I Abstain In 2008: The Second American Revolution

Originally posted by Gateway
During a March 9 presentation at the Council, Rep. Rangel, who has sponsored a measure to reinstate conscription, outlined a plan very similar to that proposed by Carter and Glastris.

Those liable to conscription "would be about 36 million people between 18 and 26," stated Rangel. "We couldn't possibly need more than a million, probably far less than that, for military activity…

Yeah, this sounds "logical" to a mind that thinks like that. Start off with the government allowing all of those jobs to get outsourced, then add all of the illegal aliens taking up the remaining jobs & put Citizens out of work. Once military recruitment is the only way left for Citizens to find a job, then the military increases...But then, if there's still a lack of voluntary recruitment, reinstating conscription sounds like the next step.
Yeah, I got these "political minds" pegged...

Originally posted by Hal9000

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer

Originally posted by Hal9000
We have 300 million people in this country now and many social services that rely on a stable government functioning. You remove that and we will be far worse off.

And where in the Constitution does it give the feds any authority to create "social services?"

The services I was referring to were local police and fire, water ect... States receive funding from the federal government and would soon go broke without it, and that is the breakdown of services I meant.

All you did was to more closely define the difference between "social services" & "public/civic works." The main difference is that the social services programs reach down to Citizens on the level of the individual, but the "general Welfare" clause in the Constitution Preamble only refers to public/civic works that benefit the population on the whole.
I agree that public/civic works must be supported, but not the social services like welfare programs & such...And you've already stated your opinion as essentially being the same as mine.

Originally posted by Gateway
Let me see if my math is right that makes 140%...."Oh that's okay" cry out the republicans and democrats, "We'll just go to the Fed for the difference...who cares it's only paper money!!"

Yes, your math is right...Both parties are too engulfed by capitalism, but capitalism can only go so far before it becomes destructive: That's because corporate greed gets to a point where it cannot stay within the boundaries of "sustainable development" & winds up raping our world of the resources that future generations must rely on to survive.

This is why the Fed Res must be disassembled, or at the very least, altered to bring it back to Constitutional levels (ie: under Congress instead of being a privately owned cartel of mostly foreign banks): JFK's Executive Order 11110 comes to mind here, but no President since has enforced it. We must also bring the Government back to Constitutional levels, which will also reduce its size (& make it cheaper to keep it running efficiently). We must also eliminate corporate backing of the candidates, so that they'll listen to the People instead of their fellow shareholders & "campaign contributors."

These primary tasks, and others I haven't mentioned, cannot be accomplished without some form of voting. Even if they don't recognize your votes you at least use it...People who abstain aren't even using what voices they have & the government doesn't even have to bother with earplugs. But in the end, when the compost connects with the rotary oscillator, they may wind up regretting putting in their earplugs when the voice of dissent becomes the crack of rifles. I don't want to see it get to that level myself, but history shows that when the voices are not being heard, either revolt or mass executions (in some historic cases, both) will follow.

[edit on 30-7-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

reply to post by Gateway

Originally posted by Gateway
Can you explain to me again, how not voting is equivalent to acquiring a rifle and shooting up the Whitehouse?

You don't remember? You gave a sequence of events in this post leaving the last to our imagination, remember?

Then I asked what would come next in this post and you said in this post...

Originally posted by Gateway
As for your question about what comes next? Well it doesn't take much of metal exercise to understand that further neglect of the public wishes will only encourage more apathy and distrust, ultimately justly leading to a revolt.

Bold emphasis added.

You did say that the end result/goal is a revolt. I just took it a step farther expecting that you would remove the current leadership and replace it with someone you agree with. How can you expect me to not think otherwise?

Let me put it another way. You speak of a revolt or revolution as though it would be a good thing, even though you are against wars in other countries. What do you think is involved in a revolution? The government is not going to just hand over the WH over to you. I will leave the rest to your imagination.

I'm sorry, but that just wreaks of hypocrisy.

Read again: "If the will of the people continues to be ignored, and more wars are brought on, more taxes, less civil liberties, more growing debt, depreciation of our currency," what else will you have us do...

