Mexican vs Blacks

90951 wrote:that didnt make any sense. the armenians had their own kingdom, which was taken over by the ottoman empire, they assimilated pretty nicely into the empire, along wit other Christians and Muslims for hundreds of years. the nationalistic fervor of the turks led them to revolt and remove the Armenians from lands they already inhabited inside turkish/ottoman territory. 

Armenians do have their own sovereign state. nationalistic fervor doesn't try to glue anyone together, it does the opposite, it separates, usually by extreme force. Hence the Armenian genocide, the Palestinian struggle, the trail of tears, the Jewish genocide. 

nothing you just argued had anything to do with nationalism, which is what you were originally pushing, and honestly doesn't make any sense.

wolfman wrote:

90951 wrote:that didnt make any sense. the armenians had their own kingdom, which was taken over by the ottoman empire, they assimilated pretty nicely into the empire, along wit other Christians and Muslims for hundreds of years. the nationalistic fervor of the turks led them to revolt and remove the Armenians from lands they already inhabited inside turkish/ottoman territory. 

Armenians do have their own sovereign state. nationalistic fervor doesn't try to glue anyone together, it does the opposite, it separates, usually by extreme force. Hence the Armenian genocide, the Palestinian struggle, the trail of tears, the Jewish genocide. 

nothing you just argued had anything to do with nationalism, which is what you were originally pushing, and honestly doesn't make any sense.

armenians do have their own state now, but that's only of recent times since the break up of the soviet union., there's a part of the old kingdom of armenia that remains under turkish control. and by your own words, the armenians never completely assimilated, hence the reason why they remain their own identity up to this present day and age, right?

i have some serio armenian old friends, and talking to them i know for a fact that they have always resisted being assimilated into russian society, and they despise the turks., so that right there is what i'm talking about v v 

turks should remain turks, armenians should remain armenian, palestinians should remain palestinians, kurds should remain kurds, basque should remain basque, welsh should remain welsh, irish should remain irish, norse should remain norse, blacks should remain black, and mexicans should remain mexicans is all i'm saying

EASTSIDER1904 wrote:I KNOWN BLOODS SINCE I WAS A KID IN ELEMENTARY STILL SEE MOST OF THEM CATS THEY KEEP IT REAL WITH OUR PEOPLE OUT IN SD! THEY WITH THE SHIT AINT AINT ON RACIAL SHIT NOBODY IN THE CITY BE ON THAT I WONT SAY WE ALL GET ALL GET ALONG BUT WE KNOW HOW TO CO EXIST WITH EACH OTHER  !ENOUGH SAID..

90951 wrote:

Gloom N Doom wrote:I really don't like nationalism very much. I'd like the state to be abolished, completely and totally. But I realize everyone can't be convinced of it just yet. So instead of using the political system to impose my will on others, I'd rather at least focus on letting people break apart and live as they see fit.

What's so horrible about that? If decentralized power isn't good, what about centralized power? The opposite of what has been described is a One World Government. Yes, people have argued in favor of a one world state because they have this idea that it could end conflicts and bring everybody under one umbrella. I just think it's foolish, seeing that we do in fact have some many different people, with different cultures, ideology and needs. Why not let people try to govern themselves?

But more importantly, what's so great about the current US borders? Why is it so sacred to so many people? Why wouldn't the times change these borders? Why should all these people that oppose each other be forced under one banner? That too, can lead to problems and even bloodshed.

Not to mention, we already have a form of Nationalism right now. The American Flag cult with its belligerent militarism all over the world, threatening and attacking other countries, enforcing dollar hegemony on the world which causes all kinds of problems. It's time to break apart this dangerous force for evil in the world.

