It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Question for Americans

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Vietnam didn't follow Kennedy. Eisenhower, seeing that the french colonialists were falling apart and that the communists were stepping in, started minimal, advisory, US invovlement in the french colony of Vietnam.

Kennedy escalated it to all out war.


No, he slowed down the inevidable. Johnson really caused the full out war. Vietnam was coming fast, and he just pushed it right along. Kennedy prolonged it.



Remember, this is the same Kennedy who risked war in europe with the soviets by flying over and dropping materials into East Berlin.


Would you rather they be taken over by the soviets, gaining complete control of berlin?



THe same kennedy who risked global thermonuclear war over a tiny meaningless island called cuba.


Decision needed to be made. Have nuclear weapons literally only some double digit miles away. Not the best position.



And it was during Kennedy's administration that the pentagon came up with Operation Northwoods.


Yep, and that guy got fired for making it. Kennedy did not even consider it.



Kennedy was the one pushing the Bay of Pigs Invasion, and who used the CIA to conduct mulitple assasination attempts on Castro.


where in GODS name did you get that information from?
Allen Dulles told Kennedy it was failsafe. Repeatedly told him to do it. He was also organizing all the assassination attempts. He was head of the CIA for some 10+ years already. Once kennedy finally OK'ed the bay of pigs, and it failed, kennedy fired Allen Dulles, ending over a decade of him being head of the CIA. This guy also organized the overthrow of Irans democratically elected government, guatamalas (sp?) too. He came up with Operation Mockingbird, the CIA infiltration into the news to spread misinformation.

In short, Allen Dulles did a great deal of shady things as the director of the CIA, long before Kennedy ever came along. Don't blame Kennedy for mistakes made by people he had never appointed.




posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Now for me, our country has been on a steady downward spiral since the creation of our central banking system...the federal reserve. To me, thats where we failed our country and were destined to eventual collapse. The downward spiral never stopped. We aren't the same, but we haven't changed too much either.

Still buying the same BS, still not fighting for what we believe in, still sliding the blame off our own shoulders. We haven't changed as much as we think.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by Atomic
You want to fix the US? STOP INSULTING IT! We're tired of it. We're tired of being told that we're the ones to blame but also the only ones that can "fix" things. We're like a parent that hands out the money to the teenagers and then they insult us for not being cool, then the teenage world goes and gets itself in a mess and asks for help again. Sometimes the parent is wrong...we're not perfect, but good lord let some of our mistakes go.


Herein lies the problem. Its actually the other way round. The US is actually the teenager, and you stopped listening to the older and potentially wiser heads around the world because of your level of involvement in WW2. (I'm not saying that involvement wasn't appreciated by the way.)

The attitude since then has been that the "US knows best" and that has been percieved as arrogance, awkwardness and in some cases downright stupid by a lot of people - particularly during the recent actions in Iraq.




Ha...well I knew someone would speak up when I wrote that. That's the way we perceive things in the US, not necessarily correct (the rest of my post agrees the USA isn't perfect). I think the US "knows" a lot (thanks to all the spy agencies), but the way we apply that knowledge isn't always so hot. We're only as smart as the people in power.

Again the US was put on the spot during the Cold War. We used to consult with our allies because the fate of the world was at stake, now I don't sense that level of cooperation. I'm not sure if the US pulled away or if Western Europe was more interested in just getting the EU put together. The EU is NOT part of the US, so naturally we have now created a rival situation when before there wasn't one. The US had no rivalry with Europe, because the US was the "leader". Now the Manchester United of the world (US) has a Chelsea (EU) to deal with...I think that is where the friction has begun. Don't make me defend George Bush because I can't...I disliked him when he was running the Texas Rangers baseball team, so as president of the USA I find him just as irritating.

I'm a very pro-Europe person. I think the US needs to make sure we are working close with our friends in Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand. Plus we need to focus on Central/South America 100% more. But I do not feel any need to rush into a EU style arrangement yet. I still believe the US has one of the most efficient systems that roots out corruption...I'm not ready to sacrifice that by joining a multi-country union.

