Revolution, Civil War, or Restoration. Which will you choose?

Originally posted by eywadevotee
History has shown us these type of protests lead the way for a manipulative charismatic leader to take power. Stalin Hitler and friends. It has always been from the frying pan into the fire. Something has to be done, but are you willing to take the bitter red pill to cure the disease? The disease is BOTH government corruption and general laziness of people who are unwilling to do anything on their own. It's "they got their piece of the pie, WHERE IS MINE?" That's the nuts and bolts of the protesters message. How about this, rather than sucking the government's big throbbing C%%K why not get together with a few friends and start your own business?

As for the corruption, it will take care of itself soon enough, especially if people instead of demanding "fairness" nut up, create their own jobs, open their windows, and tell the manipulative cronies that they are mad as hell at them and WE ARE not going to take it anymore, GIVE ME JUSTICE AND LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME DEATH!

Because the instant you attempt to rise to their level on your own, some big economic conglomerate that receives governmental bailouts with YOUR had earned money will come crushing down on you to buy up all your stock and liquidate your company.

reply to post by Vortiki

This is what the OWS movement has evolved into:

Americans taking a stand against all these things and more. It's a personal movement for everyone in the sense that everyone wants something that has a personal effect on them. At the same time it is a national movement, because we are all tired of the same old song and dance and we're ready to give something new a shot of working.

And this is exactly why it will lead to violence.

There is no real clear idea of what people want. Do they want socialism? Do they want a -return- to the free market (and not this cattywompus mix of "capital-fascocialism" we have)?

From what I've seen - there are two main camps - the "real" middle class - and the college students who think they have a clue. The "real" middle class tends to ring more of the Town Hall variety (dare we say the "Tea Party"?). The others just sound like a bunch of socialists who seem to think WalMart has a "violate laws of physics" switch that can be flipped to re-stock the shelves at no cost.

Sure - none of them like the way things are going... because we are between two economic systems. We are trying to be in the middle of the road, and Mr. Miyagi has a word of caution about being in the middle of the road.

The only thing that can be agreed upon is that things need to change. The problem is that we do not necessarily agree upon how things should change. I've gotten into it with earthcitizen a couple times over this issue - I'm some kind of selfish loon because I don't like the idea of the government telling businesses what to do (unless it is at the state/local level), and I don't like the idea of the government taking away my options and conditions for charitable donation/community outreach.

Suffice to say - I'm willing to direct demands I comply with a system I find to be an excruciatingly bad idea (socialism) to the end of a gun barrel. I don't much care to force others to live by that same principle - I am an incredibly principled person. I take it to the extremes; I will not touch a tray of party food, even after more than 24 hours without food, without first being invited to do so. It is, to me, the utmost disrespect to assume that you are entitled to something. I will, also, never invite someone out to eat without presuming I am going to pay for them (you don't invite someone to an expense - and should never expect another person to incur a loss by your invitation). Hence - I have to take a few moments to quell the intense anger I feel when I go to make a sandwich and find out half a loaf of bread (that I purchased) has been demolished over night and the lunch-meat virtually gone.

In that regard, I don't really hold many of these protests in too high of an esteem - because of the general tone from, at least the noisier crowd, that clearly expresses their desire to have life handed to them.

I, honestly, would starve to death before going on food stamps or welfare. If I had a family - it would be a different story - kids are not to blame for my own problems - I would see to it they were provided for; but since it's just me - it's a greater shame to be dependent upon a system that takes money from nameless and faceless people and grants it to me. That, to me, is the epitome of selfishness. Sure - you can be negligently selfish - seeking higher wages than appropriate, sitting on sums of money that could be actively re-invested into businesses rather than sitting in banks to back the lending industry (which, while important, has become a very unhealthy practice).... but it's, at least in my opinion, the very definition of selfish to hold one's own existence as being a right to be guaranteed by others.

