It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
My second critique is with regard to Sagan's contradictory political views. On the one hand, he argues against authoritarianism of any sort, he points out government waste, discusses how the government shouldn't be anti-choice, and is upset that politicians only work for the short term since they are only working to get elected again. I agree with his assessment to this point. However, then he seems to argue out of the other side of his mouth that the government should be there to provide ever larger social safety nets (i.e., welfare, social security, entitlements, etc.), collect more taxes in some cases, give U.S. tax dollars to other countries, and fund projects that dont justly benefit those doing the funding (taxpayers). I don't understand how someone can reconcile the seemingly opposed views. If the government can't do its current jobs well, why give it more to do inefficiently and ineffectively? If individuals should be the responsible party, why shift all the burdens (in the form of more tax dollars and more government spending) to governments?
Is the United States a democracy?
The Pledge of Allegiance includes the phrase: "and to the republic for which it stands." Is the United States of America a republic? I always thought it was a democracy? What's the difference between the two?
The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).
Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by sakokrap
What advice would you give to the poor enslaved and tortured people of Afguabistanto?
When the public leaders have banded together to engage in atrocities instead of responsibilities it can be very difficult for the people to respond. The security services, media, judiciary and other social infrastructure fall under the power of these networks of misguided individuals. As the system of civilised laws break down, the more primitive laws return. I would like to see the United Nations take a more proactive role in dismantling these corrupt networks as any sense of justice can only come from a higher and independent authority. Otherwise it is left to the community to struggle and fight it out.
Originally posted by xavi1000
reply to post by nickoli
hahaahha,that was a nice video ,,,tnx for that ,it's funny how sheeple clap the hands after he said that
Originally posted by believerofgod
Who knows when these guys (the tyrants) actually saw this information because, no doubt, it sure stirred this outcome.
"We The People" have finally been heard!
The system just may work if they start opening their eyes to the wrongs they have done.
First part of fixing the problem... Isolation. Second part... admitting the mistake/mistakes.
Note: Link includededit on 6-1-2011 by believerofgod because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
The purpose of communicating with the public is not to provide them with truthful information but rather to advance “the mission"