I will stick by my statement that the US people are tired of the insults. Some we deserve, but the bashing to me isn't doing any good. Maybe we will have to endure it for a while like all the countries in Europe did during their time of power and misguided policies and wars. But if people want our help then they better understand we are reaching a point of "get off our back". Friendly advice is appreciated...



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Thank you for the replies and the many good points made thus far. For those who find it tiresome of the US bashing this thread is not for that purpose.

Its simply this, If those who control America wish to use the country and its people to spread its global influence by military means, which could mean conflict with China, Russia and anyone else who get in the way. Are the American people aware of this and are they aware that it is they who will be asked to make the supreme sacrifice as many have done so before them with aspirations to rule the world.

Can Americans see the parallels between agressive countires of the past such as the UK, France, Japan and Germany and their own agrresive stance now. Can Americans see the difference between countries that have been invaded by those aggresors who fight back to rid their country of same.

If most Americans are aware of this are they willing to gamble their futures on the conivance of the few. America has to date not been invavded by any other country and this is confimed by the armchair military experts who state that no one can touch America. That view seems to be at odds with the voice of many Americans who claim they are at risk from attack from countries such as Iraq and now Iran. Should that not been that America's self serving overseas interests are at risk and not the country.

If anyone of you could go back in time before ww2 and could tell the German/Japanese people of what the future holds for them and the countless millions who died and suffered in that terrible conflict would you try and stop it. Would you not want to save your Father, Brother, Uncle and any other member of your family who died and suffered or would you just sit back and leave them to their fate. It is we the people who have the power, we can use it or we can be led like donkies to the slaughter house, the choice is ours.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Atomic
I live right next to Canada and Mexico and I hardly get any information on them.


Huh? Right next to Canada AND Mexico? What part of the US is that?

As for the rest of your post your right. I completely agree that America has become the scapegoat now. It shouldent be, but it is. America's forign polocy chianged the second that Japan hit Pearl Harbor. Prior to that we were trying to be an isolationist nation. We were unsuccessfull in that attempt and so to answer the OPs question the day that America chainged was December 7 1941.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   
England experienced the same scrutiny and distrust during the Pax Britannica of the 19th century.

The UK was vilified in the international press for its maltreatment of India and misshandling of Boers in annexing South Africa.

No one mentioned the Belgian Congo, French misbehavior in places like Niger and Cote D'Iviore, the Germans in Sudwestafrika, etc. And all those places had FAR WORSE attrocities than what the Brits were doing. But it was only the Brits who were blamed (at the time) as Empire-mongers.

I submitted a couple of pieces for the ATSNN about French torture and murder of prisoners in Cote D'Iviore, that were going on DURING Abu Ghraib; but no one really cares unless its the Americans. No one cares about a black uprising versus the french; and when I posted that the french were trying to revive their dreams of pan-african empire, I was roundly booed as a francophobe.

But it just goes to show what grandma said. The man who is known to rise at dawn can sleep till noon.


.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Can Americans say when things started to go tits up in the US, there seemed to be a time when the country as a whole was far more benevolent, its people more free and happy with their lot. Then something happened that changed all that, does anyone have any ideas when, my guess is around the time of the JFK assasination, Vietnam followed soon after and it seems a downward spiral since then.

I think it was the invention of the atomic bomb. Up till then several countries were very powerful and somewhat equal. When the bomb was used that put the US way in the forefront and that new power was quickly corrupted by the military and defense contractors otherwise known as the military industrial complex.


Originally posted by magicmushroom
Up to the end of ww2 America was seen as a fighter for democracy now it is seen as an aggresor and a tyrant.

Not true. Prior to both WW’s Americans were isolationists and other countries did not consider us much of a military power. That changed with WW2 when we changed from building consumer goods and started building weapons and ultimately nuclear weapons.


Originally posted by forestlady
I agree with the person who said the War of Northern Aggression was a major turning point. The states had every right to secede but were not allowed to. But I think in recent times, 1947 and 1963 were the major turning points. In 1947, we became a national security state, with the passage of the National Security Act. We had the bomb then, too, which changed the balance of power drastically. In 1963, Kennedy was assasinated and I believe a coup happened at that time.

