It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

The American People Are Angry!

page: 21
87
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by frazzle
 





Maybe we should try a more esoteric approach. Maybe throw in a little poetry and mysticism for the communistically initiated since the basics are beneath them.


Proletariat art is a misnomer. They view art as "snotty highbrow" stuff. It is the deep flaw in Marxism that always leads to his followers stumbling. Of course, Marx did not much care for the followers, and wound up declaring "I am not a Marxist!", but he was being somewhat disingenuous pretending that it was the fault of his followers and not of his own philosophy.


Karl Marx was a communist and that is why he wrote the Communist Manifesto. He did not write the socialist manifesto, not that a socialist manifesto even exists. Calling anyone that is not a conservative or liberal a marxist is quite disingenous, but none-the-less something I would expect from someone who fears labeling conservatives as conservatives.




posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


You know what? You can call it "ad hominmen attacks" all you want. You are purposely distorting other peoples arguments. I haven't made any argument of "separation". Quite the contrary what I have just argued is that a government of We the People, for the People and by the People must live with the same restrictions on rights that any of the governed must and that is far from separation.

Your distortion of other people's arguments continues when you claim these people you are arguing with "pretend they are incapable of comprehending basic stuff." Again, quite the contrary, I, and certainly frazzle are not pretending any such thing and the both of us clearly have a firm grasp on "basic stuff".


But I am not the one pretending that ordinary citizens are on par with the police or military and that they should have the same weapons as they do. The government is not a seperate entity from the people or from corporations, since government is supposed to represent THE NATION as a whole.

And yes it makes a difference what party gets elected dispite the masonic bankers having the supreme upper hand via money being seen as a first amendment right.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


The Communist Manifesto is a slight book authored by two authors, Marx and Frederic Engels. Marx authored Das Kapital, which is hardly a slight book, and whether you know it or not you are echoing Marx's ideas.

This is the problem with not reading authors who've profoundly impacted the world. You wind up being the effect of that impact rather than cause.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


The Communist Manifesto is a slight book authored by two authors, Marx and Frederic Engels. Marx authored Das Kapital, which is hardly a slight book, and whether you know it or not you are echoing Marx's ideas.

This is the problem with not reading authors who've profoundly impacted the world. You wind up being the effect of that impact rather than cause.


Since I do not care about communism I am not interested in reading the communist manifesto in its entirety. Socialism is described as a transitionary stage where government nationalises industry to eventually turn it over to the workers, which in actuality resembles anarchy. It resembles anarchy because there is no class structure or central government.

The soviet union was effectively a communist union since everything was nationalised from top to bottom. It did not resemble western european socialism which is effectively a mixed economy. Critical infrastructure is nationalised and everything else remains in the private domain.

Why would I read marxism when I don't care about marxism?



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


In both instances I was pointing out the futility and harmful effects of revolution.


Yet you take a literal approach of the second amendment and see no need for it to be amended.

Why the hell would people stock up with the best hardware unless they plan to eventually USE IT?



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


It doesn't matter if you care about communism or not. You keep echoing Marxist's sentiments and you clearly do not know this.



...transitionary stage where government nationalises industry to eventually turn it over to the workers...


This is pure Marxist thought:


Capitalist production, therefore, develops technology, and the combining together of various processes into a social whole, only by sapping the original sources of all wealth — the soil and the labourer


~Das Kapital; Volume I, Chapter 13~

I've never been able to find a credible source to this attribution to Marx:


Democracy is the road to socialism.


Whether Marx ever actually said this or not, there sure plenty of socialists and communists alike who love to attribute it to him.

Deny Ignorance!



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





Still cannot compute basic math? If you don't like talking about a bloody revolution then just ignore it, but please stop with the fraudulent accusations. I never accused you of anything...other than what I am accusing you of now!


Before you can reach a correct equation you have to have all the components of the formula. I just found another component.


earthcitizen:

I am talking electroshock therapy, punctured organs, extreme heat therapy, pulling nails, homosexual activity, etc.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


That's not seeking justice, it's unmitigated revenge which is never a good way to start building a just society. Or have you thought that far into the future?