It ain't going to just happen because some people decide out of nowhere to split apart, I think it will more than likely happen(if it does happens at all) when the American Empire is exposed as being bankrupt and illegitimate. Once everybody sees the ship is sinking, I think everyone will want to "jump off."

ya we do have a form of nationalism, but you cant swing from one extreme to another. no centralized power to many centralized, concentrated powers. Nationalism is a bad thing because of what people do in the name of their "nation". in the creation of these "states" people will have ideas what they want the population to consist of. Easy example, like we discussed earlier about the blacks not having a big enough population in Georgia to have their own state, completely hypothetical, but if the scenario  that was proposed played out, what do you think would happen to all the people that dont fall in to the mold of what the nationalist consider to be citizens of their new race based nation? Real world example, the "first" genocide. The Armenian genocide by the Ottoman Turks. When the Young Turks revolted they set a standard of what a citezen of their new state should be, turkish and muslim. What do you think happened to the armenian population? wiped out. This was all a direct result of the nationalistic ideaologies of the turks, and mind you nationalism is still a very new idea, and genocide wasnt a thing yet. This real life scenario has played out over and over again from germany to darfur to isreal today, all in the name of nationalism.

Gloom N Doom wrote:

90951 wrote:

Gloom N Doom wrote:I really don't like nationalism very much. I'd like the state to be abolished, completely and totally. But I realize everyone can't be convinced of it just yet. So instead of using the political system to impose my will on others, I'd rather at least focus on letting people break apart and live as they see fit.

What's so horrible about that? If decentralized power isn't good, what about centralized power? The opposite of what has been described is a One World Government. Yes, people have argued in favor of a one world state because they have this idea that it could end conflicts and bring everybody under one umbrella. I just think it's foolish, seeing that we do in fact have some many different people, with different cultures, ideology and needs. Why not let people try to govern themselves?

But more importantly, what's so great about the current US borders? Why is it so sacred to so many people? Why wouldn't the times change these borders? Why should all these people that oppose each other be forced under one banner? That too, can lead to problems and even bloodshed.

Not to mention, we already have a form of Nationalism right now. The American Flag cult with its belligerent militarism all over the world, threatening and attacking other countries, enforcing dollar hegemony on the world which causes all kinds of problems. It's time to break apart this dangerous force for evil in the world.

It ain't going to just happen because some people decide out of nowhere to split apart, I think it will more than likely happen(if it does happens at all) when the American Empire is exposed as being bankrupt and illegitimate. Once everybody sees the ship is sinking, I think everyone will want to "jump off."

ya we do have a form of nationalism, but you cant swing from one extreme to another. no centralized power to many centralized, concentrated powers. Nationalism is a bad thing because of what people do in the name of their "nation". in the creation of these "states" people will have ideas what they want the population to consist of. Easy example, like we discussed earlier about the blacks not having a big enough population in Georgia to have their own state, completely hypothetical, but if the scenario  that was proposed played out, what do you think would happen to all the people that dont fall in to the mold of what the nationalist consider to be citizens of their new race based nation? Real world example, the "first" genocide. The Armenian genocide by the Ottoman Turks. When the Young Turks revolted they set a standard of what a citezen of their new state should be, turkish and muslim. What do you think happened to the armenian population? wiped out. This was all a direct result of the nationalistic ideaologies of the turks, and mind you nationalism is still a very new idea, and genocide wasnt a thing yet. This real life scenario has played out over and over again from germany to darfur to isreal today, all in the name of nationalism.

Well, in that scenario, all I can say is, hopefully people being oppressed can escape to the free country(libertopia) lol.

But like I mentioned, I don't like Nationalism either...That's one of the reasons I root for radical separation of the US. We have too much nationalism as it is. I'm tired of the flag, I'm tired of the military worship, I'm tired of hearing "This is THEE GREATEST COUNTRY EVER", and I'm tired of all the war mongering. The US today is one of the biggest dangers to the world, both militarily and financially. The US is sucking wealth from most of the world while at the same time sinking itself. So as far as I'm concerned, the US as it currently stands needs to go. Something needs to happen to humble this country, and breaking into smaller "units" should help. At worst, some people might have to move to another state. At least people would have more of a choice.
I don't think war is necessary for separation to actually play out. A possibility? Yes, but war is always a possibility. I just think it is very unlikely. I think if the it becomes obvious that the US is financially ruined, then separation or secessionist movements won't seem so radical, they will start looking more logical, like a chance at a new start. And aside from all that, this isn't the 30s, or the 1860s..All developed areas have nukes now, making it unlikely that one will attack another on such a large scale.

