will America ever be free again?

[Marcopolo123]

the people who have real freedom are those who live somewhere untouched from modern society

[1714127653]

1714127653

[1714127653]

1714127653

[1714127653]

1714127653

[1714127653]

1714127653

[zadiume]

American is a police state, far from free.

[ReBoRn]

the people who have real freedom are those who live somewhere untouched from modern society

Its absolutely true peoples which are not in touch of modern society still living good and free life in USA

[PerfectCoin]

no, i think it will never happen
america have a lot of debts

future will be hard for USA

[nwfella]

"Money is the root of all evil."

Truer words where never uttered.

Insofar as the OP is concerned, yes I think it's possible.  Do I think it will happen in my lifetime?  Probably not.  So long as the USD is the world's reserve currency, the fat cat's will continue to enjoy providing their 'humanitarian aid' (i.e. food, water, guns, boots on the ground oh wait I mean 'advisers') and reaping the enormously fat profit's that war invariable brings the privileged few (lockheed martin, etc.).

[Mike Christ]

"Money is the root of all evil."

Truer words where never uttered.

That's actually a misquotation, here's the actual quote:

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Money itself is not the root of evil; this precludes that evil did not exist prior to money.  It's essentially saying that greed is bad, not making a remark on money.

[cdog]

No, sadly. It all has to come crashing down.

Late stage capitalism, combined with mass fiat printing and a healthy dose of hubris isnt pretty.

If most of the 1% started to donate 5% of their income to improving education and technology/engineering research for the next generation, we might have a fighting chance.

Or if we didnt spend most of our tax money on a vast military that we have to create wars to use, and spend it on notoriously wasteful health care, and instead spent it on infrastructure and biotech/medical research.

We might have a shot.

But the reality is most Americans are totally self absorbed. Either through choosing ignorance (If you hate 'Merica, just leave) or people who care but get caught up in the day to day reality of having a full time job, a wife, 2 kids, mortgage... most Americans are so busy hustling to put food on the table and pay all the bills, they have no time or mental energy to seriously consider who to vote for or even more importantly how to change the entire democratic process which has been completely corrupted by lobbying.

So because most Americans are asleep at the wheel, willfully oblivious, or too busy with their own lives to actually understand these issues, let alone attempt to solve them, I think its going to get much worse before it gets better.

[Robert Paulson]

Rand Paul might be the last chance America has before it goes into the same meltdown every other socialist hell hole went.

if Rand Paul actually gets elected and actually behaves according to his and his father's economic ideology there might be a chance.
at the very least they must end the fed and stop fiat money.

there will be alot of pain as the economy has to completely restructure from the malinvestments of the last 40 years and all the misery will probably be blamed on him, he will have to move fast.

[leannemckim46]

If most of the 1% started to donate 5% of their income to improving education and technology/engineering research for the next generation, we might have a fighting chance.

Why do you think it is appropriate for the most successful to be the only ones that need to give their money away to help society as a whole? Your proposal is socialism at it's worse. 

When someone wants to improve technology or to research something they will not donate the result they will try to profit off of the result as this is something they own and is not owned by society.

[SeaofBTC]

The law can only be enforced when US still have the influence and military might.

As soon as US lose that influence, no one will care what US want.

A law can only be enforced when the people chose to allow it to enforced.

Anyone can decide to not follow the law, and nothing can stop them from the choice to not follow a law.

What can be done is punishment for not following the law, after the fact. Punishment is only repercussion, and cannot stop someone from committing the crime before they do it.

That said, you can now be thrown into prison indefinitely for being a "suspected" terrorist. Still, that's really just the government breaking the law. The government, in this case, is just choosing to not be enforced by these laws.

[Robert Paulson]

what would he have to say if he saw the American government as it is today:

spying not only on its own citizens but on the entire world.

forcing everyone to pay personal income taxes by using paper money only banks are allowed to create and lend with interest.

using tax money to bailout said banks when they fail.

pursuing its own citizens to tax them when they try to leave and work abroad.

putting future generations on the hook to pay back the debts their parents racked up.

[leannemckim46]

The law can only be enforced when US still have the influence and military might.

As soon as US lose that influence, no one will care what US want.

A law can only be enforced when the people chose to allow it to enforced.

Anyone can decide to not follow the law, and nothing can stop them from the choice to not follow a law.

What can be done is punishment for not following the law, after the fact. Punishment is only repercussion, and cannot stop someone from committing the crime before they do it.

That said, you can now be thrown into prison indefinitely for being a "suspected" terrorist. Still, that's really just the government breaking the law. The government, in this case, is just choosing to not be enforced by these laws.

This is not entirely accurate. What suspected terrorists are jailed for is for planning a terrorist attack on the US. It is generally something along the lines of conspiracy to commit terrorism.