It seems you like taking things OUT OF CONTEXT whenever it suits you, make allegations at will and then claim "I did not say this because I said this". Utter, utter nonsense.

Perhaps you should read the context of the post I replied to see if it makes sense. If you disagree then that becomes your problem, not mine. Maybe you should stick to the topic at hand rather than drift all over the place.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


It doesn't matter if you care about communism or not. You keep echoing Marxist's sentiments and you clearly do not know this.



...transitionary stage where government nationalises industry to eventually turn it over to the workers...


This is pure Marxist thought:


Capitalist production, therefore, develops technology, and the combining together of various processes into a social whole, only by sapping the original sources of all wealth — the soil and the labourer


~Das Kapital; Volume I, Chapter 13~

I've never been able to find a credible source to this attribution to Marx:


Democracy is the road to socialism.


Whether Marx ever actually said this or not, there sure plenty of socialists and communists alike who love to attribute it to him.

Deny Ignorance!




Exchange the words Democracy for Capitalism and you've got a thought.

Historically, Capitalism is blamed for neglecting the poor, such as in Tzarist Russia, which led to the Bolshevik Red movement, because the capitalist system is based on greed and opportunism. I would say that pure capitalism is historically best expressed through African slavery, which was stopped by enforcement of the Constitution in the US. In one sense, one could say that the pure form of capitalism caused the constitution to hang by a thread.

Communism has similar results.In either case, either of the two extremes creates the worse outcome.

The problem with average people is that they are always manipulated and compromised by the extreme ideologies. All approaches and arguments are based upon the left or tight, with nothing in between.


I rarely hear anyone talking about how capitalism and social democracy lend credence to one another.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


It doesn't matter if you care about communism or not. You keep echoing Marxist's sentiments and you clearly do not know this.



...transitionary stage where government nationalises industry to eventually turn it over to the workers...


This is pure Marxist thought:


Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote from a communist perspective and the final goal was communism, WHICH ACCORDING TO THEM was "a stateless and classless society". A stateless and classless society IS ANARCHISM in pure thought. It means no government and no class structure! DUHHHH

I am FOR GOVERNMENT and FOR CLASS STRUCTURE therefore I CANNOT be an anarchist.

The soviet union could have called itself a socialist republic all it wanted but so did hitler with his national socialism. There are many types of socialism just like there are many types of capitalism. Pure socialism in practice is reffered to communism where everything is nationalised and people work for the government. This is practical communism and that is why people called the soviet union communist unofficially.

I do NOT adhere to communism(full socialism) NOR ANARCHY therefore I disagree with lots of marxist thoughts. Yes he got many of the basic ideas correct unlike the capitalists, but I like to call myself a social democrat who likes a mixed economy. A pure private economy and a pure public economy are both extremes and I do not like extremes.

YOU EITHER GET IT OR YOU DON'T GET IT! Unfortunately I do not have enough time to split hairs with you or frazzle because I have a job and a family to take care off. The summer season for me is very busy and I cannot focus on politics as much as I would like.
edit on 7/7/12 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



It seems you like taking things OUT OF CONTEXT whenever it suits you, make allegations at will and then claim "I did not say this because I said this". Utter, utter nonsense.

Perhaps you should read the context of the post I replied to see if it makes sense. If you disagree then that becomes your problem, not mine. Maybe you should stick to the topic at hand rather than drift all over the place.


I not only read it, I posted the link in case anyone else wanted to read it. The words, even taken out of context, portray someone who thinks the rule of law should not apply to certain people simply because of who they are. You do know who says torture ~ oh, pardon me, I mean enhanced interrogation for people who've not been charged with any crime is perfectly acceptable, right? Careful that you don't become what you hate.

As for the second amendment ....


In 1982 the Senate Judiciary Committee Sub-committee on the Constitution stated in Senate Document 2807:

"That the National Guard is not the 'Militia' referred to in the Second Amendment is even clearer today. Congress had organized the National Guard under its power to 'raise and support armies' and not its power to 'Provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia.' The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. 311(a).