Drunky McThuggerton wrote:

EASTSIDER1904 wrote:I KNOWN BLOODS SINCE I WAS A KID IN ELEMENTARY STILL SEE MOST OF THEM CATS THEY KEEP IT REAL WITH OUR PEOPLE OUT IN SD! THEY WITH THE SHIT AINT AINT ON RACIAL SHIT NOBODY IN THE CITY BE ON THAT I WONT SAY WE ALL GET ALL GET ALONG BUT WE KNOW HOW TO CO EXIST WITH EACH OTHER  !ENOUGH SAID..

calm down captain america, most of that racial shit is overblown by the media, im not saying that their arent real racial beefs out here, but its not a universal racial war on the streets. It boils down to prison politics. 

i was actually thinking about this the other day. the mexicans and blacks get along pretty well most places, arizona, up north, texas.

EASTSIDER1904 wrote:

Drunky McThuggerton wrote:

EASTSIDER1904 wrote:I KNOWN BLOODS SINCE I WAS A KID IN ELEMENTARY STILL SEE MOST OF THEM CATS THEY KEEP IT REAL WITH OUR PEOPLE OUT IN SD! THEY WITH THE SHIT AINT AINT ON RACIAL SHIT NOBODY IN THE CITY BE ON THAT I WONT SAY WE ALL GET ALL GET ALONG BUT WE KNOW HOW TO CO EXIST WITH EACH OTHER  !ENOUGH SAID..

calm down captain america, most of that racial shit is overblown by the media, im not saying that their arent real racial beefs out here, but its not a universal racial war on the streets. It boils down to prison politics. 

i was actually thinking about this the other day. the mexicans and blacks get along pretty well most places, arizona, up north, texas.

Im going to let you slide with that captain America comment show a little respect boy.Where else is this MEXICAN VS BLACK issue going on besides LosAngeles ???

Drunky McThuggerton wrote:

EASTSIDER1904 wrote:

Drunky McThuggerton wrote:

EASTSIDER1904 wrote:I KNOWN BLOODS SINCE I WAS A KID IN ELEMENTARY STILL SEE MOST OF THEM CATS THEY KEEP IT REAL WITH OUR PEOPLE OUT IN SD! THEY WITH THE SHIT AINT AINT ON RACIAL SHIT NOBODY IN THE CITY BE ON THAT I WONT SAY WE ALL GET ALL GET ALONG BUT WE KNOW HOW TO CO EXIST WITH EACH OTHER  !ENOUGH SAID..

calm down captain america, most of that racial shit is overblown by the media, im not saying that their arent real racial beefs out here, but its not a universal racial war on the streets. It boils down to prison politics. 

i was actually thinking about this the other day. the mexicans and blacks get along pretty well most places, arizona, up north, texas.

Im going to let you slide with that captain America comment show a little respect boy.Where else is this MEXICAN VS BLACK issue going on besides LosAngeles ???

 

motherfucker you know who your talking to? i run this bitch!

either way, i answered that question, pretty much no were else but la. maybe up north or other places were la bangers migrate to

wolfman wrote:well i can understand what the argument is against nationalism
and yeah there's very good points against it
but i think those points are only valid because no ruling national identity has really ever allowed the other nationalities within their controlled borders to be truly free
 

in the case for more states rights, where if you don't like the laws enacted in one state, you move out to the state where you're ok with the laws
to me, that's an "americanized" way of thinking
like, well arizona banned me carrying my gun out in public, so im'ma move to montana where i can continue doing so
run from here, run from there, run this time, run forever to and fro


