Jump to content
Islamic Forum

Wanderer

Member
  • Content count

    468
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Wanderer last won the day on June 15 2012

Wanderer had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

21 Excellent

About Wanderer

  • Rank
    Full Member
  • Birthday 04/25/1987

Previous Fields

  • Marital Status
    Single
  • Religion
    Christianity

Profile Information

  • Location
    United States
  • Interests
    Politics, faith, history, philosophy, science, and learning about others.
  1. United States Breaking Apart?

    I'm pretty sure the Roman Empire ended in the 5th century, roughly 200 years before the birth of Muhammad. The Roman Empire did put down Jewish revolts, however. Sure, the Byzantine Empire flourished for another 1000 years, but it split with the western empire before Rome fell. Hurricanes also happen due to a complex interaction of solar activity, air molecules, and warm ocean currents. A tyrant is also an individual, not a collective entity. I'm telling you that talks of secession of various states and portions of states within the United States have been going on since the founding of the republic. The only way you'd have actual moves toward secession would be to get a significant minority of the population in a state to clamor for it. Due to the large amount of bread and circuses extant in the country, I really don't see that happening in the near future, if at all.
  2. Looks like he doesn't pull any punches in this speech. Pretty good content, I think. http://youtu.be/q03cWio-zjk
  3. United States Breaking Apart?

    Every year garners talk of secession all around the U.S. Every year, secessionist movements never gain enough support to actually go forward. There are petitions for secession every year, just like there are calls for an Article V Constitutional Convention that never seem to gain any traction. You can even look up north in Canada where Quebec always has people clamoring for secession. The UK sees Scotland wanting to be more autonomous. Separatists in India are a thorn in their government's side. The fact is, secession is a very risky move that can easily eat up precious resources in a Civil War, as what happened to the United States in the 1860s. The threat of another civil war usually squashes talk of secession anywhere in the U.S.
  4. Secession talk goes through the rounds every election, just as many always claim they'll "leave the country," but very few actually do. Texas, Hawaii, and Vermont are three places where secession has been a minority opinion for decades. The thing is, secessionist movements never gain enough support to go anywhere. Even the U.S. Civil War ended up with no states remaining fully autonomous from the federal government strengthened by Abraham Lincoln. I wouldn't read too much into this.
  5. Well, in order to understand why that is, you'd need to understand what sort of governmental system we have set up, which is a federal republic subdivided into 50 semi-autonomous republics. This is a fundamentally different system from a unitary state such as France, which isn't subdivided into autonomous or semi-autonomous pieces with separate legislatures. When the United States was first founded, it was a confederation of 13 independent states. You could think of them as 13 countries that decided to come together and share certain responsibilities, such as common defense or free trade between states. A "state" in the political sense is an organizational apparatus with a "legitimate" monopoly on the use of force over a defined territory and population. Virtually every country you see today are organized as "states," such as France, Japan, China, Saudi Arabia, Australia, etc. Due to some difficulties the United States encountered under the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. Constitution was drafted to form a federation of states (as opposed to a more loosely-associated confederation), which introduced a more powerful national government comprised of representatives from the individual state governments. The individual states conferred some powers to the national (or federal) government such as the ability to coin money and levy tariffs on goods, while the states retained the remainder of power over their territories and populations. So the United States of America is actually a federation of 50 individual states that, if they were not bound together by the U.S. Constitution, would be 50 independent republics. Several countries around the world are federations similar to the United States, such as Mexico, Brazil, Russia, and Australia. What makes the United States of America "united" is the common federal government comprised of representatives of each state. Whatever powers were not explicitly given to the federal government via the U.S. Constitution was retained by each state. This accounts for the variety in different laws governing each state, because the federal government is forbidden from making such laws, while each state has a monopoly over lawmaking in their respective territories over matters reserved to them by the Constitution. So to sum up, the United States of America is a federation of 50 semi-autonomous republics bound, or united, together by the U.S. Constitution, which explicitly states the powers the national government has, while reserving the remainder of powers to the individual state governments.
  6. Muslims 4 Liberty

    If you want, you can check out the site "Minaret of Freedom." It's probably related to what you're talking about. http://www.minaret.org
  7. God Or Science: Do I Have To Choose One?

    "Science" is derived from the Latin word "scientia" which means "knowledge." Specifically, it deals with using reason to observe and study the universe around us with testable hypotheses. A hypothesis presents a possible, testable explanation for observed phenomena in nature, and can be very simple or very complex. If the procedures created to test the hypothesis repeatedly confirms the hypothesis' prediction, then one could logically assume that the hypothesis is a reasonable explanation for the phenomena being studied. If the experiments the hypothesis undergoes to test its validity result in effects that contradict the predictions of the hypothesis, then the hypothesis can reasonably be discarded as an explanation for the observed phenomenon, and another hypothesis needs to be put forth. That's really the essence of it.
  8. Innocence Of Muslims

    I think this movie is an excellent example of the "Streisand Effect."
  9. Good Websites For Knowledge And Ideas