And that is where I don't see this OWS movement as an ultimately good or productive thing. At some point, the fissure between people like myself and people "on the other side" will appear.

The problem in this country isn't the "1%" - it's the difference in lifestyles and our quests to force those lifestyles upon others. It has been over-nationalization of our republic of states.

reply to post by eywadevotee


Protests don't by default end up in having the tyrannical, charismatic leader step in. Not immediately anyway, it is a distinct possibility by any measure however. But the larger requirement for that to happen is if what is being protested continuously falls on deaf ears. Hitler didn't gain power overnight, he spent years putting out his message and growing his party. And as things got progressively worse more people started listening to him. Stalin followed the same course. Whether a charismatic tyrant comes out of OWS depends solely on if the our elected representatives continue to sit on their collective hands or not.

im going to just sit back, relax, and wait for the age of golden light.

oh my bad, i mean "Restoration."

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by Asktheanimals

 

So in other words by your own flawed logic anyone wanting change is a traitor. Until they somehow magically become not a traitor after an amendment to the Constitution is passed. That is some fine simplistic thinking right there. Sorry real life is seldom so simple. The amendment process exists as a means to effect change and to allow us to iron problems that were left unattended. The Constitution is far from perfect even the founders knew that. Even today we are wrestling with a problem they couldn't agree on an answer to corporate greed and it's influence on Congress.

There's no logic involved. The Constitution is the law of the land, period. Change is necessary and inevitable, the Constitution allows the flexibility to make changes. Where we have gotten in to trouble is when the government has gone outside of it - for instance in creating the Federal Reserve System, allowing Executive orders to become de facto law or the passage of the Patriot Acts I and II.

The biggest problem today is all the distractions and seeming multiplicity of choices - communist, socialist, capitalist, democratic socialists,corporatist blah blah blah.
We either stick with our most basic tenet of law or we're doomed. That's my opinion on it.
How can we rally the American people? And to what?

What I'm saying is that it's a starting point. If we can all agree on this one thing we can work out the rest through the Amendment process. Otherwise we're going to keep being played by the PTB until there is no middle class left and the world is in a state of eternal low-intensity military conflict.

The power of the people needs to be restored to the Federal government and I totally support Ron Paul. I don't agree with all of his positions but we have to be able to let a few things go to get what we want through compromise.

Supporting the Constitution is flawed logic?
Fine, then what's your solution?

reply to post by Asktheanimals


I agree too many cooks in the kitchen need to pick one too many compromises have been made too many shades of gray too many apeasement's have been made.

A Constitution for a Constitutional Republic where no ones right's superceed that of any others and it's protection.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


And none of this is what you said. You made it entirely clear that either you support the Constitution or you don't. You left the rest of it in ambiguity to be read however one saw fit to read it. The fact remains if you take your original stance you are in effect saying the document is perfect and needs no change. Because to change it is in effect saying you do not support or agree with some part of it or that it is lacking.

Now that you have clarified your position, and taken less than authoritarian tact we are in agreement that it should be the foundation. I never said I didn't support or believe in it, I was replying to your militant tact that it is fine as is and should never face change. Even going so far as to give you an example of how even back then, the possibility of banking and corporations corrupting the political process were considered an issue that was left unaddressed. It was designed to be changed as needed, and the means to change it were by design made difficult so that any such change had to be seriously scrutinized and considered.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Vortiki

 

The only thing that can be agreed upon is that things need to change. The problem is that we do not necessarily agree upon how things should change. I've gotten into it with earthcitizen a couple times over this issue - I'm some kind of selfish loon because I don't like the idea of the government telling businesses what to do (unless it is at the state/local level), and I don't like the idea of the government taking away my options and conditions for charitable donation/community outreach.

Liberals see a problem with corporations. Conservatives see a problem with the government.

A realist sees a problem with both. I belong to the third group, eventhough my roots have a liberal foundation.