^ ^ that has no "cultural" value

it stays in the realm of "libertine" attitudes
but it does nothing to preserve an "identity"
and without an identity (national identity) you're just a drifter 
a hippie
a gypsie

with no glue, no bonds, no ties, no nothing, just yourself

Drunky McThuggerton wrote:

EASTSIDER1904 wrote:

Drunky McThuggerton wrote:

EASTSIDER1904 wrote:I KNOWN BLOODS SINCE I WAS A KID IN ELEMENTARY STILL SEE MOST OF THEM CATS THEY KEEP IT REAL WITH OUR PEOPLE OUT IN SD! THEY WITH THE SHIT AINT AINT ON RACIAL SHIT NOBODY IN THE CITY BE ON THAT I WONT SAY WE ALL GET ALL GET ALONG BUT WE KNOW HOW TO CO EXIST WITH EACH OTHER  !ENOUGH SAID..

calm down captain america, most of that racial shit is overblown by the media, im not saying that their arent real racial beefs out here, but its not a universal racial war on the streets. It boils down to prison politics. 

i was actually thinking about this the other day. the mexicans and blacks get along pretty well most places, arizona, up north, texas.

Im going to let you slide with that captain America comment show a little respect boy.Where else is this MEXICAN VS BLACK issue going on besides LosAngeles ???

 

motherfucker you know who your talking to? i run this bitch!

either way, i answered that question, pretty much no were else but la. maybe up north or other places were la bangers migrate to

Drunky McThuggerton wrote:

EASTSIDER1904 wrote:

Drunky McThuggerton wrote:

EASTSIDER1904 wrote:I KNOWN BLOODS SINCE I WAS A KID IN ELEMENTARY STILL SEE MOST OF THEM CATS THEY KEEP IT REAL WITH OUR PEOPLE OUT IN SD! THEY WITH THE SHIT AINT AINT ON RACIAL SHIT NOBODY IN THE CITY BE ON THAT I WONT SAY WE ALL GET ALL GET ALONG BUT WE KNOW HOW TO CO EXIST WITH EACH OTHER  !ENOUGH SAID..

calm down captain america, most of that racial shit is overblown by the media, im not saying that their arent real racial beefs out here, but its not a universal racial war on the streets. It boils down to prison politics. 

i was actually thinking about this the other day. the mexicans and blacks get along pretty well most places, arizona, up north, texas.

Im going to let you slide with that captain America comment show a little respect boy.Where else is this MEXICAN VS BLACK issue going on besides LosAngeles ???

 

motherfucker you know who your talking to? i run this bitch!

either way, i answered that question, pretty much no were else but la. maybe up north or other places were la bangers migrate to

wolfman wrote:i don't buy into that state "direct democracy" argument neither

the state of california does not represent my culture, my language, my attitude, my feel for life
it represents those who control the laws and the police
it crashes every hope of really accomplishing direct population representation in districts re-alignments
it draws the boundaries according to political machinations and controlled political schemes
but it never addresses the "differences" in wants and needs of a subservient people
as long as we think, act and vote as the so called normal thinking goes, we're alright
but as soon as a fight for equal rights begins to be howled out by some who understand deeply
then right away those voices are drowned out, attacked, villified..
..be it on the federal level, or on the state level
neither state nor federal represents what those around me feel and want
both of those only represent an indoctrinated foreign thinking
how can a brown man be white lest he shed's away all his ways..
..and lose his soul?

EASTSIDER1904 wrote:

Drunky McThuggerton wrote:

EASTSIDER1904 wrote:

Drunky McThuggerton wrote:

EASTSIDER1904 wrote:I KNOWN BLOODS SINCE I WAS A KID IN ELEMENTARY STILL SEE MOST OF THEM CATS THEY KEEP IT REAL WITH OUR PEOPLE OUT IN SD! THEY WITH THE SHIT AINT AINT ON RACIAL SHIT NOBODY IN THE CITY BE ON THAT I WONT SAY WE ALL GET ALL GET ALONG BUT WE KNOW HOW TO CO EXIST WITH EACH OTHER  !ENOUGH SAID..

calm down captain america, most of that racial shit is overblown by the media, im not saying that their arent real racial beefs out here, but its not a universal racial war on the streets. It boils down to prison politics. 

i was actually thinking about this the other day. the mexicans and blacks get along pretty well most places, arizona, up north, texas.