Don't answer that...I know....go vote!!

Yes, vote. Throw out the bumbs that got us here, those being the republicans. Most of what you listed has occurred over the last administration, yet you are blaming our voting process and want to throw out everything we've accomplished. You are throwing out the baby with the bath water.

After your revolution and after we throw out the bumbs, will we go back to voting? Or will you declare a dictatorship? If you say we will go back to voting, what is to keep this from happening again? You obviously think it is a flawed system if you are telling people not to vote.

Voting is the solution, not the problem. If we can't solve our problems by voting, then the problem lies with "we the people" as well as the government.



We need a change in direction, which means we need to hand things over to the democrats for a while. Obama just promised to review all presidential orders from the previous administration and expunge any that "trample on liberty,""

He has also ordered the democratic party to not accept money from lobbyists

How is that for starters?

And when the democrats screw things up, like we know they will, we vote to correct that as well. That is how it works. We vote to keep the government honest and have to be vigilant. It is not a perfect system, but it sure beats overthrowing the government every few years, like we see in third world countries.

i gave this thread some thought and I think once you stop voting you are actually validating their game
you will never get good candidates if they know people are willing to go silently into the night.
for isn't that exactly what they want you to do ?
to be sedated on fluoride and non combative.
I would vote a third party and if enough of you did this and organized
as a people with a grass roots effort
well its a dream ,there is always hope even when the lights of freedom are dim

And when the democrats screw things up, like we know they will, we vote to correct that as well. That is how it works. We vote to keep the government honest and have to be vigilant. It is not a perfect system, but it sure beats overthrowing the government every few years, like we see in third world countries.


isn't that their game, isn't that system what has sacked America raped it and gutted it the last 40 years

your duty isn't just to vote and then go back to sleep

you must throw them all out both parties
bring in a new one that is there to reform the system and undo the damage caused by both parties
Get off your lard arses and do something reform district by district make the candidates sign affidavits so that they are liable if they do not carry out the changes
your hanging by a thread and living under Marshal law
how much worse does it have to get before you move on this
Do you really care?

Once again, their system requires that the players stay in office for a long time. It's only through that tenure that the outside entities (corporations, special interest groups, foreign entities) have the time to get their 'hooks' in. It doesn't happen overnight.

Please consider joining the movement to vote all incumbents out at all levels nationwide. Disrupt their system. Force the external entities to re-establish their influence from square one. And then, in the next election, we'll rinse and repeat.

Kick every career politician to the curb. Send a real message: we're on to you and we're ending it right now.

reply to post by downtown436



Yeah right....

You wanna revolt? Buy a T-shirt that reveals your nature as an all-out revolted punk! Thi is gonna change everything... the system is gonna be brought down to its knees oncve you wear that T-shirt while driving to the shopping mall!

BUY BUY BUY!!!

post by Hal9000 Bold emphasis added. You did say that the end result/goal is a revolt. I just took it a step farther expecting that you would remove the current leadership and replace it with someone you agree with. How can you expect me to not think otherwise? Let me put it another way. You speak of a revolt or revolution as though it would be a good thing, even though you are against wars in other countries. What do you think is involved in a revolution? The government is not going to just hand over the WH over to you. I will leave the rest to your imagination. I'm sorry, but that just wreaks of hypocrisy.

There's a slight difference between the two, and that would be its root cause, yes both are horrible acts of destruction, and death. But on one hand you have a purported war fought for independence and on the other is a war fought by one state imposing its will on on another state, as in the case of most wars. Revolutionary wars, don't happen all that often. Most wars along with the most recent wars have been just that; one state imposing its will on another.

