Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Tea Party is anti-democratic and guilty of abuse of power

page: 43
62
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 06:04 AM
link   
First of all, you keep on educating everyone here as if you knew better about every single thing on earth.
This is my last post - I am going to press the ignore button because this attitude is pretty much insufferable.

I am fifty, have several degrees, and an American citizen. I raised a kid and I am raising another - despite the horrendous pressure of commercialism all around and the lack of old communities. Where I come from, grandmothers and aunts etc. were also part of raising a kid. That is what I meant by quoting the African saying.

Second, I do not look down upon Africans. A lot of ancestors of modern Americans I like and respect came from there - albeit not willingly. Many African societies possess wisdom modern man could do better with, such as the Zulu knowledge about family systems psychologists model.

I got out of the Disney fascism, thank you, despite having to work AND raise kids, and I am not a neglecting parent, never been one. But I would have much preferred the family system I grew up with - hardly anything of that remains now, due to the relentless corporate conquering of our world.

What I am worried about is not myself or the Übermensch you posit yourself to appear in your posts on this thread, but the innocent masses of ordinary people.

So you live on your own, you take no medicines even when you are ill?
If you do, you are dealing with corporations. And they are not always honest.

You will taste the difference between GMO weeds and ragweed when GMO gets to you...
If we have a democracy, they will not, unless you expressly allow them.
If it is the corporate fascism the American right wing allows and sometimes prefers, then they will, no matter if you want them or not. THAT is the difference. (Mob rule will be enforced on you - democracy and government are probably your best protection. Sorry.)

Forgive me, but as someone that studied history to greater depth than most of my compatriots, the difference between democracy and constitutional republic seems to be splitting hairs compared to the difference between outright tyranny (which is what corporate rule begins to remind one of, and I HAVE lived under one) and having a bottom-up system. Holland and Norway and the US on one hand, Stalinist Russia, Mugabe or North Korea - or Saudi Arabia - on the other hand. THAT is the difference that matters. Not that there is nothing special about the US.

Others that followed this increasingly bad-mood-debate may not with interest that apart from the well-known Locke, Hume and Rousseau, there was another effect that may have had a formative role on the very formation and the spirit of the American Constitution, perhaps the most important of all: the Iroquis Confederacy and its so-called Great Rule.

In that spirit, as with most native American tribal gatherings, democracy does not mean "mob rule", neither the will of the majorioty being forced on the minority. That is truly one crucial bit of difference modern people from democratic societies forget, and it IS peculiar to the US among modern democracies.

In tribal gatherings, the representatives argue until the minority is convinced that the tribe does better if the other decision (the majority's) is adopted. If there is a single person unconvinced and not willing to cooperate with the majority's will, they stop the decision from being made. Despite days and days of bringing arguments up and down to come to a decision, these were pretty efficient societies - if we whites had not had our biological warfare (like infected blankets) we would have never vanquished them.

Now. You seem to take an Übermensch-type of stance that you are above and totally independent from society. Then you should ask yourself the question why on earth you want to answer people in a forum? Why not be just content with yourself?

Besides, language itself is a community thing. Presumable you learned English from somebody. Language research shows that people left completely alone do not develop language skills. Period.

Do you know how the Greeks called the individual standing only by himself?

IDIOTES.


Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Kokatsi
Unless you are very rich, you WILL be involved by corporations and their rule.
You will breath in Monsanto's pollen, use chemicals developed by Big Pharma companies etc.


Scary world you live in. The pollen I can sort of see, since it can travel a few hundred miles, right? Not sure why I should be more scared of breathing Monsanto pollen than common ragweed pollen, though. Not grasping the concept behind the allegation of Big Pharma chemicals, at all. Can you give me a compelling reason for WHY I would use them whether I like it or not?



Well, one can be against democracy, but it is not a popular stance these days - the alternatives are dictatorship or royalty and popes.


I live in a Constitutional Republic. we've done fairly ok so far without the aid of dictators, kings, or popes. As far as the popularity of my stance goes, it matters nary a bit. I've never really been in the popular crowd, and really haven't missed it.



From this point of view, I see little difference between the "constitutional monarchy" and "democracy" - although many tried to educate me on these pages. Ultimately, it depends on this:
The Founding Fathers of America were at the forefront of a world movement which did not believe people were fallen, sinful slaves that should be ruled with an iron fist by tyrants and so on. Now this was known later under many names: revolution, democracy (term borrowed from Plato but used in a different way than in his works), republican ideas, equality before the law and so on. As opposed to tyranny, theocracy, royalty and rule by aristocracy which believed man is ultimately NOT perfectable, people should be ruled etc.


A "monarchy", constitutional or not, involves a monarch. "democracy" involves mob rule. There is a world of difference between the two. I'm not sure where you get the notion that the Founding Fathers of America called their system a "democracy". several warned specifically AGAINST democracy. It was only in the early to mid 20th century that the term came into vogue to describe a system alien to it's definition.

As an aside, it's odd to me how the Marxists used to refer to a "dictatorship of the proletariat" that sounded suspiciously close to the concept of "democracy", while at the same time their alleged opposition was trying to promote "democracy", which sounded suspiciously like the concept of a "dictatorship of the proletariat".

If a rose by any other name still smells the same, then so does a skunk.



Yes, freedom is frightening to some. But it is a worthwhile vision.


Honestly, I believe that very few humans can handle freedom, which probably explains why so many seem to agitate for a crowd to tell them what to do.



America that used to be at the forefront in terms of human freedom is not at the forefront any more. Its life has been overshadowed and very much determined by the power of corporations and banks - precisely what some of the Founding Fathers were afraid of. (Not Hamilton, he welcomed it.)


America has not been at the "forefront of freedom" in a very long time. seems like everyone and his brother and/or sister is clamoring for someone else to tell him what to do, which appears to be a motivating factor in the fear of corporations. For some odd reason, folks seem to think that someone else HAS to tell them what to do, and the only choice they see is between having a collection of neighbors tell them what to do, OR a corporation somewhere. I don't really know what has become of independent thought and decision making.

