Puppets

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   
"My favorite conspiracy theory is the one that says the world is being run by a handful of ultra-rich capitalists, and that our elected governments are mere puppets. I sure hope it’s true. Otherwise my survival depends on hordes of clueless goobers electing competent leaders. That’s about as likely as a dog pissing the Mona Lisa into a snow bank."
-Scott Adams

Puppets. Since Obama came to office, much that I've heard, excuses/justifications has come down to puppets.

Obama can't be blamed, he's just a puppet.

Why vote for Romney? He's just a puppet!

In contrast to the above quote I firmly believe that the greatest conspiracy, the biggest secret is that we do elect the president. We are responsible. We are to blame.

Using the "Puppet" card offers a way out. An excuse. An absolution of responsibility. In this, I must proclaim, we have to stop!

We, as a culture, make things happen. In the UK, North America, Down "Unda' " anywhere where there is an election process, the people are responsible.

Using the Puppet meme is just a way of helping some of us sleep at night.

Take a look at the US presidential debates. Obama did poorly. Many here have said it is because he was a puppet and was told to behave in a certain manner.

False.

The conspiracy continues as we absolve the president from responsibility by making these assertions.

We should blow a hole in this grand secret. Stand proud in the shadow of our mistakes.

Or am I just a "puppet" encouraging you to think this way?

(mods, I felt this the appropriate forum, but will always cede to your rulings)

beez




posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   
I'm not a huge believer in the puppet theories, however, it does seem as though you are being presented with a choice. A choice of two establishment figures. So yes you do vote for them, but there ain't much choice in your decision really, despite the illusion of a real democratic choice.

Then once your choice is in power they are beholden to those who financed their campaigns. The vested interests and lobby groups.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Puppets, yes. Do they all have the same puppet master? IMO I dont think they do. The geo-corporate interests controlling each head of governemnt/state differ, and most of these interests are competing for the same absolute power--Australian mining companies competing against UK banking interests competing against US military interests... the puppets try and make it look like we are all happy cosy allies, but push come to shove they will throw eachother under the proverbial bus just to gain advantage.

Solution?



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Doesn't the electoral college decide who is president?

Didn't al gore have more votes than bush back in the day?

One vote does not make a difference these days friend.

I love your posts beezer.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   
I am guilty of subscribing to the puppet theory but can see your stance on it as making very good sense.

In truth I can not prove that there is someone "pulling the strings." And if there is not someone pulling the strings we as citizens do have to take our share of responsibility for the state of things.

Of course even if Obama and Romney are truly puppets, we have to take responsibility for allowing the theater to continue.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Puppets, puppeteers, and puppet masters.

It's not complicated at all. The rich hire lobbyists, who then bribe, coerce, blackmail, or talk the legislature into doing what "right for the home team."

The POTUS... well he's not just the President, but he's also a client.

~Heff



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Just found my tin foil hat, so my other opinion on this puppet master theory revolves around the influence of The Bilderberg group on the outcome of world leaders. From British pm's to American presidents, to the head of the E.U.

They could just have a good nose for spotting future talent or a real influence. Obama, was there before his nomination 4 years ago, Romney was rumoured to be there ths year. From a conspiracy theory view point, worth keeping an eye on.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   


As you can see the Skull & Bones group exists half-way down the pyramid in the 'The Freemason Lodges / Secret Societies' section.

I am sure that if the Bushs were in Skull & Bones then many other US presidents have also been at that same level.

Hence, every president is a puppet following orders from the elite.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


But the choices are our responsibility as well! We sit back and let others lead, then complain when they don't go the way we want.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by cartenz
reply to post by beezzer
 


Puppets, yes. Do they all have the same puppet master? IMO I dont think they do. The geo-corporate interests controlling each head of governemnt/state differ, and most of these interests are competing for the same absolute power--Australian mining companies competing against UK banking interests competing against US military interests... the puppets try and make it look like we are all happy cosy allies, but push come to shove they will throw eachother under the proverbial bus just to gain advantage.

Solution?


Solution? We regain the power that we willingly gave up. We create the illusion that we are powerless. We cede all authority because responsibility is an onus that we refuse to carry.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
Doesn't the electoral college decide who is president?

Didn't al gore have more votes than bush back in the day?

One vote does not make a difference these days friend.

I love your posts beezer.


The Electoral College protects the rights of smaller states and states with smaller populations. Without it, only large population centers would be able to dictate for the rest of the nation.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


But the choices are our responsibility as well! We sit back and let others lead, then complain when they don't go the way we want.


I agree, there is much to be said for the saying " in a democracy you get the government you deserve". Not sure who said that, but it's true.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by beezzer
 


Puppets, puppeteers, and puppet masters.

It's not complicated at all. The rich hire lobbyists, who then bribe, coerce, blackmail, or talk the legislature into doing what "right for the home team."

The POTUS... well he's not just the President, but he's also a client.

~Heff


You're giving into the mindset that we are helpless in the face of lobbyists?

Then we can start our own "Lobby".



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


This is the answer I believe, all these protest groups should just form a lobby. Gotta be more effective than protesting and camping in parks. If you can't beat them, join them.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


We already have one, it's called Congress! The fact that our lobby is being lobbied is where the problem actually lay.