A corporation is a legal entity that has gained artificial persona and as such should be regulated like everything else. This is a common sense issue for me(and I speculate for many others as well).

As for social welfare systems many countries throughout the globe have such in place and I see absolutely NOTHING WRONG with it. Some nations take it to extremes, but that is a different story, since libertarians want absolutely no state intervention in wealth distribution and/or the provision of other related services.

Libertarians are part time anarchists and part time republicans it seems. They have no problem with lemon socialism, that is bailing out "too big to fail" companies but they DO have a problem with sick and injured people collecting state welfare. I think this approach is utterly inhumane, unfair and morally corrupt but it is still MY OPINION and others can disagree.

Originally posted by Mourninwoody

Originally posted by Tsurugi
reply to post by Honor93

 

if this is some lame attempt to excuse predatory lending, you are sadly mistaken. The responsibility of "due diligence" falls on all parties, not just the borrower.

I keep hearing about this "predatory lending." Will someone please explain to me how you can make money by giving it to people who can't/won't pay it back?
Maybe it was predatory borrowing, which was enabled by the forced lowering of lending standards that was required for the Affordable Housing crap. (those houses are really affordable now, aren't they? Too bad if you actually had equity in your home....but hey, at least poor people can now afford to buy your house from you!!)

I believe It works by loaning money to high risk persons then repackaging the loans with others, bribing moody's to give their stamp of approval and selling the loans to investors as AAA quality. Many of the investors that bought this garbage were big funds where peoples 401k's were invested. Perhaps the people that manage these funds knew this stuff was garbage and were on the take, I don't know but wouldn't be surprised. Also its my understanding those selling this crap short it and make additional money on the downside. I believe Goldman Sachs was caught doing this. When everything crashes they get their "bought and paid for" politicians to bail out the "to big to fail" institutions with our tax dollars. Thats my understanding of things though I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert.

I don't think most people are upset with every wealthy person in America (I'm not), just those that make their fortunes in this manner and rightly so.

edit on 17-10-2011 by Mourninwoody because: (no reason given)

I agree 100% with this post made by another member and since I do not feel like rehashing his words or plagiarising anything I quote the entirety with proper attribution. Read it and memorise it!!!!!!

Revolution or Civil War ,well it wont come to that the UN will make sure of it then we all will be labeled as insurgents.

But I swore an oath on the constitution so I will protect it from enemy's foreign and domestic.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

A corporation is a legal entity that has gained artificial persona and as such should be regulated like everything else. This is a common sense issue for me(and I speculate for many others as well).

I'll put it to you this way:

The problem we have is over-nationalization - attempting to solve everything at the highest level.

I don't care if you want to live under socialism - or if all of Oklahoma decides it wants to ban certain products or manufacturing methods. That is their state to run the way they want to. New Jersey can decide to collect all income over $50,000 a year (thereby instating a sort of "maximum" pay) if they want. It's their mini-country. They can regulate businesses in the way they see fit, they can instate social programs as they see fit, they can delegate and restrict their own powers as they see fit (perhaps they would prefer to give more authority to the county - particularly in dense urban states).

What I do care about is when you start trying to take that garbage and apply it across the entire nation. That is not the way our country was designed to operate. If you try to force the types of things you want upon my district - that will be taken as an open act of oppression and be met with very, very unhappy sentiments. Secession will ensue and any attempts to block our right to establish our own governments and sovereignty will be met with a military response.

Are you even beginning to grasp the magnitude of what has been brewing in this country for over 60 years?

As for social welfare systems many countries throughout the globe have such in place and I see absolutely NOTHING WRONG with it. Some nations take it to extremes, but that is a different story, since libertarians want absolutely no state intervention in wealth distribution and/or the provision of other related services.

Whether or not you see anything wrong with it is irrelevant. We have already established that I really couldn't care less about what your opinion is. I have made my decision on the matter, and will act in accordance with that decision.