Personally, I don't see much difference between allowing a corporation to dictate every facet of your existence and allowing any other collection of strangers to do so. Either way, you are forfeiting your self determination.



If the masses are consumer idiots and TV addicts today, you may ask who advertises those products and who broadcasts TV. The answer is the same: corporations with money interests.


Could be. the "masses" don't concern me much. If they can't look after themselves and make their own decisions, it's not my job to do so for them. If they allow a corporation to rule them, they have made their own choice. A poor one from my perspective, but it's their choice to make.



It is in their interest to atomize society, to degrade the average person and to make him or her dependent upon their power.


It seems to me that dependency on ANY external, be it governmental or corporate, can't be a good thing. I can't see a nickel's worth of difference in them. Dependence is dependence, and directly opposed to INDEPENDENCE, which was part of the title in some old document or other that the US used to place stock in... before they got all dependent on whatever came along.



Now how on earth do you resist advertisements and TV if you are a few years old, your parents ar working, society has been broken up and atomized by the time they were adults, so there is nowhere to turn?


Sounds like a failure in parenting to me.



The African saying was that you need a whole village to raise a child.


A very good reason to avoid Africa altogether, then. Perhaps they didn't sign that Independence document I referred to a bit earlier.



Where are those villages?


In Africa, I presume.



Where are the communities of America?


I recommend taking a peek out the front door. Perhaps that will answer that question. I recommend NOT leaving your kids to be raised at the mercy of a community, however. Mine contains several crack heads and gangsters and what not. Not the sort of folk I want raising my kids.

To allow your kids to be raised by a village is a dereliction of your duty as a parent, and simply cannot end well for your kids.



I know historically there is less and less as consumerism is pushed into people's lives with the brutality of a Stalinist dictatorship, but certainly with more refinery.


There is a wonderful word in the English language which, if properly employed, can alleviate much of that problem. That word is "NO". Practice it. My kids are very adept at it's use.



Can you raise a child without the Disney mind control?


So far, so good. Of course, I've raised them largely on my own. Early on, when their mother was around, there was some conflict of philosophy in the matter of Disney and the like.



Not really if you have to work to support yourself.


Terribly sorry about that. I found the TV to be an unacceptable stand in for a baby sitter while working. I wouldn't recommend that for raising your children any more than I would an African village.


edit on 2011/8/13 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)
edit on 8/14/2011 by Kokatsi because: spelling
edit on 8/14/2011 by Kokatsi because: clarification of terms




posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kokatsi
First of all, you keep on educating everyone here as if you knew better about every single thing on earth.
This is my last post - I am going to press the ignore button because this attitude is pretty much insufferable.


It's not my job to educate anyone here. That's what teachers are paid to do. What I'm doing is giving my opinion, same as you are. Those opinions appear to differ. Deal with it. I do.



I am fifty, have several degrees, and an American citizen. I raised a kid and I am raising another - despite the horrendous pressure of commercialism all around and the lack of old communities. Where I come from, grandmothers and aunts etc. were also part of raising a kid. That is what I meant by quoting the African saying.


I'm fifty as well, but only have a couple of degrees. Too busy with life to gather many more. I've raised several kids, one of which was mine. Some turned out good, some turned out bad. C'est la vie! This is how we learn.



Second, I do not look down upon Africans. A lot of ancestors of modern Americans I like and respect came from there - albeit not willingly. Many African societies possess wisdom modern man could do better with, such as the Zulu knowledge about family systems psychologists model.


I neither look down on Africans nor look up to them. I won't be visiting any African villages any time soon, but that doesn't mean I "look down" on them. They have their own societies, which I leave them to. Societies as a whole are integrated systems. It simply won't do to try to extract parts of one, unsupported by the rest of it, and transplant those parts into an alien society.



I got out of the Disney fascism, thank you, despite having to work AND raise kids, and I am not a neglecting parent, never been one. But I would have much preferred the family system I grew up with - hardly anything of that remains now, due to the relentless corporate conquering of our world.


Congrats on not letting Disney raise your kids. That's not neglectful, in any way, shape or form. what is neglectful is to NOT do that, and just roll with the flow, letting strangers raise your kids. perhaps you misapprehended my meaning.

Most of my upbringing was in the Appalachian mountains, where extended family is also an important component, just as your upbringing sounds. That is family, it's not allowing strangers to raise your kids. Perhaps a small distinction, but it makes a world of difference to me. I see a huge difference between my own "clan" and the "village" as a whole. Yes, they're still pretty clannish around there. It doesn't help to make me any less clannish that I am a Shawnee - it just tends to restrict the boundaries of "my own" for me. A subset of a subset, if you will.

Oddly, the same system STILL rules there. Corporations haven't made much of a dent (they usually just take what they can, and then get while the getting out is good), although certain unwarranted behaviors from the flatlands have crept in over the past few years.



What I am worried about is not myself or the Übermensch you posit yourself to appear in your posts on this thread, but the innocent masses of ordinary people.


And that would appear to be one of the more intractable differences between you and I. I'm not concerned with those "innocent masses". They aren't my lookout if they can't look out for themselves. I have my own to worry about.



So you live on your own, you take no medicines even when you are ill?
If you do, you are dealing with corporations. And they are not always honest.


That is correct. I live on my own, and don't take medicines. If I get ill, I treat it myself, to include throwing my own stitches and setting my own bone breaks. That's why God gave us the Forest. So far, I've not run into anything I couldn't treat on my own, and when I do - which will without a doubt some day happen - I will die. This is a good thing, since it means that I will no longer be able to annoy you. It's the natural course of events. You are born, you live, and then you die. No one has yet escaped it, and neither will I. All of the medicine in the world can't prevent it, so why bother keeping yourself in a chemical haze just because you don't feel good right now?

That's just my own philosophy - your mileage may vary.



You will taste the difference between GMO weeds and ragweed when GMO gets to you...