    Here are some interesting sites with general knowledge and various minority opinions: http://www.khanacademy.org - Learn anything for free with Salman Khan's educational videos on math, physics, chemistry, biology, and more. http://www.minaret.org - Minaret of Freedom: various articles and videos that proclaim that Islam and freedom can be harmonious. http://www.mises.org - This is a site with numerous free literature and videos espousing the Austrian school of economics, which is in opposition to the current Keynesian school that dominates public policy-making. http://www.thevenusproject.com - This site touts an entirely different economic model advocating the abolition of money and rethinking in terms of available natural and human resources. http://www.technocracy.org - This site touts a similar model to The Venus Project's resource-based economy, but focusing on energy inputs and outputs instead. http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm - Part 1 of a short story entitled "Manna" and how robotics can be used to either enslave humanity or empower humanity. There are probably a lot of other sites I've come across over the years, but those were the first ones that came to my head.
  10. U.s. Ambassador Killed

    http://youtu.be/Re3_Y3rZ8FI
  11. U.s. Ambassador Killed

    I'm not in favor of using violence or coercion to acquire resources. We do buy most of our foreign oil from Canada and Mexico. Regardless, oil resources are dwindling and the price will only rise as time goes on. It would be wise to wean ourselves off of the stuff for long-term survival. I'm still holding out for solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, battery storage, supercapacitors, superconductors, and fuel cells to become more efficient more attractive as the price of oil increases. If commercial fusion power became available within my lifetime, that would be a huge leap forward.
  12. U.s. Ambassador Killed

    All the more reason for the U.S. to withdraw from the Middle East and elsewhere, as well as ending all foreign aid to every other country. In addition, we need to focus more than ever on finding alternatives to oil to fuel our society. There's probably some political undertones to all this violence, wrapped in religious language to justify it. Those responsible for the murder of our ambassador and two other Americans need to be found and brought to justice. It's morally reprehensible to attack an innocent person who had nothing to do with whatever "upset" these people. Virtually no Americans knew of this film until we learned about the attacks on our soil (yes, embassies are considered sovereign territory of the nation stationed there). The last thing we need is yet another war. I'd venture a guess that these attackers were politically motivated to strike on 9/11, and this film (which almost nobody in America knew about) is just being used as an excuse to commit violent acts. The individuals who committed the actual crime of murder should be captured and brought to trial. The population at-large, however, should not be at fault for the acts of the few.
  13. Us Elections 2012

    Well now we can get back to the topic at hand. The presidential election isn't the only one going on, as every House seat is up for reelection and about 1/3 of the Senate as well. In addition, there are local races. Anybody in the U.S. have any good words about congressional, senatorial, city council, mayoral, etc. candidates in their state?
  14. Us Elections 2012

    Then what exactly were you talking about when you stated in the very first sentence in post #197, Go back a page and reread your own words. That's the question on which I needed some clarification. You said that you didn't claim that the term had elitist connotations, yet in a post devoted to talking about two elitist ideologies, you have this one sentence prefacing the descriptions. On face-value, it looks to me that you're attaching elitist connotations to the word because you placed it in a paragraph describing elitist ideologies, linking it to the word "ideology" you used in that sentence. You refuse to admit that that is what you did, and now you're claiming that you never said "southrons" were descended from anyone, yet there are your own words from yesterday. Sounds like you're the one who has a case of cognitive dissonance. Since you claim that I have reading comprehension problems, tell me, oh wise one, what you meant by that first sentence in post #197? I read the post, and I didn't find much to disagree with regarding the elites. My previous post was merely a call for clarification regarding what you meant in the very first sentence you wrote in post #197, which I quoted above. A little bit of clarification, and all will be well on this issue. If you had bothered to read my previous posts, then you would have known that I hadn't heard of the word "southron" either until abdullahfath used it in this thread. So I googled it (which is something you were too lazy to do, even though you've admonished others on this forum for not googling things they don't know about) to find out if it was an actual word, and it if was, what the meaning of that word was. I don't use it in everyday speech, but your preconceived notions seem to have gotten in the way of your own reading comprehension as you lumped me together with abdullahfath and others who use the word regularly. Go ahead and read through all my previous posts, and you won't find a single mention of the word "southron" outside of this thread. Also, as far as I can tell, you've been nothing but argumentative in every single one of your posts.
  15. Us Elections 2012

    Perhaps a reread of my post in order. Perhaps the reason you haven't heard the term used is because it's not used as commonly as it used to be, which I stated in my post that you apparently "miscomprehended." I'd never even heard of the word until it popped up in this thread, and I initially thought that it was perhaps a misspelling of another word. So I "used my index fingers" and googled the word and came upon the definition that I wrote in my previous post. You've given as much advice to others on this forum; I'm not sure why you didn't bother following your own advice regarding googling things you don't know about. In regard to the "elitist" portion of the comment, here's what you said: You said the southrons are "descendent [sic] from an ideology that goes back to plantation times." You then talked about the two types of elitism (ideologies) in the United States, starting with "Southern Elitism." Now if the "ideology" of which you spoke (from which the southrons descended from) isn't "southern elitism," then what is it? You made no references in your post to any other ideology besides "southern elitism," "Yankee elitism," communism, and capitalism. So what exactly were you referring to in that first sentence? Is this perhaps the ideology you were referring to that I must have missed? Now here you go again, speaking of the ideologies you've talked about at length in your posts. You stated that the "Southrons" descended from an ideology, yet unless you were referring to either of these elitist ideologies, you didn't elaborate. Now if you think that the "Southrons" descended from the "Southern elitism" that has existed for a few hundred years, and you give the appearance that you have a negative viewpoint of said elitism, then the term "Southron" connotes something negative due to its relationship as a descendant of "Southern elitism." If you do not think that "Southrons" descended from "Southern elitism," then what ideology did they descend from?
×