Im going to let you slide with that captain America comment show a little respect boy.Where else is this MEXICAN VS BLACK issue going on besides LosAngeles ???

 

motherfucker you know who your talking to? i run this bitch!

either way, i answered that question, pretty much no were else but la. maybe up north or other places were la bangers migrate to

You on sucker shit for that one lol

Gloom N Doom wrote:Lol at complain.


I sympathize with states rights and all that but the problem is that the FEDS will never just voluntarily give up its power so at some point some area or group of people have to break away and be independent. The idea behind the original US was in fact to have different actual states with the federal government playing a very minimal role but because power corrupts , it was bound to keep power grabbing till it became the monster it is today. Lately there's been a resurgence in the ideas of nullification and secession and that's the way of the future.  Basically disobeying the Feds ..

And that right there beats complaining or voting. I think voting is even weaker than complaining because all your doing is giving a polite request to your rulers by throwing your vote into their suggestion box. Same as protesting with signs, which is always pathetic.. But getting enough people together to nullify unjust laws, that's the opposite , that's questioning  their authority and attempting to break free of their bullshit laws without their permission.

I guess as long as you don't use any federal funded resources, you are fine in your attempts to do whatever you want. But to drive on a road funded by federal tax dollars, probably long before you were born, to utilize any service federally funded (post office as an example), or learned to read in a federally funded school (perhaps you always went to private or charter schools not receiving any federal grant funds), you are really making complaints about being spoiled all of your life.

If a state were to secede, it would be very pricey, because federal funds, in this day and age, 2013 and beyond, are the back bone to the infrastructure of the country. You will be charged for roads, underground utitlity lines, railroad lines, airports, almost every venue for which commerce it created on a large scale. Secession, would be very expensive. How would you pay for it? Anybody living in a country that has seceded would be taxed heavily. Also, you mofo's better have one hell of an army, because if we have to protect, you have to pay. 

Protesting and voting are not weak elements within our society. However, if you believe they are, then that is going to influence how you look at life. If you look around the world, I dare you to find a system of FREEDOM (a place where citizens have more rights than our own limited selves) than the United States. Are there things that we could do to change our system? Well, not if people don't go out to vote because their empathy levels have risen to all time highs

I could be wrong, but it is my assumption that in the 60's, things were bad for people of color, but thanks to protests, and giving people the power to vote, things, as imperfect as they may be, are better.

A couple of weeks ago, Black Entertainment Television founder Bob Johnson, speaking at The National Press Club, said the nation "would never tolerate white unemployment at 14 and 15 percent." Black unemployment has been double that of white Americans for more than 50 years. The black youth unemployment rate is more than 40 percent nationally. In some cities, unemployment for black working-age males is more than 50 percent. Let's look at this, but first let's look at some history.
From 1900 to 1954, blacks were more active than whites in the labor market. Until about 1960, black male labor force participation in every age group was equal to or greater than that of whites. During that period, black teen unemployment was roughly equal to or less than white teen unemployment. As early as 1900, the duration of black unemployment was 15 percent shorter than that of whites; today it's about 30 percent longer. To do something about today's employment picture requires abandonment of sacred cows and honesty.

The truth is that black female-headed households were just 18 percent of households in 1950, as opposed to about 68 percent today. In fact, from 1890 to 1940, the black marriage rate was slightly higher than that of whites. Even during slavery, when marriage was forbidden for blacks, most black children lived in biological two-parent families. In New York City, in 1925, 85 percent of black households were two-parent households. A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of black families were two-parent households.