I thought that was about the pollen? otherwise, I'd have had no reason to mention ragweed. I've heard about GMO this and GMO that, but haven't run across any of it yet - at least nothing recognizeable from the horror stories. Our corn still sprouts every year from last year's seed, and no one has grown an extra head from eating it. Might be a different story for folks who rely entirely on grocery stores, I dunno. Seems to me that would be a good reason to sever that particular reliance.



If we have a democracy, they will not, unless you expressly allow them.


They will not any way - regardless of "democracy" or no - except perhaps for wind-borne pollen, which I've already addressed. The man hasn't been born who can force me to eat something I don't want to eat, and I know how to get my own grub.



If it is the corporate fascism the American right wing allows and sometimes prefers, then they will, no matter if you want them or not. THAT is the difference.


The American "right" doesn't exist in a vaccuum. If they are "allowing" this, they are not alone in that permissiveness. The American "left" needs to shoulder their own share of that blame as well if it's occurring, which is one of the reasons I tend to reject political polarities. All they are is one "side" trying to lay the blame entirely on the other, while simultaneously hiding their own guilt. meanwhile, among all the infighting, the bankers laugh all the way to the bank, profiting from both while they are otherwise engaged.



(Mob rule will be enforced on you - democracy and government are probably your best protection. Sorry.)


No, mob rule will NOT be enforced on me. That's just the way it is. They may kill me, but they'll never conquer me. I don't really expect you to ken the difference, though. A certain amount of government is necessary, and no one is disputing that. What is under dispute is how far the tentacles should be allowed to reach, and how big the government should be allowed to grow.



Forgive me, but as someone that studied history to greater depth than most of my compatriots, the difference between democracy and constitutional republic seems to be splitting hairs compared to the difference between outright tyranny (which is what corporate rule begins to remind one of, and I HAVE lived under one) and having a bottom-up system. Holland and Norway and the US on one hand, Stalinist Russia, Mugabe or North Korea - or Saudi Arabia - on the other hand. THAT is the difference that matters. Not that there is nothing special about the US.


And there we have the crux of the issue. We're really not that far apart on that. For me, "right" and "left" hold less meaning that they do for most, because the simple fact is that tyranny can develop on EITHER of those "sides". The "enemy", if you want to call it that, is neither corporatism nor collectivism, it is TYRANNY, and tyranny knows no side but it's own. It's up to us, either individually or collectively, as the spirit moves you, to reject that tyranny. No one can rule you without at least your passive acquiescence to that rule, whether it's the corporate or the proletariat. I prefer the individualist stance, and you appear to prefer the collectivist stance, and that seems to be the main difference. There really isn't any reason that both can't coexist, provided that both recognize a tyrannical opposition, and both work against it. Accommodations can be made, but they're hard to find amongst all the in-fighting fostered and promoted by the would be rulers.



Others that followed this increasingly bad-mood-debate may not with interest that apart from the well-known Locke, Hume and Rousseau, there was another effect that may have had a formative role on the very formation and the spirit of the American Constitution, perhaps the most important of all: the Iroquis Confederacy and its so-called Great Rule.

In that spirit, as with most native American tribal gatherings, democracy does not mean "mob rule", neither the will of the majorioty being forced on the minority. That is truly one crucial bit of difference modern people from democratic societies forget, and it IS peculiar to the US among modern democracies.

In tribal gatherings, the representatives argue until the minority is convinced that the tribe does better if the other decision (the majority's) is adopted. If there is a single person unconvinced and not willing to cooperate with the majority's will, they stop the decision from being made. Despite days and days of bringing arguments up and down to come to a decision, these were pretty efficient societies - if we whites had not had our biological warfare (like infected blankets) we would have never vanquished them.


I don't know much about the Iroquois system. In the Shawnee system, a council is called, and everyone gets to say their piece, with the most persuasive argument, or the most eloquent speaker, generally creating a more or less consensus. A single person cannot stop the execution of the consensus, once reached, but they are free to leave if they don't like it. Generally, councils are called on matters affecting the entire tribe as a unit, and aren't applied as individual prohibitions. Very few infractions would result in a punishment of any sort, in contrast to the current US governance system.

Agreed, that is sort of the idea behind the Federal system in theory, but in practice it hasn't panned out that way. The concept was that matters pertaining to the nation as a whole were handled at the national level, with states handling state matters, and individuals handling individual matters. It wasn't meant to be a system where edicts were handed down from on high to micromanage everything "beneath" it, but that's the way it has devolved.



Now. You seem to take an Übermensch-type of stance that you are above and totally independent from society. Then you should ask yourself the question why on earth you want to answer people in a forum? Why not be just content with yourself?


If by " Übermensch " you mean individualist, I stand guilty as charged. That doesn't mean I should just clam up and keep my opinions to myself, however. That's not the American way, the Shawnee way, the Iroquois way, or even the African way. I AM content with myself, but that doesn't mean that I should shut up and sit down. The free exchange of ideas is what helps a society as a whole deal with it's growing pains (which never end), and my opinion is just as important as anyone else's, as is yours.

That's why I answer people in a forum - so that they don't start thinking their way is the ONLY way, and applicable to all. It isn't, any more than mine is.



Besides, language itself is a community thing. Presumable you learned English from somebody. Language research shows that people left completely alone do not develop language skills. Period.


language is a communication thing. It's sole purpose is to be a medium for exchanging ideas, and it doesn't work very well when the basic terms are not understood the same by all. That's one of my primary problems with a few academicians and most christians. They use a jargon-filled language all their own, not putting their thoughts into the common parlance, and so don't communicate their ideas very effectively. Spoken words are nothing more than moving air if they're not understood. that's not communication, for all the language that may be involved.



Do you know how the Greeks called the individual standing only by himself?

IDIOTES.


I'm not Greek, but I've been called worse. I'll wear it as a badge of honor.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Kokatsi
 


It saddens me that you will no longer participate in this debate. I appreciate every single point you made, even though I don't agree with all of it - I agree with almost everything.

