on the road / here's to one getting there... [article]
Current time: 02-20-2018, 04:42 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: eye2i2hear
Last Post: eye2i2hear
Replies: 7
Views: 147

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
on the road / here's to one getting there... [article]
02-04-2018, 07:28 AM (This post was last modified: 02-04-2018 07:32 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #1
on the road / here's to one getting there... [article]
* preface: i'm pretty sure the author hasn't carried the crux of the reasoning to it's logical conclusion/consistency, per a couple of examples used e.g. "universal health care", "schools", but i'm not finding that to counter the core premise (abusive relationship) as spot on.? chock it up as one on the road, to getting there (baby steps)? To hoping the author gets to The Marcratic Method... to looking for glimmers of encouragement?
Popcorn (in other words, eat the popped kernels and toss aside the unpopped ones mixed in?)¹

own the road on the road...

First, a quote i keep stuck back:
Quote:Those who seek to withhold consent from their area's governmental apparatus altogether get asked the same question that battered spouses get asked: "If you don't like it, why don't you just leave? Love it or leave it!" --the one's rightful jurisdiction over the home, and the Stateist's over the land, being unquestioned and unquestionable. It's always the lesser capable abused one, not the armed perpetually abusive other, who's told to vacate the homeplace; it's likewise the civilians, not the perpetually abusive Governmentalists, that's told to vacate the homeland. All the while, the core issue of violent aggression based on mere difference of opinion is swept under the proverbial rug.
—unknown

Quote:In the United States, people are currently in an abusive relationship with their government. That relationship calls into question what our worth is and what our rights are as human beings. At the same time, some political leaders have questioned our loyalty to this country, our love of it, and challenged us to be accommodating.

You don’t ever have to accept abuse. Anyone who tells you differently doesn’t have your best interests in mind.

This ploy, which members of both political parties engage in, downplays the unacceptable nature of our relationship dynamic. Far too many of us living in this country are giving and have given much more love to this country than it has given us in return. And some of us give this country love without ever seeing any love at all from it. All of this begs us to ask what needs to change. The reasonable solution is that we should remove ourselves from this abusive relationship, like anyone being abused should, for our own betterment.

Like many abusers, the United States has always had a way with words. The founding documents of the United States are filled with language about equality and welfare despite being thoroughly peppered with exclusions to whom those ideals would apply. From the Declaration of Independence with its mention of “merciless Indian savages” and its exclusion of women in the words “all men are created equal,” to the Constitution’s classification of Black people as three-fifths human—the message has always been that inalienable human rights weren’t for everyone. The consistent violence and disappointment of a nation that has made countless promises only to break them is an emotionally manipulative mind game. And repeated broken promises—such as the fruitless promise of liberty, justice, and freedom for all—are not something to be excused and accepted.

The United States is not a person, but we must ask ourselves: If it were, would the things it does be acceptable? Herein may lie some of the reasons abuse in interpersonal relationships is so pervasive. Just as interpersonal violence—especially against women—is regularly accepted and victims are often blamed, the violence of government is sanitized by mainstream historical recollections in such a way that it’s normal when present-day manifestations of these legacies occur. Just like an abusive partner who gaslights and misleads to maintain their control in a relationship, state violence depends on dishonesty to beautify its own plain ugliness. Love for country is melded into love for the state, even though we may love where we live while hating everything about how where we live is run.

Abusive people regularly will use things like intimacy, charm, and attachment as a means of manipulating you into thinking you love how they abuse you. When you demand your right to be treated better, they’ll blame you and question your loyalty. And those who enable abusers will follow that rationale just the same. According to this logic, those of us in the United States are supposed to suffer, be brutalized, and possibly die or be killed as an expression of love for our abuser. For example, think of how the government demands that Black people reject self-defense as a right even as we are commonly extrajudicially murdered by police and white racists. The overemphasis on pacifism as a means of securing better treatment takes the onus off of our abusers and demands we risk death in order to prove we should be treated better. The domestic violence that pervades the United States relies on the same reasoning to encourage women to not defend themselves from abusive men. Women who defend themselves against violent men who are abusing them are criminalized for doing so. Likewise, the state demands all protests against it be “peaceful.”

