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.

 

Political War

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 





How can the people be to blame when they are intentionally fed information that encourages their reaction rather than their introspection...from people who have considered how to influence opinion?


People get the government they deserve.

It is the responsibility of every individual to discern what the truth is according the dictates of their own conscience. Regardless of the intent of information or disinformation that is being fed to the people, each individual must accept responsibility for what they ultimately digest.

As to the Bush/Obama paradigm, the political war goes beyond these two Presidents, and every Administration for well over a hundred years, and perhaps longer than that, have steadily marched towards a more centralized and powerful federal government, at the expense of states rights, and ultimately at the expense of individual rights.

Even the vaunted Ronald Regan, (among conservatives), truly only paid lip service to conservative values, and while he spoke of a limited government, his own administration was guilty of expanding government, not limiting it.

It is not just money that needs to followed, but the seizure of power. Power is best utilized when evenly spread, and when centralized into a limited amount of people, this becomes not just power, but increasingly absolute power, and as Lord Acton once said; "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

[edit on 3-9-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]




posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
People get the government they deserve.

It is the responsibility of every individual to discern what the truth is according the dictates of their own conscience. Regardless of the intent of information or disinformation that is being fed to the people, each individual must accept responsibility for what they ultimately digest.


I agree with everything you posted but the above.

I wonder why we, as a society, having just perfected the industrial revolution and are going forward with many technologies that are intentionally being kept secret can hold the lack of education/information propagated over others when there is no such thing as a subjective synchronization.

Someone within the Bible Belt disagrees with me profusely on the viability of a human because of a different religion...indeed, there are many who disagree with me on the subject of the viability of organized religion.

Does that mean that the disagreement should impact economic value and the need for education...

There is a direct relationship between education and economic status...it's a by product of the society that has evolved from our technological races.

Should proprietary information and strategies define the value of a human?

This is much more than "people deserving the government"...in my opinion, government is just another social playground...the point is that there are social outlets designed, basic social outlets, to optimize this stigma and dichotomy...

Edit to add - The Bush/Obama paradigm is not lost on me...but they are the first to be in the internet spotlight. As good a place to start as any...

[edit on Fri, 03 Sep 2010 01:52:16 -0500 by MemoryShock]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 


My apologies, good friend, for my delay. It took me some time to digest and attempt to fully understand what it was you meant by certain phrases, such as; subjective synchronization.

I am assuming you are using the phrase in relation to free will, and consciousness, which is a poorly defined word, at best. Free will, and consciousness are strictly subjective in that they are private matters that can only be by the subject, and no one else. You can no more direct my free will, or consciousness, than I can yours.

Synchronization, by definition, is a simultaneous action, or actions in unison. When you assert that there is no such thing as subjective synchronization is this what you mean? That my free will, and your free will, and the free will of other people can not possibly be synchronized? Is this indeed true?

Is not there evidence of subjective synchronization in many areas of life? Do not championship seasons of any team sports reveal, at the very least, a modicum of subjective synchronization?

Even traffic regarding motor vehicles can often times display a remarkable amount of subjective synchronization. Granted, since there are often "accidents" and collisions in traffic, there is also revealed a lack of subjective synchronization, but the norm is not daily and constant collisions, they are, for the most part, occasional.

You speak to disagreement, and in particularly disagreement regarding religion, and yet, we increasingly live in a world that struggles to find subjective synchronization regarding religious beliefs. Admittedly, there are secularists who believe that religion is THE problem, and non-secularists who believe heathenism is THE problem, but on both sides of that coin, they are extremists, and do not in anyway, reflect the norm. Normally, secular or non-secular, most people tolerate each others religious views, and even to some degree learn and are enriched by such toleration.

You ask if disagreement should impact economies and need for education, and I answer emphatically, yes, yes, yes, indeed!

In terms of economic value, it is not agreement that encourages the flourishing and prospering of markets, and thereby the greater amount of individuals, but on the contrary, it is disagreement that marks the flourishing and prospering of economic value. In a recession, where unemployment is high, this makes it an employers market and employers can command high quality employees at a lower price than they could when unemployment is low. Of course, this does not mean that employees are in agreement with what the market will bear, and as soon as that market produces lower unemployment and a greater demand for high quality employees at a higher price, the disagreement shifts from employer to employee.