The poverty rate among blacks is 36 percent. Most black poverty is found in female-headed households. The poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994 and is about 8 percent today. The black illegitimacy rate is 75 percent, and in some cities, it's 90 percent. But if that's a legacy of slavery, it must have skipped several generations, because in the 1940s, unwed births hovered around 14 percent.

Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

 I do not believe in segregation myself because I feel it is anti-progressive. If that's the world we choose to live in, there really isn't much difference than prison. Divide and conquer, a great tactic used throughout history to oppress and overpower people, set them against themselves, create more hate, intolerance and misunderstanding of other peoples and cultures.

My point is, if you take a negative short sided perspective, and attempt to justify it with whatever political theology (libertarianism, nationalism, fucking communism, whatever) you leave a lot of room for holes. Libertarianism calls for people to help themselves, what about people who can't(elderly, disabled, etc) let them suffer? Might as well, those people shouldn't have the right to tread on me. Nationalism suggests that everyone keep to themselves. Well, start over, put everything on the table, get everyone there, and give everybody an equal opportunity for success. Yeah, that'll happen. Be realistic. Consider the hand that raised you. If it's wrong, fight against it. Serve others, not your own interests. 

 You want change, do something about it. Organize with like minded people fighting to make change, protest, civil disobedience, don't take no for an answer. Get people to hear what you have to ay and let them know the importance of voting. Fight from the bottom up, with love, hope and diligence. Because realistically, if that's not what your all about, then you really are doing nothing more than complaining, just like the men behind the shadows want you to do. Be apathetic. Complain behind a computer. Do nothing! Believe in nothing! Have no hope for tomorrow! If that's you, they got you right where they want you, and you don't even know it.

Gloom N Doom wrote:Yea... It's going to take me a while me to unravel all the different points you touched on.

I'll respond later when I get home but for now I just want to address what you said about complaining behind a computer and being apathetic.

Just ruffling feathers my boy, not even talking about you specifically, a general truth... you know.


- Not supporting voting as a realistic solution does not amount to being apathetic. Were the American colonies " apathetic " when they decided to break away from the English in the 1770s without the King's permission? What if he allowed everyone in the British Empire to vote to decide if the American colonies can secede and the result was that the majority of people in Britain said no? Then it would some how be wrong for the Americans to secede? What's so apathetic about self determination?

If the king had an army then like he had now. we would be some british mofo's He sent his troops halfway around the world and almost won. I don't care how many AR15's you have, our military is strong. If it is through violence that you would want secession to occur, you are tripping. The only way it could possibly hapen, given of course the current variables realistically playing out, is through legislation. It could only happen through votes. Referring to the forefathers of the country, although valid in its overarching point, cannot be applied to the current state of the country and the technological advances that are currently in place.


I will say that from a more strategic perspective, voting can play a positive role but mostly on a local level in order for local states and cities to fight back against federal laws. One obvious example of that is the different states that are trying to or have legalized marijuana even though it's against federal law. 

Complaining behind a computer? Okay well I dare say communicating and spreading ideas over the internet is a thousand times more effective than standing on some street corner and shouting with signs or voting between mitt Romney and Obama .

This all depends whether or not the communication being spread is done in a purposeful manner. Social Media specialist whose sole purpose is to share information for a particular cause via the internet to me are different then people posting things they hear or see when they like or identify with someone else's thought, never really checking resources, and potentially spreading more propaganda. Or, downplaying certain events that they do not deem important because they feel it might be government/big boy agency influenced. Again, this perspective refers to a general belief that I hold.

In the first case, if your job is to disseminate information, whether paid or a serious blogger, one who seeks to be a credible and responsible source of information, then you are correct, they should be more effective then some random ass people protesting on a corner not knowing what they are talking about. However, an irresponsible sharer of information is no better or worse than the person who knows nothing on the corner.

However, if the person protesting on the corner is informed, knowledgeable, diligent to the point where they are now taking their voice to the public, then they are superior in spreading a message to any misinformed sharer of digital information. But at this point, this is where the digital sharer and the protester on the corner need to work in conjunction, to spread a message further...