Title 32 U.S.C. in July 1918 completely altered the definition of the militia and its service, who controls it and what it is. The difference between the National Guard and Regular Army was swept away, and became a personnel pay folder classification only, thus nationalizing the entire National Guard into the Regular Standing Armies of the United States."


But a little over a hundred years earlier, when no one remembered ...


"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . .Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, VP of the United States 1813-1814, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789


www.barefootsworld.net...

So you see, the second amendment was "amended" almost before the ink was dry on it. Not good enough for you, amend it some more until it just isn't there anymore.

When government stops arming itself to the teeth, which is proven to be because they are forever intending to attack someone with them, maybe the people wouldn't feel the need to prepare for their own DEFENSE against the potential of those weapons of mass destruction to be used against Americans. The attempts to take down Posse Comitatus is all the evidence we need.

As for what we could do with our little pop guns, here's an object lesson. Too big to fail. HAH!

www.eyewitnesstohistory.com...



edit on 7-7-2012 by frazzle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by g2v12
 





I rarely hear anyone talking about how capitalism and social democracy lend credence to one another.


I'm done using the word "capitalism". It has been appropriated by too many factions, and far too many who rely upon Marx's definition of the word. I am, as I have always been, a free market advocate. In terms of "social democracy" this appears to be a redundant phrase. Democracy and free markets, however, do not mix. One could argue that the liberty that comes with a free market, the ability to "vote" with your money and purchase your goods and services of choice is a principle of democracy, but when we equate democracy with government that free market would never have a chance of survival.

There are too many people too willing to believe that regulatory schemes protect them from harm. It matters not that iatrogenocide (death by licensed doctor) is the third leading cause of death in America. It matters not, that in spite of a tyrannical FDA, people die of botulism from food supposedly approved by the FDA. Hell, Congress has "handled" the problem of suicidal tendencies caused by "anti-depressants" by simply demanding pharmaceuticals place a warning label on their drugs. Imagine that! Regulation that places warning labels on "anti-depressants" prescribed for depression that warns the use of the drug may lead to suicidal tendencies, and this is what makes people feel safe? No, caveat emptor - let the buyer beware - remains as prudent advise as it ever has, and this is in regards to a heavily regulated market place.

Of course, for many, it isn't at all about being protected from any harm that the actual goods and services may cause and is much more about plunder. For many, who in a democracy, the desire is to control "private" business in ways that force them to pay more than a market may bear. Most people don't want to take the risk of going into business for themselves but believe that they should have the authority to determine what portion of the profits generated from the business they work in goes to them, and they believe they should be able to enforce this determination through the force of government, which is plunder.

A strong republic that protects the unalienable rights of all people, including the right to own property, but for the socialist that right to own property is disregarded. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a socialist, once declared "all property is theft!", but the answer to this the "theft" is to steal it for themselves, the bullies and brutes who call themselves socialists and pretend their theft is "in the name of the people".

Whoever actually said democracy is the road to socialism was correct. Democracy is certainly not the road to a free and unregulated market.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



There are too many people too willing to believe that regulatory schemes protect them from harm. It matters not that iatrogenocide (death by licensed doctor) is the third leading cause of death in America. It matters not, that in spite of a tyrannical FDA, people die of botulism from food supposedly approved by the FDA.


And that's just one example. A few pages back you named a whole slew of abc regulatory agencies and when you put them all together, billions of dollars are wasted every year just on shuffling paper and writing rules that sometimes conflict with or overlap another agency's rules, which are not really laws, but which can get you thrown in jail by judges and juries who cannot read or understand them either. (whew, deep breath)

Thinking about that caused me to track down another reference to your vagueness doctrine and I want to know why hasn't this doctrine been used in court by SOMEBODY to shut these out of control agencies down. How many thousands of pages of rules, regulations and revisions does it take to render the language too vague for the average person to comprehend?


A doctrine derived from the due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution that requires criminal laws to be drafted in language that is clear enough for the average person to comprehend.