The same is true for education. It is disagreement that marks the evolution of education and its path towards a greater good. In science it is achieved best by falsification. What is falsification if not an embrace of disagreement? When falsification is abandoned for agenda, education in science ceases to be education, and soon becomes indoctrination.

I do not disagree, that on the whole, there is a direct relationship between education and economic prosperity, however, let us be careful, and painfully specific how we define both education, and economy.

If education must be defined as the institutionalized state monopoly it has become in many industrialized nations, I offer you emphatic disagreement, and argue that education is wholly subjective, and with or without a state monopolized institution offering its version of education, each individual can and must educate themselves, and if this state run monopoly of institutionalized education is truly just indoctrination, then those individuals subjected to this must work even harder in educating themselves.

Proprietary information is not the same thing as truth. Information is not necessarily truth, and often times is nothing more than random data sets. What good is "education" if it be at the expense of truth? What good is truth if it can not be discerned? The ability to differentiate is far more important than the ability to memorize data sets. The ability to imagine is far more valuable than the privilege of having "proprietary information".



[edit on 3-9-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by MemoryShock
 





How can the people be to blame when they are intentionally fed information that encourages their reaction rather than their introspection...from people who have considered how to influence opinion?


People get the government they deserve.

It is the responsibility of every individual to discern what the truth is according the dictates of their own conscience. Regardless of the intent of information or disinformation that is being fed to the people, each individual must accept responsibility for what they ultimately digest.


While this is true society as a whole must advocate as strongly as it can a means to open sources of information.

I don't wish to quote so I'll paraphrase, James Madison said something to the degree that a democratic, free nation requires a populace with quick and easy access to free, open source information.

With the advent of the internet we have finally come to a point where it's feasible for a country our size.

Think of it; we wouldn't need regulation if the consumers knew who made what where with what and when.

But you are right that ultimately it is the job of the individual to not only fight for society to be like that but to go to the open sources of information to learn these things. We wouldn't need regulation in the markets. And this concept can apply to anything.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

Subjective Synchronization means basic comprehension towards life experience...rather than reactionary behaviour/expression.

People agree on sports teams and such but there is no correlation beyond social outlet's.

I as well need some time to consider your post...apologies, my friend...



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by SpectreDC
 


I most emphatically agree with your assertion that all of us should, as individuals, advocate a free access to open sources of information.

You point to the internet as one means in which this is made possible, and these times we live in have often been called "The Age of Information", but these times can just as easily be called The Age of Disinformation.

The more access we have to open sources of information, the more likely we are to encounter disinformation. This is not to argue that proprietary information is the better route, but only to reaffirm that discernment, and the ability to differentiate information from disinformation is more than prudent.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock

The point of this thread is not to defend Obama. While I do believe the man to be quite intelligent I also believe that he inherited a 'subtle' battlefield that we on ATS rarely discuss because we are in the midst of reactionary behaviour.


What's the 'subtle agenda'?

Here's a thought: the power of human creativity is vastly greater than is generally imagined. People create change, and collections of people create great change.

It doesn't matter what system you organize that change within -- capitalism, socialism, anarchy, etc -- any system that allows change, will allow people to express and invoke that change.

But here's the problem: the expression of that change is not self-regulating. Unregulated change in a society is like a monkey scampering up a tree, blindly scrambling for the higher and further branch, regardless of how precarious the situation becomes. Eventually, the branch get too thin and snap! down goes the monkey.

Perhaps societies aren't meant to be stable, by nature. Maybe the natural course is uncontrolled growth in a new direction, followed 99% of the time by disastrous collapse. Maybe nature thinks that 1% of the time when a new meta-stable harmony is reached is worth it. Isn't that how evolution works, on a smaller level?

But that's not what we want from our politicians and leaders. We want stability. We want change and advancement in society, as creative and unchanneled seeming as possible. We want the best of both world, so to speak.