Except for the Civil war, everything here is true. The National Security Act of 1947 was the next step and the government no longer answered to the people. They created the CIA and started to manipulate other countries and started creating the enemies we have now. Currently it is PNAC that is controlling things right now and they are still up to their old tricks, but I think the country is starting to see that their plans are creating more problems than they are solving.


Originally posted by Tabasco1
The Summer of 1967. That is, I believe, when everything changed. By all accounts, more than 100,000 youngsters made the pilgrammage to San Francisco and other Bay Area locales for what has since been dubbed the, "Summer of Love." That amounted to a basic mainstreaming of the hippie experience as the time and place grabbed the attention of the national media and brought "hippies" into everyone's living rooms.

I would consider the hippie movement during the 60’s a reaction to the previously mentioned takeover, and it was when the government stopped listening to the people.

With all this said though I am optimistic about the future and hope we can change the direction this country is going. Hopefully the last election will be a point that we can look back and say this is when we took our country back.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   
I believe it hit the fan when the government begain lying to it's people, and feeding the media biased information. It is sad really... but then again What if the information we dont know is so great, that we would erupt in chaos if we knew. Is keeping information from the people good for the people?



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Atomic
I will stick by my statement that the US people are tired of the insults. Some we deserve, but the bashing to me isn't doing any good. Maybe we will have to endure it for a while like all the countries in Europe did during their time of power and misguided policies and wars. But if people want our help then they better understand we are reaching a point of "get off our back". Friendly advice is appreciated...


Well I see your point, but to be honest I'm tired of Americans that have been spoonfed propaganda telling me that I'm living in a country thats about to be overrun by Islamic Radicals when its simply not the case, and I'm sure the French would have little sympathy for the fact that Americans might be tired of insults. Americans have been over-sterotyping and insulting Europeans and people from other countries for years and it hasn't seemed to matter to you lot up to now.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Hi Ford, What cab be hidden from us that could coause chaos, Aliens are real, big deal, The Bible and Christ is just are just the work of a good fiction writer so what, the Planet was seeded by Martians who cares.

Those who control knowledge control power its as simple as that, we are highly inteligent lifeforms that allow ourselves to be duped by the conivance of the few. If you invented a fuel to power veicles that did not cost much and would put the petrochemical industry out of business what do you think would happen, they would either kill you off or buy you out and keep your discovery quite. Quite that is till they have sold us all the oil that is. Thats threality of what goes on all the time, to keep us in economic slavery. Your right about one thing though there would be murder when we find out what they have lied to us about.

Well said Nef, its about time the Americans faced up to reality, they like dishing it out but they cannot take it.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Can Americans say when things started to go tits up in the US, there seemed to be a time when the country as a whole was far more benevolent, its people more free and happy with their lot. Then something happened that changed all that, does anyone have any ideas when, my guess is around the time of the JFK assasination, Vietnam followed soon after and it seems a downward spiral since then.


In the 1950's there was a publicly jubilant period, some of us call it the "Beaver Cleaver Period". It was this magical world where the kids would be playing marbles in a circle on the floor, while Dad smoked a pipe, reading the paper in a smoking jacket and loafers, while Mom stood in the kitchen, with a smile on her face, and an apple pie in her hands. After a healthy breakfast of pancakes and fresh milk delivered by an immaculately uniformed milkman who knew the name of every man, woman, and child on his route, as well as the intimate details of their personal lives, and always had a helping hand and handy advice from the sagelike wisdom of the dairy industry.

At least, that's what the news, the advertisers, and the entertainers would have you believe.

In point of fact, there was an enormous homeless problem, there was a war raging between the Mafia and the Government, there was a whole new dangerous gang youth culture springing up, there was the terror of the communists attacking with their nukes at any moment, the air was filthy with the pollution of an industrial age, and families had been broken by years of war that had immediately followed the most awful economic period in living memory. The poverty, moral decline, and paranoia of a nation mixed with racial and religious bigotry that caused horrible acts of aggression against ones fellow Americans that are still being felt to this day.

