We're Taking Back Our Government, and This Is What We Have To Say

Originally posted by Openeye
That does not answer my question. Parties are supposed to represent their constituents, aka represent the people. But all of the powerful parties have failed to do so.

So I ask again what is the solution?

Keep asking. Let me know how that works out. Until I say I have that solution, your question is a tad off.
While I may not know the best way to treat 3rd degree burns on someone's face that will not prevent me from suggesting a shotgun to the face is NOT a good solution.

PS. I think the WE the OP is mentioning are those concerned citizens who see corruption in government, and the destruction of the constitution.

edit on 4-8-2011 by Openeye because: (no reason given)

Why would you think that? It seems so oversimplified to me.

Some "we" believe that taxing the rich is corrupt.
Some "we" believe that NOT taxing the rich is corrupt.

Some "we" believe that legalizing gay marriage is corrupt.
Some "we" think legislating who can and cannot get married is corrupt.

Some "we" believe the war on drugs is corrupt.
Some "we" believe legalizing drugs is corrupt.

See where I am going?

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
Please refer to the Tea Party in the same way as you do Republicans and Democrats.

What you said is offensive,

The tea parties only came about around the election season. They weren't around during the signing of the patriot act, they weren't around following the second 2004 election of Bush, they weren't around during the declaration of the Iraq, which ended up being a complete lie, which ended up costing this country $200 million a day. The tea parties took to the streets following the election of Obama. Its a political rally to get the democrats out for the most part, don't give me that tripe that they're a seperate bunch.

While there are some honest members of the tea parties who have stood against government spending, the vast majority of those in the tea parties, and their leaders, many of whom are connected to the Republican party, are just more political hacks in opposition to liberalism, nothing more.

I find the tea parties offensive.

I am not a member of the Tea Party.

And I'm sure you're not a birther,
I'm sure you'r not a republican,
I'm sure you're not alot of things.
I've heard it all before.

"We" the PEOPLE, regardless of party, still need to be respectful to one another.

Exactly, so then you disagree with the OP? That we should overthrow elected officials from their offices over the demands of a minority?

Get out an vote in 2012, vote them all out, vote third party. You want to be respectful to your fellow american and respect the constitutional will of the majority of the people? Vote.

reply to post by Kitilani

Keep asking. Let me know how that works out. Until I say I have that solution, your question is a tad off.
While I may not know the best way to treat 3rd degree burns on someone's face that will not prevent me from suggesting a shotgun to the face is NOT a good solution.

That is the answer I was looking for

No one has a solution, not one that is effective any way. The OP has good dream but it is just that a dream.

Why would you think that? It seems so oversimplified to me.

Some "we" believe that taxing the rich is corrupt.
Some "we" believe that NOT taxing the rich is corrupt.

Some "we" believe that legalizing gay marriage is corrupt.
Some "we" think legislating who can and cannot get married is corrupt.

Some "we" believe the war on drugs is corrupt.
Some "we" believe legalizing drugs is corrupt.

See where I am going?

I dont think it is over simplified at all. Just because people disagree on certain issues does not mean they can not have a common purpose or goal. Again the founders of the nation dealt with this same issue.

You have to also consider that most Americans don't actually have a valid position on many government polices. They simply go along with what ever their party, religion, or favorite news program deems just and unjust.

I think one of the big issues in this country is that people don't have personal beliefs anymore. They just want to fit in.

Originally posted by Openeye
That is the answer I was looking for

No one has a solution, not one that is effective any way. The OP has good dream but it is just that a dream.

Then I would love to know why you even asked.

I dont think it is over simplified at all. Just because people disagree on certain issues does not mean they can not have a common purpose or goal.

That is actually exactly what that means. If guy A wants to take his country back to a time when the rich were taxed and guy B wants to take his country back to a time when the rich apparently get tax breaks then how in the hell are they going to work together to achieve the same goal? They have two opposing goals.

Again the founders of the nation dealt with this same issue.

And instead of overthrowing each other, they COMPROMISED.