Our greatest hope as a nation is education. By this I don't mean the type of lower common denominator instruction that our children and a large segment of our population has received. I mean the type of education that comes from learning as much as you can about everything. Reading, researching and understanding opposing views on any and all subject matters will lead you to create informed and well rounded opinions. And most importantly, you will learn to respect everybody and their views even if you don't agree with them.

If only there were more people like you, able to move a discussion forward without condescending overtones and demagoguery, well, we wouldn't be having this conversation because there would be no Tea Party.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


No. a democracy is a representative government.

www.merriam-webster.com...

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

2 : a political unit that has a democratic government capitalized
3: the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States
4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

The electoral college chooses the candidate voted for by the people in their state. The president of the U.S. is not a prime minister elected by the legislature. We are not a true republic either.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


The government is a very important part of the economy, and provides basic needs for any economy to function. The better quality the government, the better quality of the economy. Namely the government provides public assets, stability, and security, and in addition, contributes to major research on new technologies that have to long of a curve to be economically feasible.

The money paid out by the government to the people who work for the government, and contracts and equipment purchased actually helps to booster our economy. The money that goes into the hands of U.S. citizens is then circulated through the economy creating growth, and the people educated by government funds increases our nations productivity.

It is the money taken out of the U.S. economy and concentrated into the hands of the few, mainly by corporations, and sent overseas to other countries that robs our economy of vital resources to keep the economy moving. This is why concentration of wealth is directly inverse to economic success of any country. This is not to say that the government can't be too big, but when you look at the size of the U.S. government compared to our economy, it is not that out or proportion, although I would also like to see a reduction in the size of our current government, but the bigger problem is debt. Our debt has really gotten out of control. Even then, compared to other countries we are doing pretty well.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Clearly you are way off the grid, and I admire your independence, but we can't all live in the backwoods, and I do not see that as freedom.

We should be able to live anywhere in the U.S. and be free from corporate control, but in most places in this country, that is impossible. Our cities are set up around the use of the automobile, and without one, you are severely limited in most of the U.S., so most are forced to deal with corporations. Yours is a very unique situation, that is not feasible for most people, and I am willing to bet severely limits ones freedom. If you want to travel across country to see Big Sur, or visit relatives, how are you going to do that without a license and insurance for an automobile? Ride a horse?

We should all have access to technology and travel, without being forced to pay into the corporate system. That is freedom. The corporation did not create our technology, why should they control it?



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


"Representative Democracy" is a contradiction of terms. If someone else with a vote (congressman, elector, what have you) stands between YOU and the target of your vote, be it a law, a candidate, or whatever that target is, you are not in a democracy. In that case it is THEIR vote which counts, rather than yours.

While it's true that some states require electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote, not all of them do, by any means, and there is no Federal rule in the matter. Because of that, it has happened at least twice in US history now that candidates have occupied the presidential office in defiance of the popular vote.

Strangely, we have nearly the perfect tool to implement a true democracy right now in the internet, and I'm really hoping that the governing types don't realize that any time soon, as it can be horribly abused as well in that regard. Think Diebold.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by dakota1s2
 


Do you think most of America would support the threat of the default of the american economic system to get thier political issues enacted ?


The threat of default???

wow.

The Tea Party is trying to save the country. If it takes a default to do it, then by god! that's what we need to do. Spending our way out of this mess has worked realy well.
So we should do more of the same?
edit on 30-7-2011 by beezzer because: (no reason given)


Tough talk from a man who doesnt even live in America, or is even American.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Clearly you are way off the grid, and I admire your independence, but we can't all live in the backwoods, and I do not see that as freedom.


I'm not entirely "off the grid", but I have minimized that which I don't have to have to the point of being "practically" off the grid. I see "freedom" as the ability to make your own decisions and act upon them, which I have in spades. Freedom is not isolation, it's just being able to determine your own life.



We should be able to live anywhere in the U.S. and be free from corporate control, but in most places in this country, that is impossible. Our cities are set up around the use of the automobile, and without one, you are severely limited in most of the U.S., so most are forced to deal with corporations.


I actually live in a relatively small city, surrounded by countryside. I have a different perspective on automobiles and cities - I actually choose to live here because it makes travel far more convenient. Not as far to slog to get where I'm going. To my mind, a car is more useful in the countryside, where greater distances are involved, and a hindrance in the city, what with traffic and all, and being restricted to roadways with one, so I don't have one. Don't have a driver's license, either, because I don't need one. No bank account, either. Don't need a banker to look out for my money. I guess you could say I have a minimal paper trail. Sometimes it's inconvenient when dealing with corporations and governments, since I can't prove my address, but when that becomes problematic, I just don't deal with that corp, and tell the government that it needs to verify on it's own if it wants to deal with me. problem solved. If it can't verify, it can just leave me alone.



Yours is a very unique situation, that is not feasible for most people,


I think it's feasable for anyone, but you're right, not everyone can handle this sort of life, and consequently won't even consider it. maybe it's just a matter of what one wants, and how badly he wants it.



and I am willing to bet severely limits ones freedom.


Well, objectively, that probably goes back to what one considers "freedom" to be. I imagine it's defined rather subjectively, according to individual tastes and desires. There's an old song that says "freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose..."



If you want to travel across country to see Big Sur,


Interesting question. I can't honestly answer it, since I've never been stricken by that urge. Big Sur is some sort of oceanic environment, isn't it? I've got one of those much closer to me, and have no desire whatsoever to get within rock throwing distance of California. I'd only get myself in trouble.




or visit relatives, how are you going to do that without a license and insurance for an automobile? Ride a horse?