The only reason the dream from the first paragraph ended is because we woke up. The nation was fooling itself, but I don't fault it. We needed to believe we were doing good. We needed to believe we were the good guys, and that all our struggles had been for SOMETHING... We needed to believe that the American Way of Life was the BEST DAMNED WAY OF LIFE THERE IS!!

I really don't have much problem with that sentiment, especially if it's the only thing that can get some people to sleep at night, but it doesn't make it true.

Then Nixon, Watergate, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba... those things really soured us. Periods of bloody and bloody pointless wars broken only by periods of economic recession, depression, and oil crises. That sorta rubbed salt in the wounds. By the time we hit the 1980's, there really wasn't any more "American Ideals" to believe in that hadn't already been blasphemed and blasted to tiny little pieces. The President was a laughingstock (literally, he was a comedian before a politician), and while he actually turned out to be a pretty decent president in retrospect, while he was in office, no one took him seriously.

We didn't respect our President, we didn't respect our Government, and we sure as hell didn't respect each other. Among all the horror of the news and the real world, the only real thing we could take refuge in and respect was consumerism and wealth. If you were wealthy, it might not have made you a good person, but at least you could afford good things. As the 90's approached, we dragged our feet through the decade, figuring the world was probably going to end anyway, so whatever we did was pointless. That's why science suddenly advanced so rapidly. The only people who really didn't buy into the world suddenly ending in 2000 or 2001 were the smart ones, and the smart ones just went right on advancing technology.

By the time we'd got halfway through 2001 we had nothing but science and consumerism to get us to sleep each night, and those are poor bedfellows. We had nothing to really believe in, nothing to get behind, no reason to think or feel that we were any better than anyone else, and the American way of life was little more than a way to stave off death long enough to play with one's toys. We even had a saying for it:

"He who dies with the most toys, wins."

or the alternate favorite.

"He who dies with the most toys, still dies."

That pretty much summed up the two belief systems in America...

...and then 9/11 happened.

Have you ever seen what happens when you throw rocks at a hornet's nest? I'll give you a hint, the whole nest gets really really really pissed off and stings anything it can within miles of the nest, and God help you if you were the one throwing the rocks. That hornets nest was us... times 250 million. After years of having nothing to believe in, we were given rage. Rage got us to sleep for about 3 or 4 years.

But as people calmed down, they stopped being able to sleep at night. They realized what had been done (and whom had been elected) in the name of rage, they became ashamed. They realized our pointless attack on a country that never attacked us in the first place has now cost more American lives than 9/11 did. And through it all, waves of scandal rocked the congress and senate.

We're coming out of a very shameful time in our history. It is my firm belief that the history books will look back on the years between 9/11/2001 and 2006 as quite possibly our most shameful era yet. Rage and Greed politics ruled our country with an iron fist and opened up secret torture camps that violated everything our country has ever said it stood for. We have a president who chooses religion over science, and our consumerism has been tainted by the knowledge of just how corrupt our corporations are and the fact that advertising now pretty much centers around insulting the customer into buying your product.

So much for the belief in science and consumerism.

We had nothing left to believe in. Nothing except to reach way back, before modern times, to an era of idealism and the advancement of the human condition. I think that explains the sudden complete shift to the democratic party in the recent elections. Maybe it's just out of hope that, since nothing else has worked, maybe we can believe in some intangible ideas of humanity and the environment. I don't know, anymore. I still love my country, especially Texas, but I'm hard pressed to believe in it right now. All I can do at this point is have hope that things will get better.

Anyway, that's what happened. Hope it helps.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra

. . . It was this magical world where the kids would be playing marbles in a circle on the floor, while Dad smoked a pipe . . .



Yeah, well. These days, Dad still smokes a pipe.

Only now, Dad isn't Mom's husband---he's just one of her boyfriends. And he's putting something else in his pipe, besides "Dutch Apple." And the kids don't play marbles; they play Grand Theft Auto, alone in their rooms. But now their into Robo-tripping, if you want to call that magical.

all the best.