You have to also consider that most Americans don't actually have a valid position on many government polices. They simply go along with what ever their party, religion, or favorite news program deems just and unjust.

Oh? I have to consider something you seem to have just made up? Why do I have to?

I think one of the big issues in this country is that people don't have personal beliefs anymore. They just want to fit in.

edit on 4-8-2011 by Openeye because: (no reason given)

Speak for yourself.

Great idea, I will gladly join you for your cause, BUT first of all, please represent us with your step-by-step plan on "Taking back our government."

HOW? HOW?

Sorry, i didn't read through all the comments because political stuff makes my head hurt after awhile, but i really connected with that.

But don't fret, there are people fighting the corruption, helping the comatose out of their slumber.

If you'd like to know you can PM me, Because i believe i would be going against T&C here.

But either way, any form of politics is #ed, unless the politicians make < 60,000 a year.

If that were the case, then instead of going into it for the fat paycheque, they'd do it because they enjoy it.

reply to post by Kitilani

Then I would love to know why you even asked.

I asked because a lot of people disagree with a solution in favor of their own. Which most of the time is not the best idea either.

That is actually exactly what that means. If guy A wants to take his country back to a time when the rich were taxed and guy B wants to take his country back to a time when the rich apparently get tax breaks then how in the hell are they going to work together to achieve the same goal? They have two opposing goals.

Again the founders of the nation dealt with this same issue.

And instead of overthrowing each other, they COMPROMISED.

How else are we to reach any form of consensus then?

Group A wants no taxes. Group B wants taxes. So what should they do? Go to war with each other? Or debate it in a realistic fashion, using data, statistics, and the advice of academics to back up their decisions?

Oh? I have to consider something you seem to have just made up? Why do I have to?

What did I make up? The fact that people get most information from extremely biased new sources? That there are memes which both parties have instilled into their respective supporters? That most Americans are ignorant of the reality of important issues? Please...

Speak for yourself.

I do...I was simply offering that comment as an opinion not presenting as fact.

All that will happen is a different oligarchy will begin and since history seems to speed up due to technology, it should be ready to collapse within half a century. The only solution to government violence is no government. It all begins with the vote, when you step into that voting booth to cast that vote you are giving the government your consent to kill, steal and imprison, to continue the violence of the state, to impose your belief system on someone else.

Government must be dismantled from the top down. the federal government needs to be nullified, allowing each states people to decide how they want their violence served up to them. Then when the people have had enough of that violence, then the states need to be abolished allowing communities to decide if they need to be governed or if they are actually civilised enough to not want to be slave-masters.

Everything that is wrong with the world begins and ends with slavery/religion/government they are all one in the same.

I am appreciative of the courage of Ron Paul to say it like it needs to be said, but unlike any other time in American history, rhetoric and patriotic slogans and platitudes will not be enough to return this nation to something that is moral, ethical and once again filled with real justice for all and with no one, being above the law.

It is unfortunate and while I am in no way saying that Americans don't have the fight in them to effect social change, I also see in my realist world that Ron Paul alone and surrounded by a system of corruption, greed, bribes and deceptions is not going to change anything. Add in the corrupt media, and all the controlled broadcast, newsprint and radio and TV media giants and once again we see multiple monolithic systems of corruption doing business with other corrupt corporations solely for the money.

It has become all about the money, the greed and the power to extort while calling it capitalism in a global environment.

Ron Paul is the most qualified candidate for the Presidency, but I also know that the current system will not support him and in fact they will undermine him at every turn and when we see this, we should immediately understand that it is a select group that seeks such control over information and it is those corrupt systems that will prevent truth and justice from ever being important again.

We must stop the punishment of whistle blowers and instead offer rewards to the entire federal system and demand of all federal employees begin exposing the criminals in the system while offering protection from those so named. Exposing them all would be a great campaign slogan, but I know that the forces of greed are also evil and murder to such evil people is something you call out for like the little people call for a large pizza with cheese sticks.