What's that translate to directly? Well, maybe we want everything to be controlled. But, we want to be able to believe that everything is free. Seems like an accurate description of a crypto-fascist agenda, doesn't it?



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienreality
reply to post by MemoryShock
 




The Bush's espoused conservative things, but in back rooms they performed progressive things.



This statement here is the disfunction, I continue to see over and over.

I could say Obama talks progressive and in the back room acts conservative.

I.E instead of act like a progressive and instate a single payer plan - he created pushed
a plan that was very close to ROMNEY CARE, funny enough one of the most popular
conservative presidential hopefuls in America. If Romney got elected and screwed up the country is it the fault of progressives and liberalism?

You see, everyone defending the banner of "conservatism" and what it means - seems to shut off all critical thought to buffer/protect idealism. I appears that everything negative a conservative perpetrate on America is in fact an act of progressivism. This appears to be the great copout of this current political environment. CONSERVATIVES voted for BUSH twice,he sure was conservative enough when people had a choice to admonish his "PROGRESSIVISM". Now that Bush is gone his dysfunction is blamed on his progressivism, this is used to explain away his failures.

This creates a void of any reflection or thought - it is a mania of sorts, if I saw this with
liberals at large, I could say that without pause.

If conservatives are unhappy with that state of conservatism which launched this debt cycle into overdrive since Reagan, well, maybe Conservatives need to look at Conservatives and conservatism. Logic would dictate that the "state" of conservatism
is not controlled in any direct way by progressive agenda unless it is thru compromise. But this simple equation seems to be abandoned to perpetuate this sad state of conservation, only conserving the ego above all else, impact be damned.

It is like

"daddy didn't rob the store because he is my dad and he loves me!"

Daddy must have been forced to rob the store or the evidence must be categorically false. Introspection can be painful, but it is damn near impossible when you apply it to a hundred million people. At this point I ask, is this progressivism that seems to infect
conservatism actually progressivism, or a function of conservatism put into action?








[edit on 5-9-2010 by Janky Red]

[edit on 5-9-2010 by Janky Red]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by MemoryShock
 





How can the people be to blame when they are intentionally fed information that encourages their reaction rather than their introspection...from people who have considered how to influence opinion?


People get the government they deserve.

It is the responsibility of every individual to discern what the truth is according the dictates of their own conscience. Regardless of the intent of information or disinformation that is being fed to the people, each individual must accept responsibility for what they ultimately digest.

As to the Bush/Obama paradigm, the political war goes beyond these two Presidents, and every Administration for well over a hundred years, and perhaps longer than that, have steadily marched towards a more centralized and powerful federal government, at the expense of states rights, and ultimately at the expense of individual rights.

Even the vaunted Ronald Regan, (among conservatives), truly only paid lip service to conservative values, and while he spoke of a limited government, his own administration was guilty of expanding government, not limiting it.

It is not just money that needs to followed, but the seizure of power. Power is best utilized when evenly spread, and when centralized into a limited amount of people, this becomes not just power, but increasingly absolute power, and as Lord Acton once said; "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

[edit on 3-9-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]


JPZ!

See, you do not seem to fit this generalization I tend to believe -

also, I very much believe what you have posted...

But what to do in the cases where knocking down one simple claus in existing regulation creates the entire avenue for theft???


Such a thing would be stamping back government, but this does not mean that the act of this small limitation of governance would create better results does it?

I feel this is greatly ignored in the debate at large.

I thought of it as a traffic signal -

One could eliminate the "power" of the red light, while maintaining the green and yellow
and destroy the point of the whole system. When it come to volumes, this critical aspect
is rarely examined.



[edit on 5-9-2010 by Janky Red]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
UNTIL, we get the government out of our wallets and our property, it does not matter who holds the political reins. Period.

The Dems supposedly want your property and labor to help the less fortunate.

The Repubs supposedly want your property and labor to keep you safe.

I say supposedly because they are BOTH a bunch of thieves that steal our labor and our property.

Income as defined in the beginning of this nation NEVER included wages for services given.

