Most dangerous phrase: "We cannot win the future with a government of the past"

reply to post by kinda kurious


Kinda, you have an uncanny way of silver lining this socialist presidents every action, the words that you speak of would only have an elementary student lost, as an adult knows the trickster and half truths that you so rely on to spread your propaganda out! All one has to do is take a small ride down history lane to witness that at the end of every great democratic society there was an progressive heralding speaches that the old laws needed to be amended. Since it is obvious to me that you do not know your history i will throw out 2 of several names for you to look up as there progressive views not only changed the society as a whole, in some cases their societes where lost- oppressed in a matter of years.


1) Adolph Hitler- 1933-1945 Germany in ruins
2) Gaius Julius Caesar 49bc-44bc He took the Roman empire from a Republic to a Empire.

Not a fan of a this potus as a bum could have done a better job

All hail Obama

Originally posted by 46ACE
I'm Sorry "kurious" this example of a torturous looking 1800's medical device in no way is a metaphor for the strengths of the core ideas of individual sovereignty inherent in the constitution. As for the"holdouts" we will not got quietly into your progressive "utopia".

While I agree the constitution is a blueprint of sorts, it was meant to be a fluid framework and adaptable in the future. That was the genius of our forefathers by providing the mechanism of amendments.

However you must agree that America is broken and I attribute the causes to be diverse and complex. Those who feel the solution is simply following the constitution to the letter yield a false sense that American democracy "continues to work" but the fact of the matter is that America is broken, corrupt, partisan, gridlocked, and unable to cope with looming threats. We teeter on the verge of collapse.

The highly intricate economics and global threats of the modern era could not have been envisioned by our forefathers. Resources vital to humankind are dwindling and we have lost our way. I offer no vision of "utopia" as you so claim, but I am pragmatic and forward thinking. I look to the future for creative solutions to cure the ills of our self imposed quagmire rather than clinging to the failed, nostalgic ideals of the past.

But hey, if you want to beat on your drum and blow your fife to show your support of a by-gone era please be my guest. I prefer to embrace contemporary elucidation in order to discover solutions to the problems we face in the modern era. If that makes me a "progressive" then I am proud to wear that label.

Originally posted by allprowolfy
Since it is obvious to me that you do not know your history...

All one has to do is take a small ride down history lane to witness that at the end of every great democratic society there was an progressive heralding speaches that the old laws needed to be amended.

I'd say my comprehension of history is a tad more developed than your command of grammar.

Inasmuch as I've seen the ad nauseam comparisons to Hitler you get a star for Caesar for originality.

Et tu, Brute?

reply to post by kinda kurious





The only thing that has changed is Anesthesia and electricity.
So get out the diethyl ether and cut away.

reply to post by Misoir


I agree and disagree...yes the untainted approach to our government seemed to work fine...but it is highly impractical and arguably impossible to keep it that way. Its easily corruptible and if restored to its old self would only be a matter of time before this same problem comes up again.

The ideas of freedom and liberty will never be "old" they are timeless however the methods (governments) we use to grant/secure those concepts are very out of date and have ran their course.

I don't think African Americans, women, and homosexuals would share your same opinion on the greatness of this country at those times.

We have to look beyond mere declarations on paper to secure the freedoms and liberties.

reply to post by Misoir


Obama is a classic politician, and a classic puppet. His statement is a perfect example of how he won the presidential election . . . by speaking of change, but not telling us what in the hell that change exactly will be. Unfortunately, the American people, in general, would rather listen to a pep-rally, rather than reality.

But I’m not mad at Obama . . . there will always be another Obama. He is not the real problem. The people who elected him are.

reply to post by Misoir


I think that our future is dictated by the ideals that every man and woman should
be inslaved to the a system created by a select few already running the big picture.

With that being said i personally dont think the agenda of those few can be acheived
through minor changes in our law and society.In order to create this philosophy for
us there needs to be a more structured society in the sence that we as a people have less
resources to act on the crimes being commited by the people on the inside.

With every year that passes theres more that changes in our laws.I think that what obama was
saying just as everyone else in the media we as a people are going to be #ed out of a
future.Our arrogance lets these people do this to us.

The greatest patriotic fete Americans can accomplish is to remove the current government, demand the corporate ceo's be held in incarceration, along with the bankers and the oil execs.

To do this, they need to march on Washington DC.

Yes, people will be shot, people will be beaten, people will be arrested, but eventually the man guarding the buildings will grow sick of fighting against something that is just.

The constitution you’d be protecting demands it!

well mabye... and im only saying MABYE this is good. it could mean that instead of liying to us about aliens advanced tech and all that they will start telling us.

Talk about fear mongering - Obama talked about merging and streamlining government... did anyone else besides me not hear him explaining his salmon example.

Salmon in freshwater are Interior baliwick
Salmon in saltwater are Commerce baliwick.