Libertarians are part time anarchists and part time republicans it seems. They have no problem with lemon socialism, that is bailing out "too big to fail" companies but they DO have a problem with sick and injured people collecting state welfare. I think this approach is utterly inhumane, unfair and morally corrupt but it is still MY OPINION and others can disagree.

You keep using party labels. Why? I am me. Nothing more. Nothing less. I may have a crowd that tends to run parallel to my own views, but I will clash with them as passionately when incongruent as I will with groups that are typically 180 out from my own stance.

The problem with your assessment is, also, that it is based on a fallacious principle. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are Government Sponsored Enterprises - which, roughly, translated into the stock that these companies were selling were treated like government securities. Economists were cautioning - back in 2003 - that financial trouble in the lending industry would lead to a bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because it was part of the deal.

There, really, was no need to even discuss the issue. It was a contract arrangement that, to be honest, never should have been.

As for the poor and sick - I really don't care. I don't know these people that you seem to - and really don't care about their plight. Let's be real. Now - for those I do know, I will bend over backwards to help; if they are really interested in improving their situation and motivated to work. I am not going to indulge someone who wants a roof over his/her head and food simply because they exist.

I am a very principled person, as I have stated before. I do not presume rights to something that is not mine, or that I have not been invited to share. Plain and simple. I expect the same basic courtesy from others. It is very rude and inconsiderate to presume you are entitled to something - particularly a share of some other person's belongings. I would starve to death before so much as helping myself to party favors without first being invited to do so.

Why? Because it's not mine to lay claim to.

So, when someone else wants to doddle about and claim that everyone has a right to exist and have a full stomach... at the price of other people... my gut reaction is complete revulsion combined with killing instinct.

There is no way, at all, for the two of us to live under the same economic system in harmony. There are two solutions - attrition, or division of powers so that both systems can exist within separate states of the Union - and we can agree to help each other out on common National issues.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


You're quite right Keli - the ability to buy influence in government was never really addressed and maybe because secretly they all wanted to be able to influence it through their money, who knows? Most of them were the among the wealthiest people in the colonies.
I did sound rather militant in my earlier statement but a traitor is one who tries to overthrow or subvert the government - which is the Constitution - the supreme law of the land.
We have had many Presidents who IMO have committed treason by disregarding the Constitution; Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR - those often touted by our educational system as our "greatest" Presidents.
All "had to" act outside of it to "save the nation", or so they say. Reality is they were the worst of those who would abridge and deny our most basic rights.
Every one of our rights has now become a privilege, subject to the variable whims of government. This is what must stop.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

A corporation is a legal entity that has gained artificial persona and as such should be regulated like everything else. This is a common sense issue for me(and I speculate for many others as well).

I'll put it to you this way:

The problem we have is over-nationalization - attempting to solve everything at the highest level.

I am not sure that is a real problem for most people. The real issue for me is that government has been infiltrated by big business and second it is too big and expensive to exist in its current state. We see the "war on drugs" and "war on terror" as classic examples being exaggerated and abused, even with false flag events sometimes to justify an over-inflated budget.

Social welfare services have been taking a direct hit as a result because money that belongs in the kitty has been diverted left and right for big business interests.

The problem with your assessment is, also, that it is based on a fallacious principle. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are Government Sponsored Enterprises - which, roughly, translated into the stock that these companies were selling were treated like government securities. Economists were cautioning - back in 2003 - that financial trouble in the lending industry would lead to a bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because it was part of the deal.

There, really, was no need to even discuss the issue. It was a contract arrangement that, to be honest, never should have been.

Is this a reply to my second post or what? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were NOT government sponsored enterprises during this scandalous fraud. The government bought an interest in them after they expressed the need for a bailout. That is what happens when some companies are "too big to fail".

Further both FMs were only a tiny part of the overall conspiracy. Real trouble started brewing when the glass-steagel act was repealed and allowed banks to become investment houses with little or no regulation.