If a person of ordinary intelligence cannot determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed under a particular law, then the law will be deemed unconstitutionally vague. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that no one may be required at peril of life, liberty, or property to speculate as to the meaning of a penal law. Everyone is entitled to know what the government commands or forbids.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 





I want to know why hasn't this doctrine been used in court by SOMEBODY to shut these out of control agencies down.


We have foolishly relied far to heavily on attorneys...licensed attorneys...who are the ones relied upon to draft legislation and regulations, who purposely write them to be vague so as to give themselves that priest class status. It is going to take you and I and people who know the law and are not intimidated by the priest class lawyer sect to rely upon sound principles of law, such as the vagueness doctrine to, if not bring down the agencies, use the law to get them off our individual asses.

Much like water, lawyers are insidious. The seep into everything and bring their world of mold and mildew.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by frazzle
 





I want to know why hasn't this doctrine been used in court by SOMEBODY to shut these out of control agencies down.


We have foolishly relied far to heavily on attorneys...licensed attorneys...who are the ones relied upon to draft legislation and regulations, who purposely write them to be vague so as to give themselves that priest class status. It is going to take you and I and people who know the law and are not intimidated by the priest class lawyer sect to rely upon sound principles of law, such as the vagueness doctrine to, if not bring down the agencies, use the law to get them off our individual asses.

Much like water, lawyers are insidious. The seep into everything and bring their world of mold and mildew.


''The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" has always been my favorite line from King Henry VI.

That's why they quickly overwrote the original 13th amendment. Belonging to the bar association makes one royalty ~ esquire.

When we return to using unlicensed (there's that word again) advocates again, we might make some progress. Its the "proper filing procedures" that scares the $#@$ out of most people, including me.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 





When we return to using unlicensed (there's that word again) advocates again, we might make some progress. Its the "proper filing procedures" that scares the $#@$ out of most people, including me.


Assistance of Counsel

We've heard it all before, seen in it in movies, TV shows, read it in novels, short stories, comic books, ubiquitously the norm, those so-called, and certainly famous...or infamous, "Miranda Rights." "...you have the right to an attorney...one will be appointed for you..." Those "Miranda Rights". In reality, however, what you have, is Assistance of Council:


n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence


~Sixth Amendment; Bill of Rights: Constitution for the United States of America~

(Emphasis added)

Somehow, the meaning of Assistance of Counsel has become synonymous with Licensed Attorney.

The practice of law is most public when a matter is tried before a court. In both civil and criminal hearings and trials, lawyers must understand rules of procedure and evidence. Lawyers select jurors, challenge the introduction of evidence, make arguments to the judge and jury, propose jury instructions and do whatever is necessary to represent their clients. Lawyers also may file appeals on behalf of their clients if they lose in the trial court. Appeals require the preparation of a brief and oral argument in front of appellate judges.


This paragraph defining a licensed attorney makes a compelling legal argument. The rules and procedures are subtleties that do exist but are generally not known to the public in general, and this is the compelling argument for using an attorney as Assistance of Counsel. Where "assistance" means help and support, "counsel" in its legal definition is more complex. Counsel is legally speaking an attorney, and following the link to the definition of counsel you'll find that counsel is also a word used to refer to those attorneys who not the "principle lawyer in charge of of a case."

Follow the link I made earlier and you'll find that "the government must not interfere with representation, either through the manner of appointment or through the imposition of restrictions upon appointed or retained counsel that would impede his ability fairly to provide a defense" and this seems to make a lot of sense, and would presumably give one pause when dealing with a licensed attorney who has by definition of the word itself, only able to do what the state allows the privileged attorney. That attorney does not practice law by right, but exists by the good graces of the state.