Because as an individual, you are trading your labor for another service or commodity. There is no profit acquired, hence no income.

As for property taxation, the founders thought it so important that they included it into the Constitution, QUITE obviously.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

As for the bankster connections, they are all in on it together.

Another component of the Constitution is and has been destroyed by the banksters. Whereby a strong and non manipulative currency will be maintained for the strength of our nation.

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Now, coin is based upon what? Nothing. Manipulated at will and for the profit of the banksters.

Oh well.

Traditional Monkey is a good descriptor.

[edit on 5-9-2010 by saltheart foamfollower]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ian McLean
What's the 'subtle agenda'?

Here's a thought: the power of human creativity is vastly greater than is generally imagined. People create change, and collections of people create great change.


Perhaps my opinion regarding a subtle agenda is based in this creativity you speak of...


However, I do think that there is something to be said for the Bush Family's prolific financial status and intelligence/political. And after 8 eight years and a possibly rigged election, I also find it curious that the two parties presented candidates that spoke to 'minority' representation for the first time in history.

The agenda, as I may or may not perceive it, is quite simply the upper class elite manipulating markets and public opinion, in various forms, to gain overt public support within a system that supports the continued retention and expansion of wealth for those at the top.

When I learned that Reagan's Campaign director happened to have majored in public relations, I stopped wondering why a former CIA Director ran second billing to a popular Actor.

It just seems that there is more maneuvering for the benefit of public perception than there is any real attention to solid information within the issues that are presented during campaign season...and there is a lot of money being spent to gain attention from those who award government contracts...



It doesn't matter what system you organize that change within -- capitalism, socialism, anarchy, etc -- any system that allows change, will allow people to express and invoke that change.


While I am sure that there are many intelligent individuals in our society, it cannot be understated how distracted most people are from the process that implements social change and indoctrination. We as a society seem more inclined to watch the various 'immediate gratification' stimulii that is presented rather than engage in an extended consideration of how new policies effect us...much less the amount of money that is continually being taken from the uninformed.

Arrogant or presumptive on my part? Perhaps...but I am trying to say that the level of interaction and communication on their part gives them an incredible advantage over the average American...Media tells the public what they want to hear in order to encourage continued acquiescence...and they start wars, or protect the purveyors of new technology that in principal goes against the inferred rights of the populace. Note the use of term, 'inferred'...meaning whether or not we have a right to privacy is not really my contention. People believe that they do based on the base rhetoric used to garner their votes/support.



But here's the problem: the expression of that change is not self-regulating. Unregulated change in a society is like a monkey scampering up a tree, blindly scrambling for the higher and further branch, regardless of how precarious the situation becomes. Eventually, the branch get too thin and snap! down goes the monkey.


I'm not sure I follow here...



Perhaps societies aren't meant to be stable, by nature. Maybe the natural course is uncontrolled growth in a new direction, followed 99% of the time by disastrous collapse. Maybe nature thinks that 1% of the time when a new meta-stable harmony is reached is worth it.


I never meant to imply that society needs to be stable...I am merely stating that there is a level of disconnect between what is being said and what is being done...which suggests (at least in my creative mind...
) that some of the instability may have been manufactured specifically to fluctuate social opinion and market changes



But that's not what we want from our politicians and leaders. We want stability. We want change and advancement in society, as creative and unchanneled seeming as possible. We want the best of both world, so to speak.

What's that translate to directly? Well, maybe we want everything to be controlled. But, we want to be able to believe that everything is free. Seems like an accurate description of a crypto-fascist agenda, doesn't it?


Again, lost me here. I am a consensus person for the most part but I know for sure that I would rather be told the truth rather than be placed in a position where I am forced to accept the expressions and presumption of people who think they know what is best for a society that they don't really even know. I'm not saying there is a perfect solution but as I see it and am ever finding indirect support for my opinion, the disconnect allows for many humans who were likely born into their social class to manipulate the system in many different ways. Our ever evolving tech and the distracted attentions of our society (yes, I get distracted too...
) allow for a perpetuation of dogma that most have (more or less) been conditioned to accept.