Though anyone can be abused in a relationship regardless of gender, recognizing the disproportionate rate at which women (especially trans women) experience violence is crucial. The recognition of the abusive relationships we have with government shouldn’t neglect or minimize the fact that the state preferentially oppresses some more than others. The U.S. empire has relied heavily on patriarchal violence to accumulate wealth. Enslaved Black women’s childbearing repeatedly added to the enslaved workforce responsible for the vast wealth the United States would develop. Native women and their children were also targeted by European settlers in an act of genocide. The legacies of violence like these carry on into our present.

Violence and abuse are foundational parts of what made the United States. U.S. capitalism has always defined itself as a forceful abuser: from those unpaid and brutally treated enslaved women who were forced to reproduce the nation’s workforce, to the marginalized communities today who are being robbed by mass incarceration of their family members and loved ones, to the people who work in the fields, sweatshops, and homes throughout the Global South that this country exploits. Abuse is the standard.

Politicians would have us falsely believe that suffering violence, lies, and emotional abuse with no health care or social safety net makes us good citizens. Tolerating the ups and mostly downs of the nation is supposed to be something like a labor of love. This is made clear in the famous cherry-picked words from President John F. Kennedy’s 1961 inaugural address where he said, “My fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”

The United States relies heavily on exploited labor both domestically and internationally while telling those it marginalizes that they need to embrace their exploitation for their own betterment. This is the definition of an abusive relationship.

Reciprocal efforts make love an actualization instead of an unanswered question. So it only makes sense to examine the love of someone who stuffs themselves while you starve. Despite being the so-called leader of the free world, the United States does not even guarantee to reciprocate basic services like disaster relief, heated schools, or clean water to its residents. Evidence shows that this relationship is particularly one-sided. What needs to happen is apparent: We need to end our abusive relationship with the United States of America.

There is no excuse for any continuation of this current relationship as it stands. Any denial of this fact is rooted in absurdity at the behest of power and oppression, which remain the abusive status quo. If the wealthiest nation in the world cannot meet the basic standards of a supposedly developed nation, it has to be left.

This leaving isn’t necessarily a physical trip, but rather it’s leaving the idea that this nation is functioning correctly under these circumstances. This nation that tells us we want to be victims if we complain, or that it doesn’t have enough money, or that it’s the best already, should be held accountable. Of course, there are those who are willing to tolerate all of this because the primary and most affected victims are people they hold bigoted views against. They are more than welcome to continue their abusive setup, but it should not be continued at the expense of anyone who demands better.

Healthy relationships work to the benefit of all the involved parties. If the relationship is to your detriment, you should no longer participate. The unrequited love that is nationalism and patriotic fervor will not save us from destruction. These delusions mark many citizen’s hearts, tricking people who have less than so many others into believing they have more than everyone else in the world. This is how a country without universal health care, with higher maternal mortality rates, and with regular school shootings becomes “the greatest,” despite being very bad in many ways.

After all, real love is honest, and if we’re being truthful, the United States cannot go on any longer the way it has for centuries. The end of our empty, broken relationship with the United States can initiate new beginnings in which oppression is not normal. It’s the realization of stability and peace we need to achieve the freedom many of us have never actually known. There’s nothing to wait for.

The post The United States of Abuse appeared first on Rewire.

Any "legal" beagles spot any irony/poke moments? e.g. The United States is not a person!? [Image: beagle_dog.gif]

_________________________
1. or, granted: i may be just looking for a steak i've herd heard was in a stockyard dung pile...? or maybe it's more like: hey, i, stop eating rat bait (labeled "pop corn!") just because 99.7% of it is good food --and stop bringing it to our table as well.?

