It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Obama replaying a WWII ploy?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:06 PM
I'm certainly not saying that it's a bad thing to help our representatives know when their on thin ice, but there seem to be many cases where nothing short of active resistance is sufficient to change the government's course.

That active resistance need not take the form of a literal gun to someone's head.

I believe many of us would agree that based on the level of response so far to 1388 and its easy passage in the house, the government apparently could get away with imposing an unpopular "mando-teer" program.

But would any of us at all still feel that way if the following events were to take place:
1. If a major nation-wide charity announced that it will not accept any help or cooperation from the mandatory service program because they believe it will be ineffective or unethical.
2. If there was a large nation-wide movement of parents forming for the purpose of organizing civil disobedience against any conscription of their children.
3. If every skilled worker and degree holder in the group mentioned above applied for a Canadian work visa.

When politics escalate into preparation for decisive (but non-violent) real world action, the government has little choice but to back down- or abandon all pretense of representative government and get their way by force.

And guy with no sense of humor, perhaps you haven't heard, but idealists on the democratic side have had their fair share of success in the Golden State, and after you see a few come and go you should be able to tell which kind of death similar ideas will die. Slow and quiet budget starvation after an unimpressive start sounds about right for the service program.
And no, not all Californians have that nose... or it wouldn't be California.

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:14 PM
reply to post by jdub297

How does a citizen service corps have anything to do with Afghanistan?
If you are suggesting that they are testing the waters for a draft, that's one thing, but this program in and of itself is militarily irrelevant. It won't put boots on the ground and it won't appreciably strengthen logistics for a modern army either.

I don't mind if people want to oppose the idea- I'm fairly sure it won't be so stellar myself. But when the rationale you put forward doesn't hold water, it kinda reminds people of a kid trying to get out of his chores, which is a slander that some democrats will invoke if there's a stir and therefore should be carefully avoided.

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:58 PM

Originally posted by The Vagabond
reply to post by jdub297

How does a citizen service corps have anything to do with Afghanistan?

Afghanistan is only the latest debacle from which to distract diehard supporters. There are plenty of other broken pledges and promises that they've been willimg to overlook. But, Afghanistan is going to be the only screw-up that kills Americans.

There is now beginning the stirring of discontent that evidences itself through open defiance (even in Congess as of late) and organized demonstrations, such as "Tea Parties."

It supporters are busy showing allegiance through service corp duty, they mutually reassure themselves that all is well and the base is intact.


posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 10:16 PM
So it would seem that you are beyond protest and moving rapidly towards revolution. I make this inference because I understand you to be saying that efforts to do something positive are undesirable because they do not advance the goal of focusing opposition against the government. If I am understanding you correctly, the logical conclusion of your logic would seem to be that the government should cease doing business until the changes you desire are realized. And where can that conclusion lead but to armed rebellion?

I'm sure you haven't made any such conclusions, at least on a conscious level, and I'm sure you are sincerely advocating what you think is right. I'm only pointing out that zeal can be a dangerous thing, particularly if it makes you prejudicially suspicious of those who disagree with you.

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 07:43 AM
I believe what he's saying is, that even with all the non- violent demonstrations of discontent and anger, even with all the calls and letter writing and demonstrations, our government is still ignoring 90% of the land mass in favor of a few onclaves of concentrated populace. Even though that 90% of land mass feeds and cloths and works to pay for all the social programs that only feed the high numbers of voters in certain voting blocks in these concentrated areas.
Fortunately for us, our Constitution gives us and out when 'We The People' start seeing a government out of touch, spending on only those large cities with large voting blocks that have the power to take from us and give to them. Those blocks that seem to think the government should micr-manage every part of our lives. A government that makes decisions for our off spring theyhave no right to make! If it takes more than the voting booth, or the soap biox to get them to listen then we have that right to do so, and no one form any other country or the damned UN has anything to say about it, period!!

to add to this discusion: "...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - Declaration of Independence
[edit on 3/28/2009 by ZindoDoone]

[edit on 3/28/2009 by ZindoDoone]

posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 12:57 AM
Zindo you seem to be suggesting that having fewer neighbors makes a person more worthy of political representation. You do realize that a democracy is where the people rule, not where land mass rules, correct?

Furthermore it would do you well to realize that your "90% of the land mass is far from independent.
As I'm sure you know, it is not the small farmer that makes the US a net exporter of food. Although 91% of the farms in the US are considered "small family farms" they only produce 27% of US agricultural output by dollars. Our food surplus is coming from farmers who have the big city capital to buy big city built machinery. (Also, your politics are from Greece, your gun is most likely to be from New York and odds are that your religion is from Iraq or somewhere nearby. Hell, not even country music is made in the country these days).

I'm not saying you're not part of the country though. No doubt you are. We need you boys in the mid west to keep the East Coast rappers away from the West Coast ones (and to a lesser extent the dirty south ones- whatever the hell that is)- not even to mention that we're all planning to move in with you when we're done ruining the environment in the blue states. But for whatever reason, we do need eachother, and I'm predicting that if it ever comes to blows we both think better of it in one hell of a hurry when we realize how much we did for one another.