Begin using the abused nationwide intelligence surveillance system to catch and round up the crooks and we will finally get some worth from those agencies that absorb billions of dollars annually only to be some political arm of select business interests. In fact, clean out the FBI and other agencies of high level crooks and we might finally get some real investigations instead of the baloney they offer at every turn.

Ron Paul is right in every word and sentence. His courage is evident, but in our current state of affairs, I am sad to say that it will take more that courage written in some needed political statement to change our destiny. It will take an end to corruption and that would also support changes in identifying where billions or trillions go missing each year. I for one think it would behoove us to find it and arrest those that took it. Just a thought.

Thanks for the thread and in closing I want to say I respect Ron Paul, but alone and surrounded by servants of Satan, it becomes hard to think how anyone, let alone Ron Paul could ever do anything to change what has happened to all of us while we slowly and repeatedly watched them do it.

I support Ron Paul's efforts and I am certain we will be going in the right direction if we support him in his efforts, but his political world must be cleansed of wrong doing and bribe taking because if there is no change to the system that corrupts the system of true capitalism, then we will only be seeing this madness continue and I for one truly hope Ron Paul and his supporters realize that it takes more than a good man, but its good for a starters and it is a move in the right direction, and that's a good thing.

Thanks again for the thread. A most interesting political statement indeed.

NOTHING will change till some group goes postal and starts the blood shed like the Powers that be want. Untill then, elections will be rigged, political figures will be corrupt, and we all will keep getting screwed over. Rally's, Sit in's, and protests will be overlooked the next day, unless you reach out and dare touch her hollyness

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by ForeverDusk
reply to post by SpringHeeledJack

 

I wrote this entirely myself. A few weeks or so ago I posted it, albeit worded slightly differently, here

So you took it upon yourself to decide what "we" want for America. How very democratic of you.

Are you saying you are perfectly happy with the current state of corruption in our government?
If you don't wanna fix it, step aside and let others try.

Originally posted by Alxandro
Are you saying you are perfectly happy with the current state of corruption in our government?

Well let me ask you this.

DID I WRITE ANYTHING LIKE THAT ANYWHERE EVER?

If you don't wanna fix it, step aside and let others try.

Just because I do not believe that every American is represented by this thread authors "we" does not mean I think things are great and should not change.

That is EXACTLY THE POINT.

You want change. I want change. We do not want the same change. We are not "we."

Originally posted by ForeverDusk

We "spoiled angry little people" aren't "demanding" anything except a return to constitutional principle. I doubt the majority wants to live under the rule of the fascists and the corporatists, they are just not yet awakened to the tyranny. If all Americans knew about the bankers' plans for their children, revolution would be here by morning. This document favors no one specific.

I would like to know how Ronald Paul would address the issue of corporations?

I understand he thinks corporations will behave and become honest if you let them do whatever they want
however they want. This is whole illogical - you canNOT mitigate damage from a fire by let it rage on


I think Ronald is an enabler of corporations because he will leave them as he finds them and appears to be unable to recognize that his approach is a empowering principle. If Ronald wants me to trust his ideas he will have to make legal recourse a public expense, I cannot afford to retain a lawyer for the rest of my life, or even for an a small block. I will not submit to the destruction of the representation of all my ideas to install his ideas
as the defacto dictator of principle.

reply to post by Kitilani


Well rather than defending the current administration and the status quo, why not put your money where your mouth is and put something together yourself.
Something tells me you'd much rather suck on the government teet.

Originally posted by Janky Red
I would like to know how Ronald Paul would address the issue of corporations?