I think that what has been lost in the translation of the simple English language of Assistance of Counsel into legalese is the notion that the "principle lawyer in charge of the case" should technically be either the plaintiff or the defendant. We are all presumed to know the law, it follows that if we are obligated to take up such a responsibility we as either a plaintiff or defendant have the right to be the one who confronts their accuser instead of relinquishing that inherent political power in exchange for representation. The problem with this tautological verb is that as a verb it is just as correct to say represent, and if you take a good look at that definition you'll discover that, as a verb, this word also means Act For, , but this takes you to a suggestion of defining other words in order to better understand the phrase, offering the words; displace, replace, right back to represent, followed by substitute and supplant thrown in for good measure.

In written law, each and every word has significance.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I’m not all that law savvy, but I’m a somewhat familiar with the procedures you describe here even though I’ve only ever been a witness once, a potential juror twice and an observer on a few occasions. My concern is more that activist judges can and do refuse to allow evidence that’s based on constitutional arguments. It’s the luck of the draw. So if a defendant or plaintiff happened to draw one of those types, wouldn’t disallowing constitutional evidence and testimony destroy whatever argument he or she was planning to present, such as the vagueness doctrine, since its based on constitutional amendments? How could assistance of counsel remedy that?

As far as Miranda Rights go, I’ve actually been given that on one occasion although the judge just laughed at the charges and threw the case out before even asking me to plead. But the upshot was that I was actually assigned a public defender ~ who was also supposed to be the prosecutor. Rinky dink outfit! So how would I have gone about asking this guy to do assistance of counsel if the case had gone further than it did and what kind of advice could he have given?

I know about the need to use care in the exact wording on any legal document and as far as I’m concerned that’s one of the most intimidating features of courts and laws.

Anyway, a friend of mine wasn’t quite as lucky as I had been and he was assigned this fat lazy slob of a public defender that he couldn’t get removed from the case and he also drew a “hanging judge” who was later removed from the bench for bad behavior. Of course that didn’t get my friend less time behind bars because he was more or less forced to accept a plea bargain by his “lawyer” and therefore lost his constitutional rights, so they went straight to the sentencing phase. We did manage to spring him early but it cost his family a small fortune to hire a private attorney.

And then there are administrative courts where no one has any rights. Expletive deleted.

That's probably why so many people think its smarter to just behave themselves or at least stay under the radar. One thing that occurs to me, though, there are many constitutional courses available, but I've never heard of courses teaching a normal person to take the legal battle to the lion's den. We need something like that. Besides paralegals.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle

Originally posted by eNaR
reply to post by jude11
 


Most everyone on the planet is angry.

...loss of freedoms
...loss of wealth
...loss of privacy
...loss of employment
...loss of loved ones due to war, famine, etc.
...loss of security
...loss of LIBERTY

The list actually would be much longer, but I'm sure everyone gets the drift..... And life goes on and the rich get richer while we think everything is peachy keen......


Are there really all that many people who still think its peachy keen?

Maybe you could help us figure out what to do about it?



Key word was "think". We think everything is okay. It's not however....

...there's many who know everything IS okay..... the extremely rich (billionaires), who are at the top of the heap, come to mind. The Republican and Democrat elite, NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL players making 7 or 8 figure yearly salaries, Wall Street banksters and stock brokers, talentless rappers with gold teeth talking trash about cops and hoes, drug lords, those who deal in human trafficking, blah, blah, blah....

So that leaves us who believe that we're doing alright.

What can we do about it?

Not much but ..... maybe watch "Dancing with the Stars" or "the Biggest Loser" or "some major league sport" or "NASCAR" or watch "nightly news and see rampant crime, death and destruction" .......... and somehow believe we're doing okay because those in power are lulling us into submission with crazy ass reality shows and having us believe athletes are so important in our lives and that fat guy over there, glad you're not his size and on and on and on...... all to keep our minds off the important stuff.....

So are American and others all over the planet angry? Bloody right they are !!!!!! But there's not much we can do....



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by g2v12
 





I rarely hear anyone talking about how capitalism and social democracy lend credence to one another.