Those who are calling for revolution are pretty short sighted if you ask me, and I chalk it up to being spoiled just the same as the blue state boys are. Anyone living in modern America who thinks he has any first-hand understanding of the abuses that our founding fathers were rebelling against is stone cold crazy and on his way to a fight he'll wish he didn't start, even on the outside chance that he doesn't lose it in the first battle.

posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 09:21 AM
reply to post by The Vagabond

Your giving great examples of the way things should be but not how things actualy are. When four states because of their populace, literaly mold all national elections while the rest of us have to spend our tax dollars and our wages on taxes because of the strangle hold those officials, of these controlling states, who control most of the 'Committees' that regulates how congress spends and manages our lives there is very little equal representation for the rest.
I well aware that land mass is not a factor, but the idea that centralised populations should deem how the rest of us live is not how a Republic is supposed to be governed. We are a republic, NOT a damned Democracy, even though we have been taught that by our Socialistic School system and the NewSpeak teachers in that same system.
The state sovereignty movement is showing that more and more citizens are waking up to the fact that the Democratic abuse served up in DC is not what is going to fix the problems.


posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 02:21 PM
reply to post by ZindoDoone

But swing states do not dictate elections. Whether or not you win FL, OH, and PA, you're still SOL if you can't come up with 202 electoral votes.

So if you feel that your state has become irrelevant, perhaps its because your state has failed to hold its elected representatives accountable. Afterall, the parties can't award those 202 electoral votes- that's done by a majority of the electorate in each state. And although it's not actually my business, it's logical to ask whether you have been a part of that problem or not. Personally, I go out of my way to vote a split ticket, including 3rd party candidates (which from the Democratic point of view, makes me a pain in the ass, because they have a voter registration advantage in my state assembly district and can never seem to win it)

Perhaps if the Republican party hadn't felt so confident in running on the blind loyalty of the base they wouldn't have lost their hold on North Carolina and Virginia. If conservatives in those states had enforced the standard, perhaps by replacing a few under-performers with 3rd party candidates or independents, maybe you would have less to complain about today.

A republic and a democracy are not entirely mutually exclusive concepts. They do conflict at times, which actually works out well because we need to a balance and mutual check between the facts that a democracy is unwieldy and a republic invites corruption. We have certainly not perfected that balance, and the committee structure is an excellent example of that point.

Likewise you are correct that a large part of the issue becomes moot if the federal government is returned to its constitutional boundaries as enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 (which I believe you were referring to via the state sovereignty point).

I cannot help noticing however that these problems have little to do with, and in fact are probably almost completely unknown to, the voters themselves in the swing states and elsewhere. Urbanized voting blocks aren't making any decisions. They're doing the same thing that the rural folks were doing when the Republicans were in charge- being patronized and used at 2 year intervals and otherwise ignored and/or overruled by a government which sees loose guidelines where it should see a precipice.

Clearly the parties would not cater to the swing states if they were facing rebellion from the majority of their members in congress, who are from other states. Our own representatives are complicit in the sins of the committees or the parties would just have to find another way to kiss electoral butt. So I do not suspect that we would see an improvement even if we went to a more purely democratic system.

For instance, I have thought for some time that we might benefit from decentralization. Perhaps the cabinet posts should become separate elected executive offices, answerable to the president only in matters of conflict with other executive agencies, and each congressional committee become its own single-purpose congress (staffed by part timers who get the same pay that jurors do and like jurors can be fined more than they are paid for contempt at the first sign of an attitude problem- and parking at the capital should be a surrealistic nightmare that gets at least one congressman a ticket every day- but I digress).

But I have come to realize that among the many gaping holes in that well intentioned idea, the crown jewel is that it assumes that our current system is screwing up by accident, which is a stretch to say the least.

My opinion is that since America can't seem to agree on who is responsible for the present state of affairs, (and indeed a large plurality if not a majority are drinking the kool-aid on either side and thus will simply blame eachother) getting the djinni back in the bottle is a very tricky proposition for this country. I believe that carefully coordinated omissions are the tool for the job (as positive action seems likely to result in violence and complete inaction is clearly ineffective).

When I say coordinated omissions, I mean embracing the fact that the government can't actually force us to do anything, and that we could just as easily ask forgiveness as permission for the things that the government says we can't do.The one thing that seems to get lost in all the technicalities of politics and economics is that whatever the rationale might be, ultimately we do all the work.

If they can't stop illegal aliens from crossing the border, I wonder if they could really stop me and a few hundred other out of work carpenters from going down and building a wall at the border. In fact we could probably raise donations for the cause and effectively make it a DIY stimulus package. It's an option. Are we there yet? I think not. But some would say yes, and more power to them- they can even take credit for the idea if they do it and I won't complain. I'd be happy to see the resistance to our government take a form other than calls for a struggle that will destroy our way of life, which I suspect we've all noticed from one source or another over the last 5 or 6 months.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in