Ride a dog. Greyhound, specifically - or whatever the current equivalent is. I think Greyhound went out of business. I used to fly around to get where I needed to be, but I don't fly any more. last time I had to travel long distance, I packed up a rucksack and carried it to the bus station. We have Amtrack here, too, but I've never taken advantage of that particular transit system. It's 3 miles to the bus station from home, and 22 miles at the other end from the bus station to my family, so it's no biggie, and by no means undoable on foot, although one of my relatives usually meets me part of the way on that last leg. Altogether, it's around 250 miles from here, so if push came to shove I could walk the entire way on foot in around 2 weeks, at a pretty easy pace.



We should all have access to technology and travel, without being forced to pay into the corporate system. That is freedom. The corporation did not create our technology, why should they control it?


That's a lovely thought, and I'm on board if you can figure out a way to implement it. Money to create infrastructure and maintain those systems has to come from somewhere, so how do you propose to make it all free? The money ultimately comes from the end-user, whether you pay it to a corporation, or pay it to a government. Either one is the same to me, except that if I pay it to a corporation and have a beef with them, I'll find a different corporation to deal with. Finding a different government to deal with is a bit more problematic.

Case in point, I recently got the red-ass at ATT, and fired them. Now my phone and internet come through a different supplier, and if I develop a beef with them, I'll fire them too, and move on to the next. If I develop a problem with the government, then I have to wait at least until the next election cycle to fire them, if I can even fire them at all. Oddly (and I KNOW you'll find this hard to believe), not everyone around here thinks like I do.




edit on 2011/8/14 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by beezzer


Tough talk from a man who doesnt even live in America, or is even American.


Beezzer is an American. Specifically, an American soldier. Not sure if he "lives" here right now, or is on deployment, but he's definitely an American when the sun goes down at the end of the day.








edit on 2011/8/14 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
I decided to come back for one more, because of a different experience reading nenothtu's reaction.
It was a sign. I read of the text as if it was my own - true, it was late at night.

Then I got to this part:

quote from nenothtu:
"Most of my upbringing was in the Appalachian mountains, where extended family is also an important component, just as your upbringing sounds. That is family, it's not allowing strangers to raise your kids. Perhaps a small distinction, but it makes a world of difference to me. I see a huge difference between my own "clan" and the "village" as a whole. Yes, they're still pretty clannish around there. It doesn't help to make me any less clannish that I am a Shawnee - it just tends to restrict the boundaries of "my own" for me. A subset of a subset, if you will."

So let me write address nenothtu in second person again:

A realization has begun to dawn upon me. I have contemplated this for long, and I do not want to win any arguments. That is not why I write this.

My realization is about roots and individualism. You appear to be a warrior, maybe a distant relative of the world-famous Tecumseh, and this fierce resistance may actually play a part in your individualism and in your understanding of America.
I respect this very much, especially that you have recourse to the Forest and not the average man's medical care.

I compared our relative situations. I come from Hungary, originally a tribal nation with horses from Asia, which was "by fire and iron" conquered by European Christianity around 1,000 AD. Over half of the entire nation may have been tortured to death by the Inquisition because that was the only way Europe would have accepted us. There was not a single house, a single patch of forest or land left intact. They investioated everything - the Catholic Church is the first global corporation - it even has its logo.

That is where I think the spirit of this nation was broken. Later I have "seen" it ina different way too.

Now, when I went to live in America, and chose to be an US citizen, that was when I turned left. For there was NO community. Anywhere. There was only a loose collection of Sunday weirdos in the Christian church. Otherwise, you walked through a village - in Shenandoah for example - and all you saw was the colored lights of the TV blinking in every home.
Family stores were going out of business. Shopping malls were built with the efficiency of an Adolf Hitler. (Since then, I have translated texts for those folks and I happen to know that they have mapped EVERY family store in any area they wanted to spread, and they rather lost on some products for years, but they WANTED to put them out of business. Period. It was simply their "business strategy," developed by very inventive people for very high salaries, brought in from all over the world. I am not kidding, this was conquest as thorough as that of the Catholic Church in medieval times.)

We were alone, self-supporting from crafts, no medical insurance, relying on herbs and homeopathy.
No community, no land, no house, nothing. We just had a few hippie friends who could help sometimes and we helped them in return.

Then my wife nearly died in a streptococcus infection. Finally we took her to an emergency room and paid S300 for one hour of treatment.

I had to have my teeth repaired - I only had money for metal fillings, and 15 were installed in a few months. Plus an antibiotic. Soon I started to get sick all the time, sweating and weak. I was poisoned. I could not get up in the morning - it took me years to realize that I had a life threatening candida infection and that I had to get all those metal fillings out.

The only way out was to return to my folks - my tribe, if you want - in Hungary. They helped me to exchange my fillings, to get medical care and not abene, there were grandmothers in Hungary.

No one was ever watching the kid in America. We did not want to have a TV so we had to put up with a daily siege by our kid who was going to preschool where everyone lived a more or less commercial life.

I realized that the whole free market philosophy was a farce, a way for predator folks to get their way and make mincemeat of all others.

All right. Still, I realized while I was in the US that the only meaningful resistance to this pest of a lifestyle was the traditions of Native Americans. I also had to realize that my original folks were much closer to their mentality than the culture of the "white people" to either of us.

OK, so back to my realization about you being a Shawnee: maybe your folks give you some support in terms of values. Mine did not. Just the same way Hungary was forced to enter Medieval Catholicism under the terms of the Inquisition, after rebelling for centuries against Turks, Austrians, the Russian Empire etc. now they embraced neo-capitalism and Disney life with a frightening enthusiasm.

What I left behind was coming after me. During the 90's, whatever remained from the old lifestyle - including a sense of community instead of just watching TV - was wiped out. Now we have the same weird #. Kids get adderol, or whatever you call it these days - anyway, it is metamphetamine - if they are not paying attention in school. It is no longer a cutom that grandmothers watch their grandchildren on weekends or when the child has a longer disease. Grandmothers pursue their careers, they have to make money (no more pensions or nothings that is worth while), or they have a drug dealer boyfriend - you can imagine the rest. Consumer society.