Yes, vote. Throw out the bumbs that got us here, those being the republicans. Most of what you listed has occurred over the last administration, yet you are blaming our voting process and want to throw out everything we've accomplished. You are throwing out the baby with the bath water. After your revolution and after we throw out the bumbs, will we go back to voting? Or will you declare a dictatorship? If you say we will go back to voting, what is to keep this from happening again? You obviously think it is a flawed system if you are telling people not to vote. Voting is the solution, not the problem. If we can't solve our problems by voting, then the problem lies with "we the people" as well as the government. We need a change in direction, which means we need to hand things over to the democrats for a while. Obama just promised to review all presidential orders from the previous administration and expunge any that "trample on liberty,"" He has also ordered the democratic party to not accept money from lobbyists How is that for starters? And when the democrats screw things up, like we know they will, we vote to correct that as well. That is how it works. We vote to keep the government honest and have to be vigilant. It is not a perfect system, but it sure beats overthrowing the government every few years, like we see in third world countries.

I'm not going to vote, because by doing so I'm implying that Obama or Mcain speak for me, which they do not. Taking full consideration of both men and knowing what they both stand for and my unwavering devotion to the Constitution that I therefore cannot in good conscious vote for either. Also, the way I see it, the more people choose to abstain from voting it sends two messages: 1) that these leaders are not fulfilling the wishes of the electorate. How can they say legitimately that "I represent the will of the people" when lets say for the sake of argument only 30% of the population went out to vote. 2) By not voting I also send out a message into the marketplace for those savvy enough to step forward, and to offer their political services...like a Ron Paul and tap into this sentiment, and who knows maybe this type of person will actually "do" what he says he'll do.

By the way, not voting is a type of Revolt. You confuse Revolt to mean all out war, which is not necessarily the case. Revolt can mean, showing disdain in the current corrupt system, by not participating in it, thus you show your no-confidence to the politicians. As difficult as it is, for you guys to believe these politicians look at participating levels among the electorate, it is their gauge to re-election and possible incumbency or the possibility of room for some 3rd party representative to step forward and re-claim these non-voters.





[edit on 30-7-2008 by Gateway]

Originally posted by Gateway
There's a slight difference between the two, and that would be its root cause, yes both are horrible acts of destruction, and death. But on one hand you have a purported war fought for independence and on the other is a war fought by one state imposing its will on on another state, as in the case of most wars. Revolutionary wars, don't happen all that often. Most wars along with the most recent wars have been just that; one state imposing its will on another.

You may think they are different, but the end result is the same. People will be killed, and worse yet, it will be fellow countrymen doing the killing. That is not acceptable. You want a quick fix, but there isn't one. It will take a lot of hard work and cooperation to fix our problems.

I'm not going to vote, because by doing so I'm implying that Obama or Mcain speak for me, which they do not. Taking full consideration of both men and knowing what they both stand for and my unwavering devotion to the Constitution that I therefore cannot in good conscious vote for either.

That's fine with me, but I wouldn't expect that things will change by not voting.

By the way, not voting is a type of Revolt. You confuse Revolt to mean all out war, which is not necessarily the case. Revolt can mean, showing disdain in the current corrupt system, by not participating in it, thus you show your no-confidence to the politicians. As difficult as it is, for you guys to believe these politicians look at participating levels among the electorate, it is their gauge to re-election and possible incumbency or the possibility of room for some 3rd party representative to step forward and re-claim these non-voters.

No I think you are confusing the word "revolt", with the word "protest". There is a degree of severity between the two. As far as third party goes, I think it would be great to have other parties gather support enough to be contenders, but that is not going to happen before November.

Well, here's the long and short of it...

Voting can't work because the system is corrupt on a base level. Whether you vote or not you waste your time. Whether the lesser of the 2 evils gets into office or not, the whole system is still corrupt, still being controlled by the same small handful of individuals that nobody votes on.

A violent revolution won't work. The government has way too many resources. Between devastating bombs, fully automatic rifles by the thousands, tanks, explosives...there's no way the people could come out on top.

And protesting? HA! People are too damn lazy in general to even think about complaining about it to their neighbors, much less going out on the streets and making a point. Getting together enough people willing to do enough work to get the job done seems an impossible task.

So here's what I say.

Play off of what people want to do anyway...nothing.

Corporations have the government by the balls regardless of who we get in office. Fixing the government won't fix the problem unless we also fix the corporations.