I'm done using the word "capitalism". It has been appropriated by too many factions, and far too many who rely upon Marx's definition of the word. I am, as I have always been, a free market advocate. In terms of "social democracy" this appears to be a redundant phrase. Democracy and free markets, however, do not mix. One could argue that the liberty that comes with a free market, the ability to "vote" with your money and purchase your goods and services of choice is a principle of democracy, but when we equate democracy with government that free market would never have a chance of survival.


Democracy is the rule of the majority...AS IT SHOULD BE!

A government run by republican principles IS what is causing ALL the problems. A tiny minority controlling an overwhelming majority. What freaking planet do you live on to not be able to see this? Or perhaps you are what you preach and like giving people the run around.

If the minority do not like it, then if they are smart enough, they should pack their bags and leave quietly. Much like a dictator whom has realised his time is up and negotiates a helicopter ride at midnight FROM HIS ROOF to avoid getting lynched by the mob.

Perhaps america will get a cue from the south american dictators whom either got killed or are rotting in prison for life.


Whoever actually said democracy is the road to socialism was correct. Democracy is certainly not the road to a free and unregulated market.


Exactly there is no such thing as a free and unregulated market. Wanting this IS BAD PRACTICE! Those that believe that capitalism can be reformed 'to be fair and equal' are delluding themselves silly and trying to dellude others as well.

Ludwig Von Misses, H.L Mencken and Ayn Rand were PSEUDO-intellectuals that NEVER had their material peer-reviewed. Listening to them and believing them is stupid. Much more stupid than believing in karl marx or friedrich engels.
edit on 8/7/12 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by frazzle
 





I want to know why hasn't this doctrine been used in court by SOMEBODY to shut these out of control agencies down.


We have foolishly relied far to heavily on attorneys...licensed attorneys...who are the ones relied upon to draft legislation and regulations, who purposely write them to be vague so as to give themselves that priest class status. It is going to take you and I and people who know the law and are not intimidated by the priest class lawyer sect to rely upon sound principles of law, such as the vagueness doctrine to, if not bring down the agencies, use the law to get them off our individual asses.

Much like water, lawyers are insidious. The seep into everything and bring their world of mold and mildew.



Oh please. Stop with the hypocrisy already. It is becoming infuriating!

Those that worship money(the bourgeois elitist masonic sionist capitalist class) have NO PLANS doing away with anything you mention. They never did. Why would they? Capitalism is rule of the strongest jungle mentality, always has and always will be.

If you don't like taxes, licensce schemes, lawyers, high brow politicians THEN stop shooting yourself in the foot and become a socialist.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by eNaR
reply to post by jude11
 


Key word was "think". We think everything is okay. It's not however....

...there's many who know everything IS okay..... the extremely rich (billionaires), who are at the top of the heap, come to mind. The Republican and Democrat elite, NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL players making 7 or 8 figure yearly salaries, Wall Street banksters and stock brokers, talentless rappers with gold teeth talking trash about cops and hoes, drug lords, those who deal in human trafficking, blah, blah, blah....

So that leaves us who believe that we're doing alright.

What can we do about it?

Not much but ..... maybe watch "Dancing with the Stars" or "the Biggest Loser" or "some major league sport" or "NASCAR" or watch "nightly news and see rampant crime, death and destruction" .......... and somehow believe we're doing okay because those in power are lulling us into submission with crazy ass reality shows and having us believe athletes are so important in our lives and that fat guy over there, glad you're not his size and on and on and on...... all to keep our minds off the important stuff.....

So are American and others all over the planet angry? Bloody right they are !!!!!! But there's not much we can do....


Believe me, I get your cynicism and frustration. I do know people who believe they're "doing alright" for right now, but they all KNOW it can change in a heartbeat, you can see it in their eyes. Some try to pretend its just a cycle and that we'll get through it like we always have before so they stay hunkered down while hoping someone else fixes it. But most of the people I know are just hanging on as tight as they can to the jobs they have, hoping the world around them won't implode without a moment's notice and they're prepping for the worst as much as they know how to do. But I don't know any of the kinds of people you talked about in your post, so I just couldn't say ...

You're right, though, that there's not much any of us can do because we're isolated and unorganized and there is no plan.



new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join