~Heff



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by beezzer
 


This is the answer I believe, all these protest groups should just form a lobby. Gotta be more effective than protesting and camping in parks. If you can't beat them, join them.


Why not form a "Mad as Hell at The Current Political Climate" Lobby!
(too wordy, I know)



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by beezzer
 


We already have one, it's called Congress! The fact that our lobby is being lobbied is where the problem actually lay.

~Heff
Then we need to Lobby our Lobby that is being influenced by their Lobby.

(we'll meet in the Lobby to decide who to pester first)



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Are we could simply inform our lobby that we have a binding contract with them that says their allegiance is to us and that if they deal with any other lobbying interests, then they are in breach of that contract.

I'm no legal eagle... but this how it seems to me. Especially when dealing with a group of guys who can raise their own pay, keep private religious facilities on Government property ( Oh, yes, there are prayer rooms of all ilk in the halls of Capitol Hill - tax payer funded religion )... We let our lobbyists get a bit too liberal ( in the literal - not cultural sense of the word ) with their power. Time to reign 'em in. Step one, make sure they understand that they cannot have two bosses - nor can they put any one segment of their constituency ahead of the other. This is the "excuse" used in Washington to justify lobbying. What ends up happening is the following...

Freshman Legislator shows up and says "I'm here to represent those who voted for me." I walk up and hand him five bucks and a decent bottle of scotch and he says "Correction, I"m here to serve this guy and then the those who voted for me! Then you walk up with a twenty spot and a bottle of really good scotch and he says "Just to clarify I'm here to work for this guy, then this guy and then the voters will have my undivided attention!

What's worse is that if you research the above links you'll discover that most of the most powerful lobbyists used to be career Senators or Congressmen - so the "good ole'' boys club" factor makes it even worse.

Abolishing the practice is the first step in removing the cancer.

~Heff
edit on 10/5/12 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by liejunkie01
Doesn't the electoral college decide who is president?

Didn't al gore have more votes than bush back in the day?

One vote does not make a difference these days friend.

I love your posts beezer.


The Electoral College protects the rights of smaller states and states with smaller populations. Without it, only large population centers would be able to dictate for the rest of the nation.


Are you aware that a "natural disaster" of the strength that shifts populations shifts that electoral college. And that over the years, there have been other and many methods for such gerrymandering? Also the precedence of the electoral college means fewer people to control for the desired outcome, no matter the popular vote.

As to your original OP, sorry I'm not accepting responsibility for what I have little to no say in, and what i just described above about the electoral college is a perfect example of that. Whomever I have voted for, responsibly, and in an informed, researched, way over the years, the results are always the same. They always talk about change, and the resulting change is either null and void or even worse than before. I resent you hanging that on those of our necks that have watched the evidents of puppets over and over. And I don't ascribe to the puppet situation and acknowledgment as being an excuse not to blame the current one in power.

What I will say, is we have become a culture ultimately dedicated to pointing a finger of blame at someone. And your OP is having it both ways: in calling them puppets it somehow absolves them of blame during their tenure. Also, it somehow translates that the citizenry can escape blame, as well. There is no winning no blame in the debacle you outline.

I don't vote anymore. I find it useless. Whomever wins, the same agenda progresses. Don't hang it around my neck for not voting, for recognizing they are all puppets because the same agenda progresses regardless of their promises or political affiliations. I am not excusing them, but I have no control over what happens, either, nor do most of us. Certainly voting does not control anything. If there is a third candidate who doesn't draw enough support, the media will point out that voting for that guy will get the worst guy elected, because it deflects the numbers....what does that tell you about the process?



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by beezzer
 


Are we could simply inform our lobby that we have a binding contract with them that says their allegiance is to us and that if they deal with any other lobbying interests, then they are in breach of that contract.

I'm no legal eagle... but this how it seems to me. Especially when dealing with a group of guys who can raise their own pay, keep private religious facilities on Government property ( Oh, yes, there are prayer rooms of all ilk in the halls of Capitol Hill - tax payer funded religion )... We let our lobbyists get a bit too liberal ( in the literal - not cultural sense of the word ) with their power. Time to reign 'em in. Step one, make sure they understand that they cannot have two bosses - nor can they put any one segment of their constituency ahead of the other. This is the "excuse" used in Washington to justify lobbying. What ends up happening is the following...

Freshman Legislator shows up and says "I'm here to represent those who voted for me." I walk up and hand him five bucks and a decent bottle of scotch and he says "Correction, I"m here to serve this guy and then the those who voted for me! Then you walk up with a twenty spot and a bottle of really good scotch and he says "Just to clarify I'm here to work for this guy, then this guy and then the voters will have my undivided attention!

What's worse is that if you research the above links you'll discover that most of the most powerful lobbyists used to be career Senators or Congressmen - so the "good ole'' boys club" factor makes it even worse.

Abolishing the practice is the first step in removing the cancer.

~Heff
edit on 10/5/12 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)


See? You're well on the way (you meant figuratively) to reclaiming responsibility. To take ownership.

Have the next senator or representative sign a binding contract! We "hire" the person, we should be able to dictate the terms of his employment!
edit on 5-10-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join