One fish, two agencies. Bloated. Streamline it and save some $$$.

For those of you spinning off into the realms of absurdity, you guys are drinking your own kool-aid, and it reeks. You fetishize one man's words too much... are you guys sure you don't have a secret crush on the man? LOL

reply to post by Misoir


I also was in a cannumdrum over this as it is a bit vague to say the least. Depending on how far in the past we go in reference to a Government that we cannot win the future with, I would agree with this statement.

Are we talking about the past Government of 2001 that took so many of OUR freedoms away when the Patriot Act was signed into law? Then, no.... we cannot win the future with that one, at least not the future I invision. Are we talking about past and present government that allow and have allowed foreign interests to control us, control our way of life and guide what our future will be? Again, then I would have to say no.

However, if we are talking about the "past" body of Government that managed to pen one of the greatest documents of all times, the US Constitution, then yes... we can win the future with that Governments' ideals. In all honesty the document(s) on which this country, the USA, was founded are rather simplistic in their ideals, but there can be great power in those ideals of "old". Those basic sentiments that were penned by men, real men of great thought, great pride and great vision fought so hard for and died for. Without THAT government of the past we would not enjoy the great many things this country has now and had it not been for the choice of the more recently past Governments to ignore those original documents and example of the founding fathers, we would be enjoying much more.

These comments are not directed to any one person, but I, for one, am heartily sick and tired of the documents written that birthed this nation being used as, for all intents and purposes, toilet paper. For those who feel that they hold no relevence to modern times I urge you to go and read them again.

To make it easier, here is a link to a copy of the US Constitution: www.archives.gov...

Originally posted by MagoSA
Talk about fear mongering - Obama talked about merging and streamlining government... did anyone else besides me not hear him explaining his salmon example.

I am not quite sure its fear mongering to question what exactly does it mean when the president uses a phrase that, when connected to his vision of a centrally planned economy where government is the car, the engine, the steering wheel and the gas pedal.

The man truly believes it should be government's job to pick winners and losers. Take for instance that in his State of the Union stump speech (that is what it is...all presidents use it as such), he goes on about American companies need to innovate. Find new ways of supplying energy. Which is noble and does need to happen, but in the same sentence he picks the winners and losers. By subsidizing certain technology. Innovation does not come by the hands of government, but by free people finding that niche in the market.

He also believes that government has a deep seated role in telling us how we should teach our children. Again, with more double-speak here, he tells the people that we need to hold our schools accountable, we need to push our kids, we need to strive to achieve more....but you can't choose what school is best for your kids. They will go to the schools we tell them to. Barring you have the money to place your child into private school like him or others.

One fish, two agencies. Bloated. Streamline it and save some $$$.

I truly hope he pushes for ridding the national government of its inefficiencies but it won't happen. These are entrenched bureaucracies that will not just go away. Do you think NASA, the NOAA, and the NWS will be willing to drop their redundant programs in favor of just one agency performing them? If so, that is woefully naive in the understanding of the turf battles that occur within government.

For those of you spinning off into the realms of absurdity, you guys are drinking your own kool-aid, and it reeks. You fetishize one man's words too much... are you guys sure you don't have a secret crush on the man? LOL

Minus the silly LOL and kool-aid part of this, you are correct. Hinging the hopes of the country on one man was never the intent of the Federal System and Constitutional Government. This is a relatively new development in the governance of the nation. But ask yourself, do you think the president believes in his new-found catch phrase of "win the future?"

reply to post by MMPI2


Good spot room-mate! ...

In your video clip "Obama claims Constitution is flawed", at approx. 24 seconds in, he makes reference to the "American Culture, the Colonial culture masoned at that time". Is that a word, "masoned"? It's a direct reference back to the actual Freemason foundation of the constitution, and no small wonder that he short-circuits his words to include the underlying powers-that-were.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

I am not quite sure its fear mongering to question what exactly does it mean when the president uses a phrase that, when connected to his vision of a centrally planned economy where government is the car, the engine, the steering wheel and the gas pedal.

OK - I simply don't think that is case... Further more I don't think this era of absolutes lends itself to truth.

For example you make the assertion above - But do tell, if your assessment is correct, why would the president

diminish the government power and share in GM?

In a case where he could do just what you said above (cars and engines included) why would he thwart his own goals; "where government is the car, the engine, the steering wheel and the gas pedal."? Goal achieved (per your assessment), yet in an actual example of policy, his administration does not do as you say -

Explain why this is the case?






www.dailyfinance.com...

reply to post by Janky Red


That is an excellent retort to my assertion Janky!

My guess, politics. It was a political victory for the administration to parade to the public saying "Look, we don't want to take over private industries...we are the good guys. Because of us, we propped up a failing company with a failing business plan. We gave it back. They are going to be profitable now!"