Gloom N Doom wrote:

I guess as long as you don't use any federal funded resources, you are fine in your attempts to do whatever you want. But to drive on a road funded by federal tax dollars, probably long before you were born, to utilize any service federally funded (post office as an example), or learned to read in a federally funded school (perhaps you always went to private or charter schools not receiving any federal grant funds), you are really making complaints about being spoiled all of your life.

Well isn't that the point of seceding from the Feds? So that you aren't forced to pay for their roads, services and schools? Or are you actually implying that schooling and roads are impossible undertakings without the US Federal government? Only they know how to build long, thin, flat things for cars to drive on? Only they know how to educate? I'd suggest looking up Washington DC's public education statistics and judging for yourself how well of a job the Feds do at educating people.

And what does any of this have to do with being spoiled in life? So identifying a problem and trying to think of solutions or voicing opinions in an attempt to spread ideas just amounts to being ungrateful, "spoiled in your life" and complaining? Yeah okay, major cities like DC and Los Angeles spend mega loads of money per student in school and still have high drop out rates, sometimes over 50%, but hey, let's not complain, let's be grateful that we can READ?! C'mon man, my parents taught me  ABC's, to read and how to count, add and subtract. I may have learned division and some algebra in school but quickly forgot most of it. Most of the shit I did retain was the history lessons, which did more harm than good because now I'm spending my adult life unraveling all the government propaganda they taught us. Do you honestly think government run schools will teach history from a reasonably objective perspective??

You live in a first world country where the government has already built those "things" you speak of so carelessly. Spoiled, hell yeah spoiled. I bet you always have had access to clean water, hot or cold, food, even if you have had to humble yourself and ask your neighbors for some food because you were out, somebosy always had something everywhere in this country that you lived. I bet you someone you knew in life has been on food stamps, received medicare, got a disability check, collected social security... You think mofos in freaking kenya or nigeria got it like us? Yes spoiled. SPOILED. Compared to other countries around the world who are not fortunate enough to live in "first world" countries, we are spoiled. Shit, having a computer, smart phone, even access to the internet, let a lone good food and water, means we are spoiled. Some mofos on this planet have never and may never ever log on to the internet. You see their government hasn't set up the foundation of their countries the same way the United States has. Any construction crew can build a road, but the majority of roads the YOU drive on and us as well, were ALREADY built by the federal government. You think kids with no access to education, wouldn't LOVE to become students in our rundown washed out good for nothing public schools, yeah right, they would thrive. Fuck history, math and engineering and science are where its at. Shit, even the ever ending art of writing and language are important, and that information isn't available in every home.

And just because you said it, your PARENTS, mofo, you know how blessed you are to say that. Hey, its not your fault that you were blessed being brought up, but dont forget my boy, not everybody has the same type of advantages that you have had. I dont care if you believe, just be sure to give credit where credit is due. If you say fuck the system, fuck the system, but dont forget you are a DIRECT by product of that system. Its like saying I hate my parents because of blah blah blah. Maybe you had some fucked up parents, maybe your just a spoiled little kid. The truth is going to depend on the variables of the individual. You might have some fucked up history with said government, which if is the case, dont be so sensitive, the comments have no bearing towards you. If however, you are on the other side of the equation, well to each their own.

Just Be sure to recognize all you have been blessed with, im not saying dont rise against, Im just saying be cognizant of all you have received, that way if you ever get persecuted, you know that you took ALL variables into consideration and nobody can tell you nothing because you stand on principle, not opinion.




 

If a state were to secede, it would be very pricey, because federal funds, in this day and age, 2013 and beyond, are the back bone to the infrastructure of the country. You will be charged for roads, underground utitlity lines, railroad lines, airports, almost every venue for which commerce it created on a large scale. Secession, would be very expensive. How would you pay for it? Anybody living in a country that has seceded would be taxed heavily. Also, you mofo's better have one hell of an army, because if we have to protect, you have to pay. 

