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.

 

The reason Political parties are meaningless.

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
One of the most powerful videos I have watched.




Personally, I feel this video represents reality very well. If someone can point out something wrong with what is addressed, I welcome it.


I think when you consider the way Governments operate in the West, and you look at the division, [from a rational perspective] you can completely nullify just about everything that is said by anyone with a political agenda. It is clear that the masses are polarized against each other.

I ask this: If the right and left suddenly switched positions on socials issues, would the people that follow the parties that change their position? Or would they continue their support while changing their own personal beliefs?


Both parties began as loose groupings or tendencies, but became quite formal by 1784, with the ascension of Charles James Fox as the leader of a reconstituted "Whig" party ranged against the governing party of the new "Tories" under William Pitt the Younger.

Both parties were founded on rich politicians, more than on popular votes; there were elections to the House of Commons, but a small number of men controlled most of the voters.


I am referencing the Whig party because I love the story. Was it the beginning of the two party system that slowly polluted the American ideal?



Later on, the Whigs drew support from the emerging industrial interests and wealthy merchants, while the Tories drew support from the landed interests and the royal family. The Whigs were originally also known as the "Country Party" (as opposed to the Tories, the "Court Party").




posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 





I ask this: If the right and left suddenly switched positions on socials issues, would the people that follow the parties that change their position? Or would they continue their support while changing their own personal beliefs?


i was thinking this very same thing tonite myself if the left and right did suddenly switch then they would be where they are suppose to be.

the people would follow they wouldn't change their belief systems.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


The Tea Party movement is a testament to that I think. They popped up from nowhere, took no official stance, and just waited to be directed what to do....


It is like posting an advertisement saying, "Hey, we are ready to be influenced, knock yourselves out!"



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   
A good vid on the principles and theory of a republic, if anything we have had the same systems which lead one into each-other, over and over again for as long as there has been history. And now a day's it's still the same thing's and systems only much more sophisticated. So round and round we go, were it stops, everybody knows, but nobody wants to acknowledge or look to closely least they see the future in there past's. Because the only consistency is that the past repeats itself, and the most important thing to learn from history is that we very rarely learn from history. But such is progress, or should I say trial and error, so what has been is what will be, unless one can completely break the cycle and create something completely new, because all of the above systems in the vid are part of a cycle.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


I'm not so sure I agree with your premise about the Whig Party being the beginning of this nonsense.

Instead I believe it goes back much, much further, to the beginning of religion, politics, and humanity.

Divide and Conquer is a much older and deeper control mechanism.

Whether we're discussing political parties, religion, human beings and belief systems or meaning.

If out of 100 people half of those people believe one way or another the polar opposite is guaranteed.

Out of the 100 people at least 20 of those people do not know what to believe.

Out of those same 100 people at least 10 of those people can be swayed by a good argument.

This is how politics works, this is how society works, and this is how control over those works.

Statistics verses perception is the main battlefield of politics.

So, to say political parties are meaningless, is almost an oxymoron but enticing as an argument.

Nothing against your premise and or thread by any means.

I've always thought the Republican verses Democrat argument was hogwash.

Then again I am a registered Independent so I can choose whatever the Hell I want.

So as to maintain total control over all of my choices to the best of my ability.

I never bought the lies of Santa, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy neither did I buy political parties.

I understand them, yes, but I see through the veil of lies built-in by society and mindless following.

I see mindless followers as a waste of time and a waste of society something I want nothing to do with.

I prefer to be involved with intelligent people with a purpose and or positive action without corruption.

This is not to say I particularly buy them as meaningless but more so I see through horse puckey.

Quite easily I might add.

People in general have to have some form of a belief system.

Because too many people cannot lead themselves.

They need to be told what to believe due to a lack of knowledge about leadership.

Whether it comes from an inability to lead, or no time, or a lack of gumption to do it.

I see the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and the Tea Party as a waste of time.

Not because they are not good or bad but because I hate seeing people conned into giving up money.

