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.

 

Hope in one hand, Change in the other. See which fills the fastest.

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Florida Senator Rubio states that Romney brings new hope; Obama promised us change. Neither offers us any tangibles but Rubio does see hope as an optimistic improvement over a growing hopelessness in those winds of change. Neither is the remedy. We need our independence to do it ourselves, to do it right, even if we get it wrong once in a while.

In his speech at the end of the Republican National Convention Romney states, “To the majority of Americans who now believe that the future will not be better than the past, I can guarantee you this: If Barack Obama is re-elected, you will be right.” He may well be correct in that, the future may tell, but what does it say about how Mitt himself would do in that role? He acknowledges America's need for jobs, "Lot's of jobs," he promises to create, and that can be viewed as a positive thing. Many young, fresh, wannabe wage-slaves shouldl be rejoicing. and suggests this can be done through balancing the budget, trade agreements, new fossil fuel production, education, and "reducing" taxes. These measures certainly don't hurt the already-wealthy.

This post is not intended at a slam against Mitt Romney, nor against President Obama either, I just do not see a lot of tangibles being brought to the table by either of them. Perhaps what America really is in dire need of at the moment is to reclaim itself and for its people to reclaim their independence. While we have been watching this hand for change and looking at the other gathering hope Americans have been being robbed blind of privacies and protections, protections from an invasive government. Maybe the drill here is supposed to be this sleight-of-hand of hard times, an economic hiccup to make room for the next course, and with a mostly unnoticed loss of American ideals the country can knuckle-down to some sparsening prosperity while the rest of the developing world's middle-class gtows into their version of the dream America popularized in an earlier era of time.

I will not be voting for Obama. I will not be voting for Mitt Romney either and I may not vote at all - not for anyone whose vote will count, at any rate. I would favor a liberty movement, though I don't expect to see any great strides being accomplished to make that a reality in the next few years. I don't expect to see our protections as American citizens rescued and restored from the likes of NDAA or any version of Patriot passed thus far. I exp3ect the TSA will expand itself into all aspects of transportation beyond airline flights to a simple walk to the corner market. I think Americans should look into reclaiming those things that have been lost to them in recent years.

Bring back American ideals, American freedom, and American independence back to its people. We should struggle to regain self-ownership once more, demand our right to make decisions even if they are wrong. We don't punish our bankers and institutions for making bad decisions, though we should hold them accountable and demand a disclosure of what went wrong so we don't repeat those mistakes. We should strive to be independent, self-resolving, and ambitious - even if it means we get it wrong from time to time. Big Brother need not be breathing over our shoulder and our nanny government need not dress us as we can tie our own shoes.

The only thing our leading presidential candidates promise us is more distractions, more things to draw away our attention while we are being robbed of our very home, country, our natural liberties, and our American independence.

Link


edit on 3-9-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Forget hope and change

I want FREEDOM



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Iron7
 


What is freedom? Freedom for who? What does it entail? What happens when your freedom starts to encroach on mine?



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by Iron7
 


What is freedom? Freedom for who? What does it entail? What happens when your freedom starts to encroach on mine?


That seems to be the boundary, before the freedoms encroach. I would expect people to have tolerance and backbone. Not to say it must stop before it offends the sensibilities of another, necessarily.

How far does authoritarianism and one's idea justice extend? Does your law and order need encroach on my freedom? I believe there is a time and a place for most everything. One-world government and globalism wants to encapsulate up in some group or committee's idea of what is good for us. I may think differently and should have a place I can exercise my liberties that with others of like mind, a place to express myself.

The boundary is before someone has to say, STOP! That goes for personal liberty, and that applies to authoritarian order as well. Should it not? Should self-ownership not exist? Or should it be respected?


edit on 3-9-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


You're forgetting one large, fundamental part of our society...the faceless corporation. When you have only one or two brands to choose from you have no freedom of choice, you only have collaboratoin to keep prices high. This is very, very apparent in cell phones, gas prices and anything else that is widely used.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


You're forgetting one large, fundamental part of our society...the faceless corporation. When you have only one or two brands to choose from you have no freedom of choice, you only have collaboratoin to keep prices high. This is very, very apparent in cell phones, gas prices and anything else that is widely used.


When government aids, protects, or colludes with those corporate ambitions to control the marketplace like that we may call it fascism. If government denies partnerships, favoritism, or having been influenced by those interests we dismiss it is capitalism and go about our merry way - respect for law of the jungle, survival of the fittest. If we could choose our own device or submit our own entry along that interest then all would be just and fair. If denied that then we are back to our first definition again.

Back to the point being made in the thread - More important than what material and tangible we can gain for ourselves is to regain the liberty and our independence that we lost while being distracted.

Paraphrasing Kennedy, "Ask not what your country can do for you, tell them to leave you alone and to your own devices." Dependence on government or corporate interests and influence is not freedom, rather it is quite the opposite.

ETA: I think I see your point - We have what we have, in terms of corporate and government influence. That doesn't make it right though.


edit on 3-9-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


That's what I was trying to get to in terms of 'freedom.' Freedom for unions or individuals or corporations or...what?

Freedom is a blanket term and a cop out. The GOP has done a fantastic job of describing this election as 'freedom vs. tyranny.' No American would vote for tyranny, that much is obvious...but that's not the actual argument, that's just how it's been framed.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join