It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why America Will FAIL without Intervention from YOU!

page: 8
26
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

While you may very well be right about TPTB being too entrenched, we still need to press forward. 

We need to pull the curtain back and find out who is behind it...then show them the door. 


Lets speak in allegory. Let's suppose that you have a brick building on the corner, with a machine inside spewing some undesirable substance into the atmosphere of your neighborhood. let's further assume that the brick building is very difficult to get into, and so it's very difficult to get to the actual source of the substance, the machine itself.

What is one to do?

keep slapping at the wall, hoping it will fall and you can then get at the machine? Or is it better to attack the outlets of the substance instead? Plug them, cut off power to the building, throw sand into the ducts?

Ignore the machine. Work on the outlets and inlets to it. There are things the machine requires to do it's thing. Deny it those things.




posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy

Representative democracy has failed. There is no fix, only "IFs"....


"Representative Democracy" fails only when those being represented fail to engage and hold the representatives accountable.

If "Representative Democracy" fails due to lack of interest, what is to lead us to believe a "Direct Democracy" would engage the voters any more? What you would have then is what you have now - a small, power-hungry cabal making the decisions for every one else.

There is no significant advantage, but a significant drawback... in that direct democracy, there are no longer any stops to prevent the takeover by the very few. There is no disconnect, no "cut-out" which the representatives embody.

What are we to do when only 25% of the population votes on an issue, and 51% of that 25% pass a law that applies to 100 % of us? I mean "what are we to do" other than to give up our individual sovereignty? No, I believe that limiting government to it's original constraints is a far preferable answer to expanding it to "everyone", most of whom don't care enough to engage.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 




I have a voice. I am not a mob, nor a part of one. I am ruled only by consent - if I don't consent, that rule doesn't matter at all to me. I'll ignore it. I don't need to be part of a gang to rule myself.


Interesting... so you consent to paying a federal income tax, which is wasted at every turn?



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by nenothtu
 


If you've followed my posts you'll find I don't want the government controlled by the wealthy elite and I have no faith in the current government. The current government is way WAY too powerful and I want to see it taken down a few notches.I want it to be a government for and by the people without the constant eroding of our rights.

But don't take that to mean the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I don't appreciate irrationality and knee jerk reactions.




Does that mean you DO like TPTB, or you DON'T like them? My report depends on the answer! if you DON'T, then why do you consistently attack others who make it clear they don't, too?

Seriously, whether the enemy or your enemy is your friend or not, sometimes people can be their own worst enemies, and cut their own noses off to spite their faces. You won't make much progress by trying to take out the rest of the people trying to make that same progress.

There's always time for bitching, bickering, and infighting later, at leisure... once you HAVE that leisure!



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 




If "Representative Democracy" fails due to lack of interest, what is to lead us to believe a "Direct Democracy" would engage the voters any more?


Umm... because the people would actually have a direct say, rather than hoping their representative will do their job.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by nenothtu
 


You are of the mindset that we are fighting only a human force period.

That may or may not be the case.


I'm of the mindset that I don't CARE whether it's human or not. You fight aether with other aether, smoke with smoke. I've yet to find a pall of smoke anywhere that my physical hand won't cut through like... well, like smoke.



The "government" is but a front for the real wheels of power.


Doesn't matter. Throw sand in the grease in the bearings of those wheels. See how far the "real power" can ride that carriage then.



And no, I don't fear the reaper, been close enough to death to know him on a first name basis.



So have I, which is exactly why spooks don't spook me. I know beyond doubt that I have nothing to lose, yet I will lose it eventually any how. My final disposition doesn't matter at all - it's how I lived, what I stood for, and what I did to make that happen that counts.

The rest is just smoke and spooks.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
And t5hat's one of the poorest definitions of Conservatives EVER?

Why?

Because if the liberals actually have the change they want when they have the change they will fight to keep the changes in place. Therefore they are upholding the status quo, and that makes them conservatives.

so in short, everybody will eventually become a conservative.



Tell it to Webster. I don't create the language.

Are you at all familiar with the Republican party during the Civil War and Reconstruction, and have you compared what it was then to now, and maybe 50 years ago?

I rest my case.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
reply to post by nenothtu
 




I have a voice. I am not a mob, nor a part of one. I am ruled only by consent - if I don't consent, that rule doesn't matter at all to me. I'll ignore it. I don't need to be part of a gang to rule myself.


Interesting... so you consent to paying a federal income tax, which is wasted at every turn?


Do I?



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
reply to post by nenothtu
 




If "Representative Democracy" fails due to lack of interest, what is to lead us to believe a "Direct Democracy" would engage the voters any more?


Umm... because the people would actually have a direct say, rather than hoping their representative will do their job.


Again, what good is their "direct say" when they fail to say anything at all?



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 




Again, what good is their "direct say" when they fail to say anything at all?


Those who choose to participate will.
Those who don't obviously want others to make their decisions for them.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 




Do I?


Well if you've found a loophole in which you don't pay federal tax, then more power to you.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Heck, the republican party has been a different party every twenty to fifty years. The Republican party party now was different than the Republican party of the 1980s. Back then it really was about conserving money. Now that ain't true.

But both parties change over time. Even the Democratic party of now was different from the Democratic party of the 1989s as well.

So you really didn't make any kind of a point.

And my point still stands. It's the poorest definition of Conservatives EVER!



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by DeReK DaRkLy
 



Umm... because the people would actually have a direct say, rather than hoping their representative will do their job.