.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   

You have voted thelibra for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.


only thing I need to say is we shouldn't have went democratic, since we have before and it did nothing for us.

We don't need conservatism, we need reactionary. The belief that we should go back to a previous time in ideals. I think we need to go back to when we first started this country. Ideals from when we fought the revolutionary war.

Back when we knew the dangers of a central bank, when we knew the dangers of a large powerful government, and when we still knew the value of freedom. Perhaps we have just forgotten what it means to not be free. The truths we didn't hold to be self evident, but rather forgotten in a page of history. Nothing was evident but our ability to repeat the past and never learn from it. Why do we remember the last episode of the Simpsons, but not our own way of life?



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
only thing I need to say is we shouldn't have went democratic, since we have before and it did nothing for us.

That is true, over the past 50 years it seemed that it didn't matter which party was in power, somehow our government was still the same. But in the last election it sent a clear message to the administration and to all of the do nothing congress that they need to make changes. Personally, I don't see the democrats doing much better, but we definitely need to change.

I think there are two things we need to do.

1) We need to make war profiteering illegal. Corporations should only make enough to cover expenses on any weapons or services rendered. This alone will keep us out of any more unnecessary wars.

2) We need some serious lobby reform and regulation. Laws should be written by the congressmen and not by the corporations. This will reduce pork barrel spending and help reduce the deficit.

That would be a good start, but I don't see any politicians pushing for it. The only way is for the people of this country to get it done probably through a referendum or something.

Just my .02



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000

Originally posted by grimreaper797
only thing I need to say is we shouldn't have went democratic, since we have before and it did nothing for us.

That is true, over the past 50 years it seemed that it didn't matter which party was in power, somehow our government was still the same.


IMO, going democratic was the best thing to happen, however, it's not the democratic process that's at fault. Get the money out of politics, and that would fix damn near every problem with our system today, besides getting rid of the Federal Reserve.

Back in the day, when our elected officials were done serving in office, what did they do? They went back to the fields. Today, our elected officials retire with the tax dollars we pay in.

Going to war? The ones in the political seat get kick backs from the head honchos that are making a mint off of our troops serving in wars. Which brings us back to getting the money out of politics. Make going to war, going to war for a good reason, not establishing a foothold on the oil market, and the such.

Since WWI, the US has been involved in wars that profited in one route or another with the assistance of those that were behind the scenes with the Federal Reserve.

Being a democratic republic is the only thing that allows "us" to have our voice heard in the government. The problem there, the corrupt are allowed to remain in office because the monster of "apathy" has taken a strong hold on (I'm guessing) 90% of the populous.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   
I think we should make it that the government cannot hire outside contractors. You want weapons, defense, etc. then the government hires the employees themselves. No dynacorp or anything like that. The government is its own business, but one that should generate no profits from it.

If it costs X amount to hire the employees, y amount to get the resources, and z amount to manage and design, then those combine should be the total costs which the tax payers pay for. No more, no less.

It should function like a business, but its job is to produce, not make profit. That should be the difference between business producing things and government producing things, one makes it for profit, the other makes it because thats simply their job.

I don't see how else it could reasonably work. Everyone gets paid their salary, no more or less. The head of the program gets paid a set amount per year, no profits or anything. With government, doing that is ok. With business its not because its not our right to say who can make what outside of the government.

Thats why we need to stop hiring corporations and business to help government. Anything we pay the government in taxes should be resourced, produced, and provided for by the government and nobody else. That means no profits get made. No profit means a rapid decline in corruption.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
I think we should make it that the government cannot hire outside contractors. You want weapons, defense, etc. then the government hires the employees themselves. No dynacorp or anything like that. The government is its own business, but one that should generate no profits from it.



The trouble is, capitalism (owning things) coupled with free enterprise (beling allowed to sell a superior product) is the engine of technical advancement.

With no military contracts, you'd have no colt pistol. No willis jeep.

What happens when an american patents a really cool device, but doesn't agree to let the Pentagon manufacture it under his license, because he won't "be allowed to profit from it"?

Are you going to contravene an American's patent rights, or go with 2nd or 3rd rate equipment.

