. (im not scandinavian). stuff about democracy, tolerating others (there wasnt tolerance even in ancient greece), equality of people and so on, has roots in that culture. (even in middle ages catholic church wasnt able to bring repression to scandinavia, 2nd most traded product was bras that made breasts look bigger), anything that you dont dislike, elitism, profiteering, manipulation and repression, are of middle east origin. the only exception is, a HUGE organizational structuring coming into the mix in italy, rome. which was not seen before in any known civilization. however ironically, this is the place where the elitism structure, slavery concepts, and usage of economy to dominate masses, despite they are technically (legally) free had first been perfected. (latifundia owners manipulating grain market to bankrupt and enslave/enforce small farmers). resulting in a mind boggling scale of enslavement and exploitation from all masses of the society, leave aside enslaved peoples. at the onset of the destruction of roman empire, the empire was almost totally a slave state, and this was one of the major reasons causing its downfall - the middle classes which carried the republic were there no more, and the lower classes had no reason to fight the intruders.
this has only been broken by the liberating influence of the migrations. scandinavian tribes, tho called barbarians, had quite democratic/egalitarian societies. chieftains were elected, and everyone was equal, with small variations. no ownership - the land, produce were owned by everyone, anyone could use it, wouldnt matter if it was a scandinavian or a roman slave or a patrician.
however in a few centuries, the established roman elite, through the help of the catholic church structure they were now running (almost all of the elites moved into the catholic church at the onset of middle ages), has been successful in recreating a hierarchy mechanism. which we know as the basis for feudalism as of today.
this has been cooked into near perfection in britain. seemingly more freedom was allowed to serfs, but all that was done was to keep them controlled by allowing them very minor liberties in attempting to become elites. you could, if the heavens aligned well, start from being a serf and work your way through a small knighthood through marriages, purchase of land and whatnot. the basis for nobility, was, the amount of land owned. ironically almost all such new nobles tried to dodge the title of nobility, and the knighthood responsibility that came with it, because it was VERY expensive to maintain a knight's equipment and entourage. however, despite that, they became perpetrators of the system - see, for they have succeeded ! they made it !!
except for the major religion factor (reaching back to caanan) effecting the migrations to usa, the only difference in between the old and the new system is, the serfdom concept was legally lifted - everyone could move about, and attempt to become lords by acquiring wealth. however at no point like in roman empire, they could become barons or dukes that held power, because it was impossible for them to amass that much in the system in a lifetime or 2-3 lifetimes.
so the ruling hierarchy always remains the same. the difference now is, you elect the king, jus
The current U.S. government (nor those of any Western European country) looks nothing like them.
they are like them. the only thing that you are erring in, is thinking that direct repression is worse than indirect oppression.
ie, it would be more 'totalitarian' if police suddenly knocked down your door. but, its not that totalitarian when visa cancels your cards, amazon kicks you off hosting, banks freeze your funds, and some dipshit manufactures rape charges by wiiiidely interpreting a law. it is oppression, but, it is done indirectly, and behind excuses.
in a totalitarian society, you would expect police to show up your door for talking about assange. because, you are as dangerous as anyone else, in such a system.
however in a capitalist system like usa, you are only as dangerous as the funds and amenities you have. if you were wealthy, and becoming dangerous, the system would start removing you from itself, by the same means it is trying to remove wikileaks.
and it may come to that too - dont mistake - if, they can remove wikileaks as a source, they will go after anyone who is disseminating, sharing, or talking that information, through the same means. its just that they werent able to remove wikileaks.
in the end, if all boils down to some schmocks talking in conspiracy forums, they will be satisfied. because, they do know that you have NO power to do anything. because doing anything requires finances, power.
in a totalitarian system like you know, the system propagates itself with ideology. that is why, someone talking against the ideology is a direct danger.
in a capitalist (postmodern feudalism) system, system propagates itself with wealth structures. in this system, anyone having enough power to do anything (finances, means to do anything) without adhering to the existing hierarchy, is a danger to the system.
both remove the danger to themselves. the means of doing that, differs.