I see what you mean and I feel that way about elections; I think the electoral college is bunk. However, the system can and would still be manipulated. Look at Holder et al up in Wisconsin today. They are running around race baiting to drive minorities to the poles against Walker. 

Our system was designed for people with honor and integrity. Unfortunately those traits seem to have disappeared along with chivalry long ago. 
edit on 5-6-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 




Our system was designed for people with honor and integrity. Unfortunately those traits seem to have disappeared with chivalry long ago.


Right, and as I said in my original response, the monkeys simply aren't ready to lead themselves yet.
Until we shift focus from a clan survival mentality to one of species survival, things will never get better.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
reply to post by nenothtu
 




Again, what good is their "direct say" when they fail to say anything at all?


Those who choose to participate will.
Those who don't obviously want others to make their decisions for them.


An Oligarchy, by any other name....

Do as you will. I can ignore the proletariat as easily as I can ignore the intelligentsia.

Since you are willing to give up your rights to "the masses", I'm curious about why you balk at giving them up to "representatives". If you are not in your own driver's seat, why do you care who IS?



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
reply to post by nenothtu
 




Do I?


Well if you've found a loophole in which you don't pay federal tax, then more power to you.


Ah.

You specified earlier "federal INCOME tax". Are we now changing the bar?



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
On the Left / Right Paradigm ~

Just some errant thoughts on that in general ~

I would consider myself to be a good person and an 'upright citizen' who 'does the right thing' - which is why I've always gone Left.

It is confusing to think that the *actual Conservative* thought is Left, while the *actual Deviant* thought is Right.

This is how I see it - and - it is known that certain tactics are used. Specifically - you forbid something - you get people to do it more. The Catholic Church does this with sex, it's well known. Advertisers employ this tactic often, also - watch for it - such as foods described as 'forbidden' and 'sinful'.

You make things wide open, no forbidding - have sex with whomever you want, drink yourself stupid, take drugs, etc - all of a sudden - with the 'forbidden' angle removed - these things seem much less interesting, don't they?

Then you begin to think - well what do *I* want? What is best for me? You move on.

Whereas with people telling you NO NO NO! - Well - that makes you WANT to do it, doesn't it?

Who has the cheaters and gays? Republicans. Because it has been so hyped up as "forbidden" - it makes it ever so attractive.
(Not the the Dems are without these sorts either, but they usually don't go to such extremes.)

Consider the most extreme too - the religious types, the big time Preachers - they get caught in so many scandals - why? The lure of the forbidden.

Remember - this tactic is often *purposefully used* to get YOU to do things - all the more. Think the Catholics are against sex? OH HELL NO! They want you humping and breeding like crazy! They make it 'shameful' and forbidden - they get people to do it *all the more*.

You take the shame and forbidding away - and things are then - MEH. No one cares. They'll stop doing whatever it is that's wanted. And move on to something else. And not necessarily a 'worse' thing. Because smart people see through the tricks, the manipulation.

That's why I've always thought - the most Conservative people out there are - Liberals.

As far as other ideology from The Left - yes indeed Biz needs to be regulated. This is a different animal. If regs are removed - will people 'do the right thing' - as Conservatives believe? NO. Because money and power are too tempting.

You cannot equate this ideology to social ideology either, as they are two different things. Greed is not the same as sex lust or alternative lifestyles. Forbid dirty dealing and it will still go on - but because these are public entities that have wide effects on many people - there has to be a structure. It is business, paperwork. People must be protected from greed and usury and the dumping of filth and any other externalities.

Conservatives seem to understand this in a 'social' way - Eg, if they don't protect 'the family' - children and society will suffer.

But you cannot mandate peoples' behavior because that will make them wish to go the other way all the more.

Preaching righteousness and Christian behavior and talking about consequence to others - this I would agree with.

But a Business is not the same thing. This is paperwork, structure, and can involve many many innocent people.

Two different spheres, so to speak.

And I find it odd that Conservatives do not care for 'Alternative Lifestyles' - and want to clamp down on that - but yet they want wide open freedom for Big Biz.

Just some thoughts to muse on, I'm tired and could probably state this better.

Final thought - if you want to be Conservative - you should go Liberal.

Yes it sounds crazy, but stop and think about it ~



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 




Since you are willing to give up your rights to "the masses", I'm curious about why you balk at giving them up to "representatives". If you are not in your own driver's seat, why do you care who IS?


Simple... I feel that my odds are better in the hands of ordinary citizens rather than ambitious would-be "leaders."
It is precisely the type of person who seeks power who is most likely to abuse that power.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Heck, the republican party has been a different party every twenty to fifty years. The Republican party party now was different than the Republican party of the 1980s. Back then it really was about conserving money. Now that ain't true.


Exactly. Why do people thing they are "conservative", then? What is it they think they are conserving?



But both parties change over time. Even the Democratic party of now was different from the Democratic party of the 1989s as well.


Indeed, 'tis true. they have both lurched to the "left".



So you really didn't make any kind of a point.


I allowed you to make it for me. thank you. Ain't I gracious?



And my point still stands. It's the poorest definition of Conservatives EVER!


Again, tell it to Webster. I don't create the language.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 




Ah. You specified earlier "federal INCOME tax". Are we now changing the bar?


Nope, just thought you could infer...

So, do you pay income tax to the feds or not?
If not, why not share your secret? ...or do you have your own interests in mind over the citizens' interest?



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join