But, let us look deeper. Subsidies were given to GM to develop and promote the Volt, in which the government and GM touted and oversold in terms of its capabilities. This ties into the governments want to be the engine of the economy. It is picking the winners and loser. I know I used that phrase in my last post, but that is exactly what it is doing. Why does Chevy (or any other car company) deserve to be subsidized for a product that the market just doesn't want massive demand for? Why does the government have to bribe people with tax credits to buy a product that otherwise would be a low demand product?

Then let us look at the whole GM getting a sweet deal out of the bailout. A hefty $45 billion tax break. It gets them from a known practice that is allowed in the tax code where companies can use their losses in prior years to be carried forward as tax breaks. Thats great and all, but they get to do it healthy because of the government infusion of $50 billion dollars.

So, selling off its stake in the company gives the perception to the people that the Government didn't and doesn't want to run the business per se. It only wants to dictate and drive the market in ways it wants to go, rather than free people deciding what is best for themselves.

GM-Government was a fantastically crafted scheme that will benefit them and leave the taxpayers out and on the hook. It also was a good test to see how the public would react to the government taking over a private company under the guise of 'to big to fail' nonsense. In the end. The government now knows it can dictate beyond regulation in terms of how it wants to shape the free-markets.

That Janky, is how the government is the car analogy.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
The greatest patriotic fete Americans can accomplish is to remove the current government, demand the corporate ceo's be held in incarceration, along with the bankers and the oil execs.

To do this, they need to march on Washington DC.

Yes, people will be shot, people will be beaten, people will be arrested, but eventually the man guarding the buildings will grow sick of fighting against something that is just.

The constitution you’d be protecting demands it!

Agreed

Originally posted by allprowolfy
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

Kinda, you have an uncanny way of silver lining this socialist presidents every action, the words that you speak of would only have an elementary student lost, as an adult knows the trickster and half truths that you so rely on to spread your propaganda out! All one has to do is take a small ride down history lane to witness that at the end of every great democratic society there was an progressive heralding speaches that the old laws needed to be amended. Since it is obvious to me that you do not know your history i will throw out 2 of several names for you to look up as there progressive views not only changed the society as a whole, in some cases their societes where lost- oppressed in a matter of years.

1) Adolph Hitler- 1933-1945 Germany in ruins
2) Gaius Julius Caesar 49bc-44bc He took the Roman empire from a Republic to a Empire.

Not a fan of a this potus as a bum could have done a better job

All hail Obama

AH but your wonderful charge does not explain why this nations down turn and its measure was initiated by the king of American values Ronald Reagan. Please explain why Americas history took a drastic turn when conservation struck a major blow to labor, got substantial tax return for the PRODUCERS and DEFEATED red communism??? For twenty of the last thirty years, 2/3 America has had "freemarketeers" in the white house, business friendly folk, christian folk... What happened then matie????

Unions did not expand, Taxes did not rise, the Commies did not win...

Management WON< Production WON < AMERICA WON, allegedly

Are you dealing in half truths or NO truths???


And


Mis, why you would throw your perfectly good mind into the idiot box of absolutes is beyond me

Unions and Civil right were both born of good fun things, people got the living tar kicked out of them for the sport Those bloody progressives, getting rid of old laws, Hitler and chit...


Allprowolfy - I'll put any pathetic crap you bring down buster - you pen a thread and invite me, I'll spit you out bucko

reply to post by Misoir


I think you are misinterpreting this Quote, as people often do when they are looking for something that isn't there. I don't think he was talking about a total dismantling of the government or anything. He was simply saying, "If we are going to compete in a modern world, we need a modern way of doing things.", and this is very true. The world has changed SO much in the last 100 years. Who could have imagined? Technology is replacing human beings in countless jobs, companies are grossing profits at such a rate that the inflow to outflow ratio cannot sustain growth, we engage in risky investment practices en masse unaware or with no regard for the repercussions. The list goes on and on. Our society is falling behind. Its more evident everyday. Our past government was AWESOME at the time it existed. It was fitting and very efficient. But as times change, so too must our government. Its like Darwinism, evolve or die. Its that simple.

reply to post by Misoir

During President Obama's State of the Union speech one sentence stood out to me and I wanted to be sure it wasn't just me that found something downright horrifying about it.

"We cannot win the future with a government of the past"

I am not at all surprised by this statement since it is the philosophy of those who are slowly change the US government into what THEY want.

2002 Autobiography by David Rockefeller “Memoirs” [page 405] "For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents... to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world ... If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

So who is the "secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States"? The Fabian Society. They are elite socialists whose symbol is the tortoise for slow change and a wolf in sheep's clothing to portray their true character.

SEE: www.modernhistoryproject.org...

Eugenics & the Fabian Society: www.secondspring.co.uk...