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2018, 10:23 AM
Post: #2
RE: on the road / here's to one getting there... [article]
(02-04-2018 07:28 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  Any "legal" beagles spot any irony/poke moments? e.g. The United States is not a person!? [Image: beagle_dog.gif]

Politicians with opinions Wrote:28 U.S. Code § 3002
(10) “Person” includes a natural person (including an individual Indian), a corporation, a partnership, an unincorporated association, a trust, or an estate, or any other public or private entity, including a State or local government or an Indian tribe.

Politicians with opinions Wrote:26 U.S. Code § 7701
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
(1) Person
The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

Politicians with opinions Wrote:26 U.S. Code § 7343
The term “person” as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

Politicians with opinions Wrote:26 U.S. Code § 7701
(9) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.

(10) State
The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

Lawyers with opinions Wrote:United States Supreme Court
HOOVEN & ALLISON CO. v. EVATT, (1945)

The term 'United States' may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States ex- http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-co...2.html#672 tends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.

The definitions of United States in the United States Code (USC) written by lawyers. 251 kb pdf

Rules or canons of statutory construction.

Lawyers with opinions Wrote:Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
The expression of one (specific) thing is the exclusion of another.

Explaining the concept, someone Wrote:Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
A principle in statutory construction: when one or more things of a class are expressly mentioned others of the same class are excluded.

Blowing it up even more, someone Wrote:Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
One of the linguistic canons applicable to the construction of legislation. By expressing one thing is [by implication] to exclude another. There is no room for the application of this principle where some reason other than the intention to exclude certain items exists for the express mention in question. Thus what is said may be intended merely as an example or be included for abundance of caution or for some other reason; or the thing supposed to have been impliedly excluded may not have existed at the passing of the enactment.

Lawyers with opinions Wrote:Ejusdem generis
(eh-youse-dem generous) v adj. Latin for "of the same kind," used to interpret loosely written statutes. Where a law lists specific classes of persons or things and then refers to them in general, the general statements only apply to the same kind of persons or things specifically listed. Example: if a law refers to automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles and other motor-powered vehicles, "vehicles" would not include airplanes, since the list was of land-based transportation.

Marc's method of just asking (the right) questions is so much easier than learning the law.

I was able to post the above because of how much time I spent studying the tax law.

Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have?
Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

Show me my personally signed contract wherein I consented to be governed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2018, 09:57 PM
Post: #3
RE: on the road / here's to one getting there... [article]
(02-04-2018 07:28 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  Any "legal" beagles spot any irony/poke moments?

Uh... er... whuttha fuck hell heck izza "poke moment?"

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2018, 03:43 AM
Post: #4
RE: on the road / here's to one getting there... [article]
(02-04-2018 09:57 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  Uh... er... whuttha fuck hell heck izza "poke moment?"

Poke Bored Nazi
[Image: Bored%20Nazi.jpg]*Poster boy for bored narcissists. Poke

Wink

--&ē


(02-04-2018 07:28 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  
Quote:...our abuser...our abusers...
Any "legal" beagles spot any irony/poke moments? e.g. The United States is not a person!? [Image: beagle_dog.gif]

Our The abusers, criminals, government. I'll not claim ownership of those. The only time I'd take possession of them is to restrain them from doing harm.

[Just when you thought it was safe to go outside: Old glory, [Image: giphy.gif] she waves freely atop our capital. Puke]

--&ē

What’s the difference between the government and the mafia?
The mafia doesn’t have a twelve year indoctrination system to convince you it’s not organized crime. ~ Brett Veinotte
Government public "education"/indoctrination is child abuse.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2018, 05:16 AM (This post was last modified: 02-05-2018 05:43 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #5
RE: on the road / here's to one getting there... [article]
One i'd like to poke uh 'ur with is, this bit of math:
The United States is not a person
The United States has always had a way with words as preceding it
Huh? Facepalm

Which to this îYe, aligns with what &jo's momEntarily pokin'@ .?
i.e. Who is this We Our, Kemmosabe? [Image: icon_indian.gif] (did sum1 say bloody¹ "merciless savages"?)