Keep in mind, that most of this is really just my perspective based on a fairly cynical experience (and perhaps too much time on ATS...
)...My statements are not universal and likely not even accurate...but when the most accurate political news I see comes from Comedy Central, I have to wonder what is going on...and more than money, prediction and the formation of social behaviour and reactions is what seems to be a common pattern...

Again, my opinion and perhaps inaccurate...I really was just trying to present a political tread that wasn't reacting to Glenn Beck or blaming one individual for our problems within a system that relies more the framework of corporate and intelligence influence...



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 





One thing I do know is that the Bush family bought a sizable chunk of land in Paraguay...during George W. Bush's administration (conflict of interest anyone?)...


Unsubstantiated rumor. Started in CUBAN press of all places and picked up and ran with by leftist media outlets domestically.

Lets try to deal in facts.

If true, I would find it highly suspicious, but there is no actual proof that purchase ever took place.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 

Are you kidding me?



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 


Feel free to prove me wrong.

Lets see the Paraguayan land deed. How about some sources a bit more credible than the Dailykos, or democratic underground?

Something at least more reliable than a cuban report and some left slanted media perhaps?

Where is the proof?

There are plenty of factual items to criticize that idiot about, lets stick to whats actually provable.
edit on 4-11-2010 by BigTimeCheater because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 

Bah...the land deed? Yeah...I have access to all of the Bush Families records...

As for the viability of the position, I am actually in possession of a dvd with footage showing Jenna in South America...don't take my word for it though (I don't know how to burn such to the internet and I will have to go through a ton of material to find it)...but the liklihood of the story is enough for me to put my name behind it...

C'est La Vie...I can't prove anything on the internet and as such will defer to the topic at hand...



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Ok so Bush Sr. was the director of CIA prior to the presidential office. That is fact, but you make these claims of land purchases, but lack the material to back it up. You stated in your own post by your own admission that we on ATS need to stick to the facts, and yet you fail to present any?
As for the current administration, yeah, Obama did go into office with a pretty messed up situation left from Bush Jr., that we can agree on, but I ask you kind sir, when will Obama be held accountable for his actions? When will the people including the media begin to point the finger at him for his actions ( or the lack there of )?
Is he excluded from taking responsibility for his agenda? Is he excluded for infringing on the American people's rights? I've heard all the arguments about Bush jJr., and so on, but its time for Obama to take the credit for his misdeeds. The blatant lies, of giving the 95% of the middle class a tax cut, did we see this? NOPE! How bout the removal of "pork " spending? Did that get removed? NOPE!! He also made a comment about taking fiscal spending responsibility ?????Did that happen? Nah ah~ Instead, he and the other two heads of the dragon push and succeed for the largest amount of spending of tax paying dollars never before seen in our history!!!
So the question remains....when does Obama take responsibility for his actions? As for the allegations made in your previous comments, lets see some facts~



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
"There is no such thing as a successful rebel for the successful rebel becomes the establishment".

Here in the UK the average citizens' monthly salary has run dry 8 days before the next paycheque is due. In 'affluent' Switzerland it runs out 6 days before the next pay day. A world wide scam. The individual has no opportunity to save and without savings there is no opportunity to plan ahead. This benefits any establishment by giving it a ready, cheap, compliant and flexible workforce.

So now I can purchase a DVD player for £10....and it costs me a month and a half's salary to pay my utility bill. Waged bondage indeed. My head's down putting in the hours trying to stay in the black, giving me no time to look up, look around and see what's really going on round about me. When I do have the opportunity I look up and see that things just aren't anywhere near as bad as the nightmare the world media presents to me. (Not in my neck of the woods at least.) When I realise the world is not as odious as it is portrayed I lose my fear. When I lose the fear I become potentially dangerous to my establishment.

Here in the UK the citizenry has become so compliant, so fear stricken, that should any individual complain to their local authority about a car park being built on their doorstep, it is enough for MI5 to open a file on them. Why? They have demonstrated a willingness to swim against the tide and to have a desire to be heard. A possible ability to awaken neighbours etc.