I understand he thinks corporations will behave and become honest if you let them do whatever they want
however they want. This is whole illogical - you canNOT mitigate damage from a fire by let it rage on


I think Ronald is an enabler of corporations because he will leave them as he finds them and appears to be unable to recognize that his approach is a empowering principle. If Ronald wants me to trust his ideas he will have to make legal recourse a public expense, I cannot afford to retain a lawyer for the rest of my life, or even for an a small block. I will not submit to the destruction of the representation of all my ideas to install his ideas
as the defacto dictator of principle.

edit on 4-8-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

I believe Dr. Paul has made it very clear that without the "protections" that government gives to corporations, they would have to behave or face an unprecedented number of private individual lawsuits. True competition would be allowed to exist if it can be done better it will be, not forced with monopolies. No more taking of private property so a corporation can "decide" how its to be used.

reply to post by ForeverDusk


I'm very impressed by your letter. They'll take twice as long to figure out which form letter to send back to you. Hopefully you won't get put on the no-fly list. Good luck with your ridiculously pointless effort... you'll need a lot of it.

My only criticism to offer is that you seem to think there is some chance you'll get some kind of improvement in government by writing it. Of course you won't. I'd recommend you look into the Free State Project if you want ideas on doing things that actually may work to reduce tyranny in government.

Originally posted by spav5
How do we determine who is to lead? If we claim to have anything other than anarchy I guess we will need leader/s.

Oh, so there is no such thing as leaders in an anarchy? Supervisors will relinquish their positions? The nuns will stop building schools? I'm not sure I like where you are going with your ideas of leadership. In a democracy, the people lead a government. In an anarchy, the people are the leaders. So, there is no change in leadership between a democracy and an anarchy. Not that I have any interest in advocating for anarchy... I have interest in people's fallacious concept that we have to designate a leader who has more power than the sum of his constituents.

Originally posted by Alxandro
reply to post by Kitilani

 

Well rather than defending the current administration and the status quo, why not put your money where your mouth is and put something together yourself.

Now I am defending the current administration and the status quo?
Let me know when you write something that is not complete BS.

Something tells me you'd much rather suck on the government teet.

As I just said.

Something tells me you know absolutely nothing about me. I do quite well for myself and do not ask the government for anything. BUT I do understand how nice it is to have firemen, roads, poor people not dying in the street in front of my house.

Originally posted by NuroSlam

Originally posted by Janky Red
I would like to know how Ronald Paul would address the issue of corporations?

I understand he thinks corporations will behave and become honest if you let them do whatever they want
however they want. This is whole illogical - you canNOT mitigate damage from a fire by let it rage on


I think Ronald is an enabler of corporations because he will leave them as he finds them and appears to be unable to recognize that his approach is a empowering principle. If Ronald wants me to trust his ideas he will have to make legal recourse a public expense, I cannot afford to retain a lawyer for the rest of my life, or even for an a small block. I will not submit to the destruction of the representation of all my ideas to install his ideas
as the defacto dictator of principle.

edit on 4-8-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

I believe Dr. Paul has made it very clear that without the "protections" that government gives to corporations, they would have to behave or face an unprecedented number of private individual lawsuits. True competition would be allowed to exist if it can be done better it will be, not forced with monopolies. No more taking of private property so a corporation can "decide" how its to be used.

"an unprecedented number of private individual lawsuits"

I will be blunt... I think that is a load of hogwash. I actually think it is complete fantasy that is so over the top of oblivious it offends me.

Do tell, can you drop several million dollars on a protracted lawsuit?

I cannot,,, in fact, not one person in my life could even begin to fund a high value suit.

Monopolies can thrive in any circumstance sire, look at the genesis of the word itself... Older than this country or its current regulations.

Please explain how this wave of private suits is going to make the corporation quiver, more over explain who will fund this wave and how you will prove the genesis of things like pollution and mutual collusion. Both things are inherent benefits of power and excessive resources.






I cannot afford a lawyer and I am unable to maintain a protracted lawsuit

reply to post by civilchallenger


To take your premise.
Currently a nun wants to build a school.
Currently a nut does not want her to build that school.
With the people leading the government, there are laws and enforcement in place to either prevent him from stopping her or punishing him for his attempt.

Anarchy.
Nun wants to build a school.
Nut does not want her to build that school.
Both leaders, they decide to solve it themselves.
Nut uses gun.
Nun uses bleeding to death.

Who is leading now?