The same can be said of charlatans, snake-oil salesmen, and spending money on psychics.

As well as useless places like Las Vegas and or warfare.

Just another way of separating ignorant people from their wallet.

In other words, all of those things we're discussing here, are nothing more than a financial shakedown.

In my eyes.

My cynicism grows deeper every day.

Then again at age 13 I was told by a 45 year old I was as cynical as a 30 year old man.

By age 13 I knew more about Government then most people know in their entire lifetime.

That is how I was raised through a Vietnam era Marine as a stepfather and a mother who encouraged reading, I was reading on Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece by age 10, exploring warfare, power, and leadership, you name it, by the age of 18 I knew how to overthrow any Governmeny by any means necessary from violent uprisings to coups, to buying them out through Puppet Dictator's like Qaddafi through benefactor's like the Central Intelligence Agency.

Anyway, that is my two cents, take it or leave, and I welcome your reply boncho.
edit on 4/24/11 by SpartanKingLeonidas because: Adding Depth and Insight Into the Post.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/04/22/exp.arena.donald.trump.china.cnn?hpt=Mid
Donald Trump saying we need to take Libya's oil from China

and the influence keeps growing as the years pass by....



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


I've got a new and titlizing thread and it relates to your thread and avatar, sort of, I think.


A Torpedo of Truth : Is Charlie Sheen Being Prepped For Puppet Dictatorship or A Nutcase?

Come on by, please.

SKL
edit on 4/24/11 by SpartanKingLeonidas because: Adding Depth and Insight Into the Post.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


I'm not so sure I agree with your premise about the Whig Party being the beginning of this nonsense.

I can agree with that. Has been used throughout the ages.


Out of the 100 people at least 20 of those people do not know what to believe.

Which makes them latch on to any 'leader' that pops up. Makes them feel whole, safe, secure. This is the problem. The people need to protect themselves from themselves-in a sense.


So, to say political parties are meaningless, is almost an oxymoron but enticing as an argument.

Nothing against your premise and or thread by any means.

This is something I consider. It is like saying law is just made up words, nothing tangible or real. But the effects of law relate to very real consequences in the world. Therefore, law can be looked at as a real thing. A creation of the mind, that has an effect on the world.

Politics the same thing. My position is that Politicians are making realities, fitting people into those realities. So you could say it is real, because someone else said it was. It is a strange function of the human consciousness.

Political parties are meaningless... Unless you are looking for meaning.


I've always thought the Republican verses Democrat argument was hogwash.

Then again I am a registered Independent so I can choose whatever the Hell I want.


You can choose from Independents...


People in general have to have some form of a belief system.

Because too many people cannot lead themselves.

Sad, yes, true, yes.






edit on 24-4-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Of course people need to protect themselves, from themselves, but far too often they do not.

I do it and I teach others to do just that.

Of course the law is real.

It holds a value.

But only to those who respect it, live by it, and uphold it.

Everyone else is one of three people.

1) A frustrated citizen too lazy to influence it to change without violence.

1a) A frustrated citizen too lazy to influence it to change without breaking the law.

1b) A frustrated citizen too lazy to influence it to change without supporting ignorance.

1c) A frustrated citizen too lazy to influence it to change without getting into office themselves.

2) A criminal.

3) A terrorist.

ATS is a prime example of that with about 75% leading through apathy instead of intelligence.

ATS is a prime example of that with about 20% leading with the wrong example towards stupidity.

ATS is a prime example of that with about 4% who actually give a damn trying to do the right thing.

ATS is a prime example of that with about 1% who are just plain nuts like Charlie Sheen.
edit on 4/25/11 by SpartanKingLeonidas because: Adding Depth and Insight Into the Post.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


We all go through brief moments in our lives where we are a little 'Charlie Sheen'.

As far as change goes, I think it needs to be done through positive actions, I am beginning to realize that more and more. Destruction only brings further destruction....



new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join