When I first visited Hungary as an American, after almost a decade (we escaped via a refugee camp, it was not small potatoes), people did not believe me when I said in state schools, if a kid cannot pay attention, they will drug them with something adults sell on street corners. And now Hungarians even in small villages do that too... I am told you have to take the kid to school by car because it is not safe. I ask back every time, why it is that I could just walk in the heart of Budapest to school - I was not an imbecile.

Because the corporate fascism has conquered the rest of what remained from my nation.

Hungarians in Transylvania faced seventy years of vengeful ethnic cleansing and persecution. Hunger, terror, everything. Still they remained, with a spirit of quiet resistance, making their own food, their shoes, keeping grapes for wine, making their pottery etc. The Communist Rumanian State with Ceaucescu - one of the weirdest tyrants of the modern age, INCLUDING Hitler and Stalin could not wipe them out. Many left for America or Canada if they escaped alive. I talked to a Hungarian guy from Romania in 1984 that swam across the icy Danube in January to escape. His brother was shot in the water by the patrol boat. He swam across and then walked two days without food to get to Austria in the refugee camp.

When he heard the Rumanian interpreter speaking who worked for the US church organization, he jumped as if stunf by a wasp. He thought they came after him. (And actually, they did that, they killed a lot of refugees waiting to get Western visas).

In 1997 I visited Transylvania. TV-s were glowing in every room. Western cars were in front of every house.

By 2005 I think the culture pretty much died out, thousand-year-old habits were forgotten because it was no longer fashionable.

Well, I do not worry about all the masses of the entire world. True. But it is a weird experience to see that a totalitarian, anti-community, anti-individual and anti-nature mentality eradicates your whole culture. I think even the Soviet system was better than this ADHD agony.

I remain an individual. I value the traditions and the wisdom of any folks if it is not this consumer idiocy together with the destruction of the entire biosphere.

I could see what the TV habit does to the human mind and there is a book out with a serious sociological study by a man named Jerry Mander: four arguments for the elimination of television. This was a result of over ten years of research. Then later he wrote another book on the destruction of the remaining native traditions in Canada by chips and TV.

Nothing was as effective as this in breaking the spirit of any nation, including the medieval Inquisition or the horrors of Stalin. And as you also wrote, one bears a responsibility towards kids: I do not think anyone under ten can seriously resist without the help of very committed parents and possibly a community - an extended family. People with thousand dollars per hour invent those mind control games to break the spirit of more and more people all around the earth.

And I think - provided that we do not inhale too many hot particles emitted by Fukushima, another worthy corporation (TEPCO) and we do not die of cancer and mutations, the descendants of those people will survive who grew up with a community instead of virtual reality, and who have any contact with nature, be it even the smallest patch of land, a cave, a forest.

Those that do not, will die out. This corporate consumer fascism is the single most efficient tool of selection ever allowed by nature. Better than any asteroid.

Thank you for reading my rant.
I part with respect, and understanding. I will see you in other threads.

(smokes pipe)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Kokatsi
 


We are not as far apart as it would appear at first. The area I grew up in is topographically very similar to the Carpathians, and the people are not all that different, just a different language.

Honestly, what you say of the conquest of Hungary is a valid warning to people in the Appalachians. When I was growing up, the nearest town or village had a population of about 2500 people, and was 9 miles from where I lived. There was a Catholic "mission" there, but in that entire time, I never saw a Catholic. i saw more Muslims than I did Catholics. I HAVE seen some outside influences such as you mention creeping in over time there as well, but not from the Catholics in this case, rather from other elements of society.

Most of the corporate influences there have been via the coal mining corporations and the unionized camp-followers of those corporations, but that corporate influence collapsed in the 90's, The corporations ran like hell to get away, and the mines almost all have closed. I can recall the "company towns" with their cookie cutter houses and their company stores, where money was no good - you had to spend company "scrip" to buy anything there, which was nothing more than the coal companies attempting to control the "money" supply. I remember the Union Wars that would erupt every 3 years like clockwork when the contracts came due for "renegotiation". I'm not unaware of corporate influence attempts, but I blame them on the Unions as much as the Corporations, and the People were always caught in the middle of the fighting. neither side really gave a damn about the People they were claiming to be "protecting". I've seen both sides kill innocents in the crossfire, never stopping to ask questions of guilt or innocence, just killing and burning on assumptions. A friend of mine was killed, shot through the windshield of his coal truck while driving down a mountainside loaded, by a Union sympathizer, and his only "crime" was trying to make a living and support his family. Another was killed simply for answering his door after dark, about 9PM. Shotgun blast to the head, and no one ever found out which side did it. He wasn't on either side.

Those are just two examples of many, and the only reason I mention them is to demonstrate where my disdain for "collectives" comes from. From what I have seen, and I freely admit to a lack of knowledge of the theory of things, both Unions and Corporations are nothing more than feudalized "collectives". In both cases they derive their power from "the People", but all the decisions are really made by the Manor Lords, whether Corporate of Union.

I know without doubt that both can be beaten - I've seen it in action - but not while they keep the people divided into opposing camps. When you "undivide" those opposed camps, the alleged power of the opposed collectives vanishes, since it is predicated on keeping those divisions intact.

Many of your realizations are eerily correct, but I'll send a U2U with more information that I don't care to release on the boards.

Respect, and I'll see you in the Tall Grass of other threads.

neno



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Double post. Technology is amazing, isn't it?

... and at time rather unpredictable.

ETA:

Rather than waste this space, I'll drop in a couple of links.

If you read these, substitute "corporation" or "union" for "whites", and "the people" for "tribes", and you'll begin to see my attitude. These are the words of Tecumseh, and this post was brought on by Kokatsi's mention of Tecumseh. I have some of them framed and posted on my wall, and they are the code I try to live by. I see both sides of the equation as culpable, whether Corporate or Union, or any of the permutations thereof. Both are the same to me, just promoting different sides of an artificial divide (Tecumseh's rant on how whites work against Unity of the tribes - both sides here attempt to divide the people, and keep them divided).