This makes no sense. It would be pricey because of the loss of federal funds? Where do you think Federal Funds come from? Some pool of unlimited wealth that only the Federal government has access to?

No, it comes from the very people that would be seceding.  How would they pay for all these various services? Same as they do now, except without the middle man (feds).

What makes you assume infrastructure is impossible without the US federal government? Canada seems to be surviving without them.

And why would all seceding countries need one hell of an army? Plenty of countries around the world, actually most countries around the world have small, defensive armies and spend significantly less than the US does on national defense. I forget the exact statistic, but I think that 50 percent of the military spending in the world is done by the US alone, with the other 50 percent being divided among every other nation. And yet, other countries seem to be doing okay. It seems to me that countries with a few nukes don't get attacked and invaded. 

Obviously, the fact that the seceding countries wouldn't be getting heavily taxed by the feds( like they are NOW) means they will have more money left over to use for local needs.

The feds own those roads my boy, I am almost sure you know this. In case you dont however, understand that if an area secedes, anything owned by the US remains theirs. They become revenue streams, like toll roads, unless a seceding area either one, buys the government roads out, makes a deal in the secession proceedings (only done non violently and through legislation that would need to be VOTED on.)

Do you think that an area can just secede from a governemnt that has ALREADY invested and funded the infrastructure. Its done already. Its finished. You cant go back in history and undo whats already been done. Now if there was war, roads and infrastructure were blown up, and secession occurred, then an individual area would be possible. But as long as the shit is already built, if you use it, you best believe you are going to pay for it.

Be realistic my boy, you cant get to secede and benefit from the things that have always been. If you want to talk secession, understand the huge complications involved. Think of San Fernando Valley trying to secede from LA, LA residents have already paid for all the shit they got going over their, but those mofos also have money. Money and voting rights! Think about it my boy, seriously...

Protesting and voting are not weak elements within our society. However, if you believe they are, then that is going to influence how you look at life. If you look around the world, I dare you to find a system of FREEDOM (a place where citizens have more rights than our own limited selves) than the United States. Are there things that we could do to change our system? Well, not if people don't go out to vote because their empathy levels have risen to all time highs

Much of the time, voting is weak and pointless, other times it may even be dangerous. But like I said, I think there are times when it could be useful, but I don't in no way think it is a real long term solution to any major positive changes. Changes take place when people's minds and attitudes change, and voting is just one small reflection of people's attitude and minds. 


And no, I don't think the US has the most freedom. I'm sure it did at one time, but not today. We're like number 14 on the economic freedom index, so we're not freest when it comes to our economy. Not that the index isn't flawed but it gives us a fair idea.


On civil liberties, let's see, the patriot act, the TSA, the NSA, the NDAA (president claiming to have power to detain someone indefinitely without trial), the drug war and all that. 


Yea, we're much freer than North Korea and Cuba, and we beat other developed countries in certain areas, but we are not the freest. But it it's not just that, its the fact they we're moving in the opposite direction of freedom that is most concerning.

How quick we forget that women and blacks were not allowed to vote less than a hundred years ago. So how protesting and voting are not real long term solutions for positive change is beyond me, maybe we just have different interpretations of reality. I think that both blacks and women appreciate the right to vote, but I could be wrong because I am neither, but if our government tried to evoke that right, you best believe id be on the front lines with my brothers and sisters fighting for their rights, the same way I believe they would fight for mine if they tried to take my voting rights away.

I believe our rights are being taken away, little by little, because no one takes to the streets anymore. Imagine where african americans would be if Rosa Parks, MLK, freedom riders, etc... decided just to blog and share information about racism and inequalities and de-segragation. They'd be nowhere fast. Protest, action, gets results. Non-violent civil disobedience has been a very effective tool for the people throughout the turn of this last century, sharing of information is very important, but without action, or at least inspiring action, it means nothing...