Originally, the war department packed its own meat during the Civil War. Enough soldiers died from food poisoning that they started buying their own food, and so the army at least contracted it out to buy in bulk, and save the fighting man a few bucks.

And another lesson from the civil war: The North developed a "military-industrial complex" typical of modern states, while the south lagged behind, in part because many of its production facilities were nationalized, and turned out insufficient quantities of inferior products.

Every serious war becomes a battle of attrition. And capitalism + free enterprise outproduces and out-develops every other system.

Even a totalitarian state like the Soviet Union or Third Reich could not keep innovation and production up to the levels that enlightened self-interest have garnered for the United States.

If we have a problem with America's military-industrial complex, it is that our competition has been compromised by government moving away from a free market model that won us so many wars, and into a statist oligopoly reminiscent of a Soviet-style "Ministry of Destruction."

But I will be the first to admit, the US armaments industry looks a lot like the movie "Deal of the Century."

Transparency and oversight would correct that. But don't look for either to suddenly start emanating from washington.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I'm not saying they can't sell their products, just that government can't buy the manufactored product.

I don't see why government should be held accountable for copyright laws. The government isn't going to be selling anything, thus not making any money off of creating it. So long as they aren't making any money off of it, and its not being sold, whats the problem with building it?

Nothing should be sold to government. Its not a consumer, and its not a business. It is a special entity. One that we pay, and it creates. We pay them their salaries, they make our items.

Instead of having some guy go rouge and sell an item that won't sell to anyone other then the government really, why not just contract him to be part of the government itself? He gets paid an annual salary, and so long as he keeps the good work up of making stuff up, he has a steady job.

Point being, the government isn't a consumer. We are the consumers, not the government. They want to be a part of the government, get salaries like the rest of government, while they create their weapons and such, fine. They want to go onto the market and make huge profits, fine, just don't plan on getting contracts with the government.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
The trouble is, capitalism (owning things) coupled with free enterprise (beling allowed to sell a superior product) is the engine of technical advancement.

With no military contracts, you'd have no colt pistol. No willis jeep.

I agree that with our capitalist system advancements are made faster and better products are the result, but I think we need to tighten the leash so to speak. When I referred to making war profiteering illegal I was referring to when we are at war, it should be illegal to profit from selling more existing weapons that will be used by our soldiers or if we supply them to another country. It should also be illegal have no bids contracts or make money off of logistic services like transportation of goods. There is nothing wrong with the government giving contracts to companies to develop new weapons, but I think there should be more oversight for black budget projects.

The reason for this is obviously, but I'll say it anyway. If it is illegal to make a profit on weapons or services at the time of war, then there will be no monetary incentive for going to war. I know there would be details that need to be worked out, but I think there could be a compromise between the incentive to make new weapons and selling existing weapons during wartime.



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Have to laugh at those pointing at the last election as some kind of revolt.
41% of eligible voters did vote. Of that 41% just over half voted democratic. 100,000 votes going the other way and the house and senate stay in repub hands. A very small percentage of people caused the change- which in one respect is a good thing and should be shouted from the treetops since it shows that a few people can still make a difference. Unfortunately, the media, the worthless whores, try and make it look like a landslide, which all the more alienates people. To me, the viciousness and outright lies told by the media in all areas of life today is the most dangerous thing of all. Luckily, with blogs and internet sites more and more becoming accepted by the people, the media's ability to distort things and have people believe them is decreasing.
I happen to think that the fact that even during presidential elections that barely half those eligible vote is one of the main reasons things are so bad. That and this whole mess with money and elections. I have come to the conclusion that public financing of campaigns is the only way to go; no private donations at all- and no corporate ones either. Certain blocks of time will be allocated to candidates that can show by petition that they are worthy of being considered. On tv, radio and in newspapers, etc. NO OTHER commercials, etc will be allowed. What the candidates do with that time is up to them- but also there will be debates held once a week from the beginning of september all the way to election day. Any story on any candidate must have his or hers response as part of it. No campaigning is allowed untill the first of Jan of any election year.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join