Link One

Link Two

This is exactly what I mean when I rail that the fault is neither on the left nor the right, but lies in the Tyranny promoted by both, for the benefit of both, and the detriment of US.


edit on 2011/8/15 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
These are very wise words.
It is the unnatural division that is like the demon of white civilization.
We would be better off with the words of Tecumseh.
I contemplated some of these sayings in a very visionary state of mind while I lived in the US. In fact, the strongest positive impression I received all through my stay in the US was from First Americans.

I am against land ownership due to these visionary experiences.

In Hungary now it is the same - artificial right and left fighting each other, demonizing each other, and driving people away from true understanding.

I understand these experiences of the trade union wars. I grew up in a Communist dictatorship.

For the future, I envision a society which has much more oneness with nature, respect for each other and the Great Spirit (that is in fact the closest I can come to naming any cosmic principle.) No wasteful technology, maybe some low-energy high technology like the Internet.

I think this white colonizer society is crumbling now.

Ancient peoples will wait it out and say what they have always said:

"Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children."

I am looking forward t seeing you in other threads.

Kokatsi



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 





posted by poet1b

We should all have access to technology and travel, without being forced to pay into the corporate system. That is freedom. The corporation did not create our technology, why should they control it?


nenothtu's response

That's a lovely thought, and I'm on board if you can figure out a way to implement it. Money to create infrastructure and maintain those systems has to come from somewhere, so how do you propose to make it all free? The money ultimately comes from the end-user, whether you pay it to a corporation, or pay it to a government. Either one is the same to me, except that if I pay it to a corporation and have a beef with them, I'll find a different corporation to deal with. Finding a different government to deal with is a bit more problematic.


We can more than afford the technology without paying into the corporate system. We are more than twice as productive now than we were back in the fifties and sixties when we built our current interstate infrastructure, paid down the largest debt in our nations history, rebuilt Europe, and fought a few wars at the same time. We fought the cold war, and sent men to the moon, all with out building huge government debt, in fact, we were a net creditor nation.

What is the difference between then and now?

Back then our fathers were smart enough to believe in government, and used government to keep greedy corporations in check. We had high taxes on the super rich, and strong regulator enforcement in place. This is the difference between then and now.

Under Reagan, they cut taxes on the super rich, and got rid of deregulation, and the result is widespread fraud, massive federal debt, and a shrinking middle class, and destruction of our culture. Now we can't even afford to pay our own bills.

You don't drive a car because you have been conned into believing that government is bad, when in fact our government is your best chance of getting back your freedom.

Participating in our government to get our government to start putting corporations back in check is the answer. It worked in the past and it can work again.


Case in point, I recently got the red-ass at ATT, and fired them. Now my phone and internet come through a different supplier, and if I develop a beef with them, I'll fire them too, and move on to the next. If I develop a problem with the government, then I have to wait at least until the next election cycle to fire them, if I can even fire them at all. Oddly (and I KNOW you'll find this hard to believe), not everyone around here thinks like I do.


Congrats, you fired the devil's corporation, and hired Satan's corporation to be your new link to the world.

You can fire the government by moving to Canada, or some other country. It is a lot more inconvenient than changing cel phone companies, but you will actually get results,

As long as people keep buying into the tea party, which only promises more of the same that GW gave them, then we will never get change. You can keep pretending that by not driving a car, you are more free, but the truth is that you have allowed corporations to take away even more of your freedom.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Kokatsi
 


I have seen things go from good to bad, and back a few times now. This last decade was the worse. The earlie pioneers of the U.S. did learn a great deal from the nations of the America that existed before Europeans began to arrive, they weren't perfect, but they had a great many philosophies that are a inseparable from U.S. culture.

Don't forget that before Europe was conquered by Catholicism, the European nations had primarily been democratic nations, and the rule of the Church only lasted a few centuries before they broke free from the belief in the divine right of kings. Hopefully we will break away from the yoke of corporate control much more quickly.

The way I see it, we can fight for our liberty and freedom, or we can roll over, and sell future generations down the drain.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

We can more than afford the technology without paying into the corporate system. We are more than twice as productive now than we were back in the fifties and sixties when we built our current interstate infrastructure, paid down the largest debt in our nations history, rebuilt Europe, and fought a few wars at the same time. We fought the cold war, and sent men to the moon, all with out building huge government debt, in fact, we were a net creditor nation.


Still a lovely thought, but I couldn't quite get out of that who you think is going to work for free to build and maintain the infrastructure for us to get all of this stuff for free.

If we're more than twice as productive now as we were then, what is it we are producing? Debt? I'm not making any purchases in that particular market.



What is the difference between then and now?

Back then our fathers were smart enough to believe in government, and used government to keep greedy corporations in check. We had high taxes on the super rich, and strong regulator enforcement in place. This is the difference between then and now.


You speak of fathers. I know nothing about yours, and you know nothing about mine, so I'll tell a little bit about mine. He had a measured IQ of 198, so yeah, they were pretty smart, and could likely run intellectual rings around us. For all that, he dropped out of school in the 7th grade due to some interpersonal problems with his teacher, and was as poor as a churchmouse all his life. Even he couldn't figure out why it was "right" for the poor to rob from the rich, any more than it was for the rich to rob from the poor. To his way of thinking, theft was theft, no matter which way it flowed. He believed, as do I, that a fair tax system would be the same rate on everyone, across the board, with no loopholes to get out of it for either the rich or the poor. Two questions on the tax forms: "How much did you make?" and "give us 10% of that", no excuses, no outs, no complicated deduction structures to keep tax lawyers in business.

Corporations, as synthetic entities rather than natural ones, could and probably should be subject to a different percentage take.

Inheritance taxes are BS, and should not exist unless and until you sell what you inherited, at which point it becomes "income" rather than an inheritance.

Capital gains, money made on something other than tangibles produced - basically making money off of other money - should probably be taxed at a higher rate as well. Matter of fact, since I'm a fairly contrarian sort, I might even prefer capital gains taxes in the punitive range.