I would also be surprised if many/any people would actually be opposed to this if it could be proven that people detained were people who were actually planning and hoping to carry out an act of terrorism

[SeaofBTC]

The law can only be enforced when US still have the influence and military might.

As soon as US lose that influence, no one will care what US want.

A law can only be enforced when the people chose to allow it to enforced.

Anyone can decide to not follow the law, and nothing can stop them from the choice to not follow a law.

What can be done is punishment for not following the law, after the fact. Punishment is only repercussion, and cannot stop someone from committing the crime before they do it.

That said, you can now be thrown into prison indefinitely for being a "suspected" terrorist. Still, that's really just the government breaking the law. The government, in this case, is just choosing to not be enforced by these laws.

This is not entirely accurate. What suspected terrorists are jailed for is for planning a terrorist attack on the US. It is generally something along the lines of conspiracy to commit terrorism.

I would also be surprised if many/any people would actually be opposed to this if it could be proven that people detained were people who were actually planning and hoping to carry out an act of terrorism

That is indeed the appeal to emotions card that is played. The problem is the suspected terrorist is detained on "proof" at the military/government side, but is only given a lawyer *after* the detainment on "strong suspicion," and the process of a lawyer acquisition is not quick.

There is the ideal, then there is the real. The real is people are detained first, and then given a lawyer months later, years later, or, in some cases, they just happen to die in prison.

Also, to speak to your "proof," most of the "terrorists" in, and who were in, Guantanamo Bay didn't wind up there by capture and proof from USA forces. They got there from middle eastern fighters. Why did these militant groups help us? Oh right, the massive bounties on any captured terrorists that were offered.

Human rights are quickly tossed out the window when we mix military with government. Indefinite imprisonment based on a suspicion is just plain evil. The word "Terrorism" has an incredibly wide meaning, and can apply to a very large range of acts including much of what the USA does. "Conspiracy to commit terrorism" can encompass quite a bit.

Heck, my posts here suggesting people can just simply choose to defy all laws could be construed as me conspiring with you all to be terrorists in the sense that we just don't obey any law of the USA.

[botany]

If most of the 1% started to donate 5% of their income to improving education and technology/engineering research for the next generation, we might have a fighting chance.

Why do you think it is appropriate for the most successful to be the only ones that need to give their money away to help society as a whole? Your proposal is socialism at it's worse. 

When someone wants to improve technology or to research something they will not donate the result they will try to profit off of the result as this is something they own and is not owned by society.

You do have philanthropists among the wealthy....

[leannemckim46]

The law can only be enforced when US still have the influence and military might.

As soon as US lose that influence, no one will care what US want.

A law can only be enforced when the people chose to allow it to enforced.

Anyone can decide to not follow the law, and nothing can stop them from the choice to not follow a law.

What can be done is punishment for not following the law, after the fact. Punishment is only repercussion, and cannot stop someone from committing the crime before they do it.

That said, you can now be thrown into prison indefinitely for being a "suspected" terrorist. Still, that's really just the government breaking the law. The government, in this case, is just choosing to not be enforced by these laws.

This is not entirely accurate. What suspected terrorists are jailed for is for planning a terrorist attack on the US. It is generally something along the lines of conspiracy to commit terrorism.

I would also be surprised if many/any people would actually be opposed to this if it could be proven that people detained were people who were actually planning and hoping to carry out an act of terrorism

That is indeed the appeal to emotions card that is played. The problem is the suspected terrorist is detained on "proof" at the military/government side, but is only given a lawyer *after* the detainment on "strong suspicion," and the process of a lawyer acquisition is not quick.

There is the ideal, then there is the real. The real is people are detained first, and then given a lawyer months later, years later, or, in some cases, they just happen to die in prison.

Also, to speak to your "proof," most of the "terrorists" in, and who were in, Guantanamo Bay didn't wind up there by capture and proof from USA forces. They got there from middle eastern fighters. Why did these militant groups help us? Oh right, the massive bounties on any captured terrorists that were offered.

Human rights are quickly tossed out the window when we mix military with government. Indefinite imprisonment based on a suspicion is just plain evil. The word "Terrorism" has an incredibly wide meaning, and can apply to a very large range of acts including much of what the USA does. "Conspiracy to commit terrorism" can encompass quite a bit.

Heck, my posts here suggesting people can just simply choose to defy all laws could be construed as me conspiring with you all to be terrorists in the sense that we just don't obey any law of the USA.

Have you ever heard of habeas corpus? It is when someone that is detained petitions the court (or someone petitions the court on their behalf) to have the prisoner brought before a judge so the judge can evaluate if the prisoner is being lawfully detained. If they are not then the prisoner is let go. This process takes a very short amount of time (days at most). The supreme court has held that suspected terrorists have the right to request a writ of habeas corpus

[botany]

The law can only be enforced when US still have the influence and military might.

As soon as US lose that influence, no one will care what US want.

A law can only be enforced when the people chose to allow it to enforced.