So let's do nothing. Imagine if one day, instead of going to work and everything going like normal, everybody did nothing. No work, no driving, no purchasing, no paying taxes, just nothing. It would decimate our economy and reset the system. It's just a matter of rebuilding that is difficult. Although one would hope good old fashioned american hard work stepped in and everybody started doing their own part.

No more Wal-Mart to supply everything. There'll be the dude that fixes and supplies electronics, a butcher, a baker, a candle stick maker. Everybody has a place if everything isn't being done all by one entity.

If we didn't use farm equipment and chemicals on our crops it would be a full time job for many more people to tend crops and those same crops could also produce many times more food. There's farming methods they use in Asia that produce 10 times the amount of food in the same space we use in america. It all comes down to land management. But that requires more people per a farm.

All in all it simply comes down to, there would be more work to be done, thus more need for more people and more jobs thusly. The only real difference would be that the controlling entity wouldn't make AS MUCH profit. There would still be profit making potential but it would be reduced from today's standards.

Now a-days everything is about how much money can be brought in and how fast.

They do nothing but try to save more and more money and all it does is ruin the job market and the economy of the small guy.

So let's do nothing. Not even for too terribly long. A week of complete stand still would put us so far behind in the world economy that it would make ours collapse.

Sadly enough this seems like something that would create a lot of problems in the short term, and it would, but it also is something that needs to be done before our government makes sure it can't be done. I needn't remind anybody here of 1984 and just how horrifyingly close we are to that now.

When there's a camera in every home, on every street, GPS in everything you wear and buy and carry around, and the sats watch you from the sky if all else fails...there will be NO organizing of a revolution. The instant a person even thinks of such a thing they'll just disappear, or be labeled a dissenter and a fugitive. The government is currently building "Civil Unrest" holding centers just for that reason. To hold people trying to create civil unrest!

So to you I cry this...

Do nothing, do it the American way! If everybody is lazy take advantage of it! Tell as many people as you can, get people thinking if nothing else. Just don't vote and think it's gonna make a difference. Things aren't just corrupt on a government level, they're corrupt on a world level. From the leaders of our country to every other country, the world bank that controls our money, and the corporations that feed off of our blood and poverty.

god help us all

This is an intersting discussion. I think we'll be talking about this one in our next AP Show.

reply to post by daddyroo45

What about a write in? Wouldn't that send a strong message?

post by Hal9000
You may think they are different, but the end result is the same. People will be killed, and worse yet, it will be fellow countrymen doing the killing. That is not acceptable. You want a quick fix, but there isn't one. It will take a lot of hard work and cooperation to fix our problems.

How can I consider some federal bureaucrat my fellow countrymen when they betray what this country has stood for? All Federal employees take an oath, their first day on the job, to serve this country, to uphold the constitution, and it is their responsibility to “think twice” about enforcing some policy that some bureaucrat tells them to enforce. If in all good consciousness they cannot enforce this policy then they have an obligation to refuse to do so, or to step down from this position. For example I believe there are tons of bureaucrats that question said policies recently implemented by the current regime, I urge you to research the number of diplomats that have left the State Department during Bush’s tenure leading up to the War with Iraq. These men and women are true patriots; they put their belief in this country’s Constitution above that of receiving a steady paycheck and cushy job. When and if we ever have to resort to something as drastic as another revolution, I’m confident in our young men and women that serve to know the right thing, I’m 100% confident that they will do so. I absolutely am certain that if we ever reach the level of dissatisfaction in this country which is not inconceivable given the growing burden on the average American, that not one shot will be fired. By this point, those serving in our Armed Forces will not attack the civilian population.

By the way, not all revolutions are bloody, case in point: most of the Eastern Block Countries of Europe leaving the once known Soviet Union/USSR/CCCP, all went peacefully.

That's fine with me, but I wouldn't expect that things will change by not voting.