Last time I dealt with any capital gains was when I was bailing out of the stock market. The tax law was so convoluted in the matter that I finally got exasperated and took everything down to the IRS office, and told 'em "if you want your cut of the money, then you do the damned math." They filled out everything FOR me, did all the paperwork and everything, and I was nothing short of shocked and amazed at how much I got to keep out of it. It really didn't strike me as right, but they wouldn't take any more, and believe it or not I tried to get them to.

No, I'm not against taxes, I just think the code needs a major overhaul and simplification, and a more equitable taxing system for individuals. The most complicated taxes ought to be import taxes, which should have a direct correlation with what the producing country is taxing US on OUR exports to them.



You don't drive a car because you have been conned into believing that government is bad, when in fact our government is your best chance of getting back your freedom.


Now, I freely admit that I'm not as smart as my dear old dad was, but for the life of me I can't see how begging someone to regulate the life out of me is going to make me somehow more free. Incidentally, he was against overbearing government as well. It was his contention that tyranny was always the major product of such an arrangement.

I don't believe that government is "bad" per se, but I do believe it can GET to be pretty bad. I've seen some that were downright despicable, and others that were pretty close to euphoria producing. It's not "government" per se, it's how it is managed or mismanaged, used or abused.



Participating in our government to get our government to start putting corporations back in check is the answer. It worked in the past and it can work again.


Okay, this is where it gets even more confusing. If, as you contend, the corporations are firmly in bed with the government, how is it that you are going to get the corporations to regulate themselves through the intervention of a government you contend they already control? Isn't that a lot like petitioning the fox to guard the hen house more closely?




Congrats, you fired the devil's corporation, and hired Satan's corporation to be your new link to the world.


Maybe. Time will tell. If that turns out to be the case, I'll fire them, too. It's either that or build my own infrastructure, or just break that link altogether (which is not an impossibility). I already build my own computers, but erecting my own microwave towers, stringing my own fiberoptic cable around the world, and things like that aren't likely to happen any time soon.



You can fire the government by moving to Canada, or some other country. It is a lot more inconvenient than changing cel phone companies, but you will actually get results,


Two problems with that. THIS is my country. THIS is where I was born, and my ancestors are buried. No way in hell they get to run me out of it, although they've been trying for several generations now. The second problem is that because of what I've heard of Canada, they couldn't pay me to move there. Not for love nor money. Not even a LOT of love, a LOT of money, and a brand new Harley!

You know, it's odd. I've been all over the world, and was actually born within 40 miles of the Canadian border, and yet I've never had the urge to go to Canada for anything. I had one friend that used to go every year for the hunting, and another that used to go every few months for the beer, but I've never been there.



As long as people keep buying into the tea party, which only promises more of the same that GW gave them, then we will never get change. You can keep pretending that by not driving a car, you are more free, but the truth is that you have allowed corporations to take away even more of your freedom.


If you equate the Tea Party with the Bush-ites and neocons, then perhaps you should take a break and learn something about the Tea Party. It was neocon malfeasance, and Bush politics in particular, that pushed me in the direction of the Tea Party to begin with. They are in opposition, regardless of what you're hearing on the MSM. Maybe check out a tea Party rally in person for a change, instead of relying on the MSM to "educate" you about it.

Not owning a car doesn't have any bearing on "freedom" either way. I don't eschew cars to be more "free", I do it because I just don't want one. They are a pain in the ass. I don't have a wife, either, and I don't feel any less free on that account. either. Where did I say that being without a car makes me "free"? As I recall, all I said was that I didn't have to insure one because I didn't have one.

I don't measure "freedom" in material possessions, although I'm aware that there are those who do. To my way of thinking, the case could be made that "stuff" makes you less free, rather than more, since most people get way too tied down to their possessions. I don't know the answer. It's probably a matter of perspective.


edit on 2011/8/17 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by macman
 


. That's a good excuse for not presenting something THAT YOU KNOW I WILL KNOCK DOWN, as I have refuted all the points in this thread already by the Tea party lovers.

All arguments I have countered with truth because I am
JUST THE FACTS MAN, INFOREAL!



Ok, mr facts. The Tea Party (started in spirit by Rick Santelli) wants one thing: the government to spend less than it takes in.

Is that too much to digest?

It's simple. Do you spend more than you make? I'd guess you do, but that's pure conjecture.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
In this country the top 1% control 90% of the wealth. Big business runs this country don't kid yourselves.
Look what deregulation has got us. Wall Street billionaires gambled and lost, then got bailed out by the taxpayers and walked away with huge compensations.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by WEOPPOSEDECEPTION
 


That could be so. Let's assume that it is, and run with it.

Q: How does "controlling the wealth" equate to "running the country"?

A: Because everyone else, great and small, are equally as avaricious, and covet that same wealth. They are no better than "the rich", morally, since they are after the same thing, and are a bit miffed that they aren't getting it. Their answer is to rob the rich, and take what belongs to them, by force if necessary.

I'm just not seeing how that differs from the rich robbing THEM, as is their contention, and taking what was theirs.

Here's an odd thought: If you aren't valuing the same thing they are, and in fact don't want what they have, their control of the "wealth" becomes a moot point, since what they see as "wealth" isn't the same thing that you place value on. You have then changed what "wealth" is, pulled the rug out from under them, pulled their teeth, and rendered them powerless. I bet THEY would be the ones screaming bloody murder then!

On a possibly related note, I've never quite understood why gold has any "value". It does, of course, because for some odd reason people have defined it to have value, but I just don't understand why. You can't eat it, it makes a poor blanket on a cold night, it's heavy and hard to transport in quantity, and it really isn't even all that pretty.

Potentially, what I'm saying here is that YOU define what has "value", and any "power" flows from that, or more properly the control of that.

I know, I know. I'm just weird, and the concept is just too hard to grasp, because I'm just weird.

Carry on, then.





new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join