Anyone can decide to not follow the law, and nothing can stop them from the choice to not follow a law.

What can be done is punishment for not following the law, after the fact. Punishment is only repercussion, and cannot stop someone from committing the crime before they do it.

That said, you can now be thrown into prison indefinitely for being a "suspected" terrorist. Still, that's really just the government breaking the law. The government, in this case, is just choosing to not be enforced by these laws.

This is not entirely accurate. What suspected terrorists are jailed for is for planning a terrorist attack on the US. It is generally something along the lines of conspiracy to commit terrorism.

I would also be surprised if many/any people would actually be opposed to this if it could be proven that people detained were people who were actually planning and hoping to carry out an act of terrorism

That is indeed the appeal to emotions card that is played. The problem is the suspected terrorist is detained on "proof" at the military/government side, but is only given a lawyer *after* the detainment on "strong suspicion," and the process of a lawyer acquisition is not quick.

There is the ideal, then there is the real. The real is people are detained first, and then given a lawyer months later, years later, or, in some cases, they just happen to die in prison.

Also, to speak to your "proof," most of the "terrorists" in, and who were in, Guantanamo Bay didn't wind up there by capture and proof from USA forces. They got there from middle eastern fighters. Why did these militant groups help us? Oh right, the massive bounties on any captured terrorists that were offered.

Human rights are quickly tossed out the window when we mix military with government. Indefinite imprisonment based on a suspicion is just plain evil. The word "Terrorism" has an incredibly wide meaning, and can apply to a very large range of acts including much of what the USA does. "Conspiracy to commit terrorism" can encompass quite a bit.

Heck, my posts here suggesting people can just simply choose to defy all laws could be construed as me conspiring with you all to be terrorists in the sense that we just don't obey any law of the USA.

Have you ever heard of habeas corpus? It is when someone that is detained petitions the court (or someone petitions the court on their behalf) to have the prisoner brought before a judge so the judge can evaluate if the prisoner is being lawfully detained. If they are not then the prisoner is let go. This process takes a very short amount of time (days at most). The supreme court has held that suspected terrorists have the right to request a writ of habeas corpus

Wasn't the Guantanamo Bay detention centre used to circumvent this?

[Gotti III]

America is free.. The government and the capitalist doesnt want us to be free.

[Robert Paulson]

America is free.. The government and the capitalist doesnt want us to be free.

[nidhish]

American people need to wake up & start to question there govt then only we would see changes .

[a447513372]

The law can only be enforced when US still have the influence and military might.

As soon as US lose that influence, no one will care what US want.

A law can only be enforced when the people chose to allow it to enforced.

Anyone can decide to not follow the law, and nothing can stop them from the choice to not follow a law.

What can be done is punishment for not following the law, after the fact. Punishment is only repercussion, and cannot stop someone from committing the crime before they do it.

That said, you can now be thrown into prison indefinitely for being a "suspected" terrorist. Still, that's really just the government breaking the law. The government, in this case, is just choosing to not be enforced by these laws.

This is not entirely accurate. What suspected terrorists are jailed for is for planning a terrorist attack on the US. It is generally something along the lines of conspiracy to commit terrorism.

I would also be surprised if many/any people would actually be opposed to this if it could be proven that people detained were people who were actually planning and hoping to carry out an act of terrorism

That is indeed the appeal to emotions card that is played. The problem is the suspected terrorist is detained on "proof" at the military/government side, but is only given a lawyer *after* the detainment on "strong suspicion," and the process of a lawyer acquisition is not quick.

There is the ideal, then there is the real. The real is people are detained first, and then given a lawyer months later, years later, or, in some cases, they just happen to die in prison.

Also, to speak to your "proof," most of the "terrorists" in, and who were in, Guantanamo Bay didn't wind up there by capture and proof from USA forces. They got there from middle eastern fighters. Why did these militant groups help us? Oh right, the massive bounties on any captured terrorists that were offered.

Human rights are quickly tossed out the window when we mix military with government. Indefinite imprisonment based on a suspicion is just plain evil. The word "Terrorism" has an incredibly wide meaning, and can apply to a very large range of acts including much of what the USA does. "Conspiracy to commit terrorism" can encompass quite a bit.

Heck, my posts here suggesting people can just simply choose to defy all laws could be construed as me conspiring with you all to be terrorists in the sense that we just don't obey any law of the USA.

Have you ever heard of habeas corpus? It is when someone that is detained petitions the court (or someone petitions the court on their behalf) to have the prisoner brought before a judge so the judge can evaluate if the prisoner is being lawfully detained. If they are not then the prisoner is let go. This process takes a very short amount of time (days at most). The supreme court has held that suspected terrorists have the right to request a writ of habeas corpus

Wasn't the Guantanamo Bay detention centre used to circumvent this?

The supreme court ruled that detainees (or someone on their behalf) can file a writ of habeas corpus if they think they are being held illegally.