No, again quite the opposite, I expect things to not change by voting. The more people vote the more things will still stay the same. My proof of that you ask? Here you go, just look at the Federal Deficit since you liberal implemented payments for your “New Deal” and then you republicans continue to finance your Military Industrial Complex, just look at this line…




You see both the Demos and Repubs love spending yours and mine tax dollars, and if they don’t jack-up our taxes, no problem they go to the FED and have them print the money they need to finance their pet projects. But what happens when this new money is introduced into the system? Well, it diminishes the current purchasing power that you have sitting around in your banks, and that’s called inflation or another way to tax you, without you even knowing about it.

So tell me, looking at this graph, and the expenditures, has government gotten smaller or bigger? I’m not just talking about Dubya, anymore I’m talking about all the presidents before Dubya, all the congressmen you guys have elected, more specifically congress since they are responsible for writing up the budgets. No, no change it is a steep slope, which will choke the productive members of this society, that will be burden to pay this back.

So again, it is up to YOU guys to prove that voting changes anything, because looking at the evidence; voting just re-arranges how the money is spent, the democrats spend it on their Soc, Welfare, Medicare, Subsides, etc., while the scum republicans spend it on the Halliburtons, Bear Sterns, Oil Industry, Airlines, etc…



[edit on 31-7-2008 by Gateway]

post by Hal9000
No I think you are confusing the word "revolt", with the word "protest". There is a degree of severity between the two. As far as third party goes, I think it would be great to have other parties gather support enough to be contenders, but that is not going to happen before November.

No, I mean revolt, in terms of obedience, look it up. People like you keep telling people like me that refuse to vote, that I’m not doing my patriotic duty, or that I do not have a right to complain because I do not vote, when it is clearly the opposite. I’m disgusted at the two candidates offered, I have an obligation to not vote for these guys who will I know for a fact, WILL SPEND MORE OF YOUR MONEY AND WILL PROBABLY INVOLVE US IN MORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL WARS. The question YOU and others HERE who will vote for Warmonger, or Warmonger-lite is this, do I have blood on my hands knowing full well what Obama/Mcain stood for before I voted for him... if that’s the case then yes, I am guilty of voting for more wars and more taxes. I on the other hand will be able to sleep with a clear conscious. To put it in a historical/religious context for you to understand; I am Pontius Pilate while you guys are the blood thirsty mob…

________________________________________

P.S. Well since you are a democrat I wanted to leave you with this little gem to ponder over:

Even after his One-World Tour last week, Obama has decided that he also needs to be the race candidate. In a recent speech to minority journalists at the UNITY '08 Conference in Chicago, Obama declared:

"I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."

I'm not sure of what deeds he speaks, but I always was of the belief that Obama was not going to be the candidate of the Eternal Shakedown. Guess I was wrong. I also find it interesting that no media outlet has picked up on it as of yet.

Source:starbulletin.com...




[edit on 31-7-2008 by Gateway]

Originally posted by Justin_Case
This is an intersting discussion. I think we'll be talking about this one in our next AP Show.

Please do, I'm tired of people using the old trite line of "YOU ARE UN-AMERICAN IF YOU DON'T VOTE, OR YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN, IF YOU DON'T VOTE...B.S." It's an old propaganda tool used to keep the system going, to continually legitimize and support the 2 party status quo.

[edit on 31-7-2008 by Gateway]

You see Hal9000, its not like I'm asking you not to vote. I'm asking you to vote using your conscious, fully understand what your candidate stands for and then vote for them.

I have more respect for liberals that vote for Nader, despite the fact that some of you guys on the left think he is unelectable, the reason why, is because they vote with their heads and most importantly with their conscious, even though I fundamentally disagree with them politically/and philosophically. They vote for Nader not because they think this is the candidate that will most likely win, but it's the candidate that most appeals to their beliefs. What I find reprehensible is that some people vote for the most popular candidate, you know the one the media shills keep telling everyone about is so great. Don't buy into that "Most Popular" crap, its way too high school.

If you feel Obama most represents your set of values, including the belief that Iran is a direct threat to America, then by all means...vote for him.

[edit on 31-7-2008 by Gateway]

The problem is that we have no way to organize us together. We are too spread out in a handful of websites, etc.....with no Mass media uniting us.

honestly, we have to just keep recruiting more and more onto our side. The millions of us each working on a hndful of friends and others.