'It's the money, stupid' and 'Money is' after all 'the root of all evil'. Our leaders when psychologically analysed (for what that's worth) just like these corporations turn out to be sociopaths and psychopaths.

Still, it is easy to criticise - much more difficult to come up with solutions. Blink and another decade has passed, another generation has been indoctrinated. We must look after our loved ones - educate them as best we can to read and understand propaganda techniques. When they recognise these techniques - the propaganda ceases to be effective. We can only start with ourselves.....one day the balance may tip and we humans may be able to achieve that loving Utopian ideal some (but not all) of us crave.

No matter what our 'civilised' leaders tell us...this is still a dog eat dog world. Personally I don't want to be dinner anymore.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
The way I see what is happening is that the bigger the playground of the elite and the further away their structure of power is from the people they rule, the more corruption in total disreguard for the people, intellectuals and business and political leaders exhibit.

I know it is sophiscated to be a socialist and a globalist, but globalism promises worse and worse abuse of the people. It is a government in the sky - so distant from the people effected by it's activity and thinking -- it is a monster. We talk about the sausage made in Congress while they wheel and deal to create and pass laws. Can you imagine the sausage made at the UN with bi-partisan agreement between Iran, Russia, France, US, China, etc.? We think our banksters are bad; what will the international banksters do at the IMF if economic globalism is ever realized? And with socialism all we need to do is look at it's track record to see what happens when generous abuse and disregard for the dependent people is dished out by an all powerful political elite class who know you are dependent upon their good graces for their survival.

We have a third way in the US and it is called the constitutional Republic. Power should be close to the people in the States and towns where they can create what they want and change it when need be. The Federal government should take care of trade, the borders, defense and foreign relations. The less money and power in the Federal government, the less selling of our interest to corporations and foreign interests.

Socially, our founding was a good idea, too. Everyone should be free in America to do their own thing in belief and sub-culture. It is none of anyone else's business to tell others what they must believe or not believe or must accept or not accept. You can look at the massive suppression needed in order to impose one belief structure on a nation of people in history. The Catholic Church, Muslim Nations and the Soviet Union are good examples. Our drug war is a good example. We need to have a live and let live attitude in America and respect one another as people rather than compete to defeat and dominate one another with Federal power. If we were not struggling for the Federal government to pick our social beliefs over the other guy's social beliefs, we would be a lot better off and free from the side attractions during Federal elections. The Federal government is not supposed to be in the business of imposing beliefs - morals or amorals - and religious or atheist at all.

Anyway, I suppose I am one of the people OP deems "conservative" but I wanted to add my dream here for our Nation's recovery. I don't look at the constitutional Republic as conservative at all. But it is also not a playground for globalists, fascists and Marxists, either. Some beleive there is a choice of fascism or Marxism. I want neither!



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
The problem in America is that our political system is corrupted and damage, fighting for the wrong reasons is not way to fix the problem, our elected officials do not work for you or me, they work for themselves and those that pay the biggest bid.

For that reason it doesn't matter what political party is in power they already are bought and pay for and is not by the American people and voter, for what it looks like we no longer will be competing with big interest domestically will are to start competing with foreign interest also, thanks to our supreme court decision on corporate campaign funds.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ian McLean
Politicians don't attempt to represent, they attempt to create reality:


In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''





Source

The alternatives are: 1) find an acknowledged side to believe in, and embrace the offered world-view, 2) enthusiastically analyze the dichotomies that are presented, and be eternally bogged-down in contrived ever-changing detail, or 3) ignore the process all together, and become disenfranchised.

There's no viable fourth alternative. Try and introduce one and you'll immediately be challenged with "well what's your stance on illegal immigration?" and "do you think abortion should be legal?". You can't be on the public stage without acknowledging as real the illusory planks from which that stage is built.

Politics is a tar-baby. Only the anarchists really understand this and offer a logically consistent direction. But they have a solution, only a rejection, which isn't quite a way forward.

What a powerful; eyeopening: arrogant quote": you are no longer players sit down shutup and'hang on for the ride.

edit on 29-11-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join