--NonPokEr2i (the artist formerlly known to practice professionally under the magical name Dr Momento --knot 2oo nestacereally bea confused with a won Mr Roboto; butt u can call me PokeEmon, mon!? monsieur?)

___________________________________[Image: smokesigs.gif]
1. mostly hoped to signal here as ye olde Brits may be better known for bloody fuckin' friggin' doin' with it .? (but the context the author notes works for me as well, if you choose to make it that).

(02-05-2018 03:43 AM)Andy Wrote:  Our The abusers, criminals, government. I'll not claim ownership of those. The only time I'd take possession of them is to restrain them from doing harm.

"take possession" Two Thumbs Up counter-control¹, aye?

Quote:[Just when you thought it was safe to go outside: Old glory, [Image: giphy.gif] she waves freely atop our capital. Puke]

Surrender Ï, not wishing to miss a bloody friggin'² thing, alas must enquire: might i be missing sumthing with the "Just when" aspect here? Or did i miss a time when "Old Glory" wasn't so wavin'? Probably just repeating a Pop phrase, relative to such being "Our"? Enquiring minds need to know... --The NationAll Enquirer

"uncle!" (he moans, reluctantly),
Dunce --probablE2ihere

_______________________
1. "no", at this moment, i didn't intend to signal the knight waitress at a diner hear (tho, Flo, those have been known to be quite controlling too; mostly on a voluntary basis tho, aye?) Cool

2. should iY have looked Up [sic] ("higher/above/archE") 2o see if fuckin' "frikkin'" is The Proper/Papa Spelling...?


1a.



Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2018, 06:41 AM
Post: #6
RE: on the road / here's to one getting there... [article]
Quote:America Has Been At War 93% of the Time – 222 Out of 239 Years – Since 1776

Quote:[Just when you thought it was safe to go outside: Old glory, [Image: giphy.gif] she waves freely atop our capital. Puke]

Quote:[Just when you thought it was safe to go outside: Old gory, [Image: huge.103.518968.JPG] she waves freely atop our capital. Puke]

Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have?
Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

Show me my personally signed contract wherein I consented to be governed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2018, 06:52 AM
Post: #7
RE: on the road / here's to one getting there... [article]
(02-05-2018 05:16 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  Surrender Ï, not wishing to miss a bloody friggin'² thing, alas must enquire: might i be missing sumthing with the "Just when" aspect here? Or did i miss a time when "Old Glory" wasn't so wavin'? Probably just repeating a Pop phrase, relative to such being "Our"? Enquiring minds need to know... --The NationAll Enquirer

It was a pop phrase that I thought appropriate/fitting, having identified (red flagged) "person" and "our" in this instance. As if to say, now that we've got that cleared/cleaned up, let's go outside and Smelling Flowers.

--&ē

What’s the difference between the government and the mafia?
The mafia doesn’t have a twelve year indoctrination system to convince you it’s not organized crime. ~ Brett Veinotte
Government public "education"/indoctrination is child abuse.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2018, 09:10 AM
Post: #8
RE: on the road / here's to one getting there... [article]
Or *is* it "above our capitol"? (if We only had a hammer...)

Or, *is* capital, a person too? at all?[Image: frn%20george%20blowin%20bubblegum.gif?dl=0] capital 1$?¿ (bloody "won"?)
(a tall person perhaps? a tall tale person?)

signals, signals, everywhere a signal,
blockheadin' the scenery, breakin' my mind
Do this, Don't Do that, can't you smoke the signals?...
Smelling Flowers

--NonREificationator2i (or as they, The Five Man Electedtrickall Band, say in Idaho, a NonREificatiotator2i)

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)