Then one day the huge event will take place. We will have some leaders step up and ideas to organize. Then they will have a real problem on their hands.

I can just make something up on this website......ok everyone follow me and spread the word this is the plan. It wont work. Nobody will believe it will reach enough people and most the people it does reach wont bother cuz they dont think it would go anywhere.

I really think its about working in smaller ways and wait for our timing. Or some of our organizations to group together...get some funding...start a TV informative channel so we can reach more and get funded....then we can get serious. Its more the broke people who are aware,cuz we learned thru suffering. Some rich are aware , but most of them are panzies too scared to donate some money.

If i won the lottery.....bam id slap Dr. greer 2.5 million dollars. And i believe him. I dont think they could stop him from getting free energy out. So why arent the courageous people getting the fundsto make the genius investment. Makes me believe the spirit doesnt want this. It wants things to go to hell....to really get people #ting for something crazier. It appears its going to have to be done the hard way to really get us to pull our heads out.....and that sux.
Perhaps im wrong.

I Abstain In 2008

if i went around saying this...Abstain
some one would eventually say wtf does that mien abstain...

then id have to open a dictionary...and that aitn right man...lol

make it simple..lol

fancy word's killed the revolution lol

Originally posted by Gateway
So again, it is up to YOU guys to prove that voting changes anything, because looking at the evidence; voting just re-arranges how the money is spent, the democrats spend it on their Soc, Welfare, Medicare, Subsides, etc., while the scum republicans spend it on the Halliburtons, Bear Sterns, Oil Industry, Airlines, etc…

I could go into a long sad story of how in my state of Ohio, after the republicans stole the 2004 election and handed GB the re-election along with a few other local scandals, in 2006 we voted these bums out and now has a democratic majority in the state house as well as the senators seat in Congress, but I doubt it will persuade you, and I am short on time, so I won't. But just so you know, voting did work in this case, and the result was that now we have reformed our voting process and I see Ohio going for Obama in 08.

However, I would like to point out that I think you have the burden of proof backward. The premise of this thread is that the author or OP (whom has not re-appeared since the initial post) or yourself is saying that NOT voting is going to change things. That is what you should prove, and not that voting does not change things.

I will say, that I applaud your extensive knowledge in the root causes of the problems our country faces, and cannot find any fault in any of your arguments for the need to change. I just don't agree with this approach of not voting, and wish I could provide an alternative. I don't see things changing to these depths, because the general population does not understand how things work, so they will not be interested at this time. As long as people like Ron Paul keep raising the issues and educating the public, maybe one day they will be motivated. As of right now, without the backing of the majority, it isn't an option.

So let's not cut off our nose to spite our face, and go with the best option available.

Originally posted by Gateway
If you feel Obama most represents your set of values, including the belief that Iran is a direct threat to America, then by all means...vote for him.

Obama does match my values the best in that he wants to bring our troops home from Iraq, which I consider most important. That and I think the republicans must suffer losses in this election as a price to pay for misleading us into Iraq. As you know impeachment will not happen, so this is another and possibly more damaging consequence.

Now let me offer a little advice to you. I can understand how you feel knowing the candidate that you supported and probably worked hard for, is not in the running. You are obviously passionate about this, and we need more citizens like yourself that understand things, but I think you are just out to play spoiler against a more popular candidate. I would suggest trying to get past that, and work on the positive aspects of politics. Good luck in your quest.

Abstain? I don't think so.

I'm writing in Ron Paul.
No better candidate in my mind. All the conservative (grrr) folks were saying "He's just not a good candidate"... HUH? As far as I can tell he's never voted against his conscience, he's pro-life but believes it's up to the states (which it is), he's pro-gun but he's going to leave it up to the states.
he's pro small government... OOPS. That's why "conservatives" didn't like him. Small goverment won't cater to their pet projects any more than they will cater to the liberals.

If you don't write in Ron Paul then what you really are doing is voting for either Socialist Party R or Socialist Part D.