Anna Ardin does appear to have been on the U.S. payroll for anti-Communist activities though
there is your evidence of prostitution. professional to boot.
go read history.
oooh. so, weasel words like 'rape' 'sex criminal' are ok when people are being accused. but, having ties to cia, is not.
The key thing is that even you admit that totalitarianism involves the masses being "made to conform", not convinced to conform.
being 'convinced' to conform, ends up with conforming.
and 'convincing' takes a lot of forms.
One of those is that the masses are afraid to not conform, not afraid in the, "People will think badly of me if I do that" way, but in the "People from the government will come and do bad things to me if I do that" way.
absolutes. if you mix in 10 different ways to make someone conform to something from 10 different concepts, it doesnt make what it ends up as, less totalitarian. in the end, you MAKE someone conform to what you want.
indeed people are not afraid to not conform because 'people will think badly of me' (despite even that being a factor), but, instead, they are pushed into the depths of the society, to lower levels, and even prosecuted if need be (as in the case of assange).
basically, you are put in a position that you cant survive/persist in the society. first, you are pushed into depths, lower levels, if you still insist, it is made impossible for you to continue existing in the society.
of course, by the time you reach that point, you are already out of being a threat for the establishment. for example, if the wikileaks crowd were just people blabbering about in conspiracy forums, the establishment wouldnt give 2 shits about them.
blah blah blah united states united states moron: have you ever heard of china?
go fucking read the history of roman empire asswipe. i dont have more time to waste with you. i have spent a lot of positive effort trying to discuss.
That men are unable to stop having sex once they've started is the lamest excuse I've heard in a long time.
you are either not a man, or havent had sex yet. or, you are not sexually mature.
this is an evolutionary design. the pregnancy needs to be ensured. ejaculation is the means to do it. it should take place as soon as possible, from nature's view.
considering the monkeys which are these bodies evolved from were nested in trees at the start, and had to mate among branches, hanging about.
why has a 200 year old country come to dominate the world? for a certain set of values, yes, that's the reason. a set of values you dislike. that's ok, you don't have to like them except your problem is that any country that weakens in its competition with the usa starts making up for its lagging credentials by BECOMING MORE LIKE THE USA
let me tell you why.
because it followed the precise same line of development like the roman empire. and early roman republic.
a slave empire, built on conquest of others, thriving on slave labor, maintaining a strong army, with an organized, structured society which gives its citizens the PROMISE (not the actual possibility) of making it out to higher ranks.
and like all systems that work like that, it is eventually deteriorating into an empire, fascism, bit by bit, because conquests have stopped, and the frontiers are out.
this is why the study of history is ultimately important. it shows what happened, how it happened, and tells us what are the probable routes from this point on, are.
'effective' does not mean good. your problem is not differentiating in between that too. rome was a very efficient state, yet, majority of its citizens were either slaves, or lower ranks of the society.
ironically, even in 2008, in united states, 1% top of the society takes 51% of everything, whereas bottom 80% gets only 15%. this income distribution is worse than the 33%, 33%, 33% division of rights from the produce from the land in middle ages to peasants, church and the lord.
you are living in the early stages of a new roman empire, unless its thwarted.
nowhere i have given a dictionary definition.
from the start, i have said that, what matters was the END result. and it wouldnt matter whether the control was exercised by state, through state, or by private parties, through state, or by private parties, through private parties.
that being said, you will find a lot of differing definitions of totalitarianism, even in its dictionary meaning :
http://www.history-ontheweb.co.uk/concepts/totalitarianism.htm
http://www.google.com/search?q=totalitarianism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
the only thing common in between them, is the masses being made conform to a certain format.
do you believe anything you have written in your list of the crimes of the usa would stop?
ooof course not !!!
just that, usa is the biggest perpetrator at this moment, due to its social setup, the culture of its citizens (which enables self aggrandizement of power as a good thing and respectable), and its current laws and rules.
had it gone away, the next most usable, exploitable, suitable country would be used by the elite of the society in that manner.
usa us a good indicator of what can happen, and what is wrong with it. we are using it as an example. it is a battleground. if these ills can be fixed there, where they are most skewed, they can be fixed in other places too.