Partisans.... Tomorrow Sees You

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Superhans
 


No. The point was to compare that atmosphere to the current and to suggest that we are again at that level of separation.

But enough with the Alinsky fun for the night. It's late here and I am off to bed. Again, I agree to disagree.

~Heff




posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 





And, for the record, I have never stood on any street, holding any sign, in my life.


I never said you did. I am just of the opinion that our problems have become deeper rooted than that and thats societies way of trying to deal with it, but we need affirmative action. We need to deal with the problem.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I just don't understand how you went from this


Can we ever hope to take it back? Maybe. But never like this.


to this



No. The point was to compare that atmosphere to the current and to suggest that we are again at that level of separation.


I think you just need to take another look at history and see that this country has ALWAYS been divided on the issues, if we were not we would never have had any political parties ever. Are you trying to say that we are so bad off that we might end up like the country used to be so we should all stop and try to make this country just as bad as it used to be?
Do we just need to go back to the good old days when blacks could not vote? Back to when if a woman made a fuss about "rights" we just dunked her in water until she admitted she was a witch?
Division is a good thing, when there is no division it usually means that people are being silenced, how many political parties were in the book 1984?
edit on 12-10-2012 by Superhans because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


Do you have any ideas for this?

Are you completely against having a social safety net?

Do you even understand what would happen if all benefits were cut off?

People generally don't want to be on welfare. They don't want to be poor, or sick, or disabled, or old and unable to work. The problem of people just milking the system is wayyy exaggerated by people who are nothing but anti-Obama.

Circumstance dealt a lot of people a rough road. Many of the poor are victims of historical oppression with lingering challenges. Challenges including terrible local schools and crime ridden neighborhoods. This recession, which had a lot to do with Republican policy and the irresponsibility of the rich (not the poor) has hit the lower classes the hardest.

Our countries social safety net is a pretty bipartisan policy. It hasn't been expanded all that much under the current admin, the economy has just dictated a higher demand for benefits.

By focusing the problems of the country on "the far left doing nothing but collecting welfare," you exemplify the bias and illogical partisanship that this thread seeks to point out. This "far left," are hardly political at all, they are just trying to feed themselves and their family.

The real far left of America is a wealthy intellectual class with what they consider an advanced model of government, with the view that government plays a major role in developing good society. And you want to starve millions of innocents to death!

edit on 10/12/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: typos



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


When I read Heff's post I interpreted it as a call for bipartisanship. A call to step back from our established notions of good guys and bad guys so that we might come to a fuller understanding of what we all have in common rather than just what we think sets us apart. In one of your replies you state


There is a group in America that makes lots of demands for themselves, but they don't do anything to the benefit of society or each other or America. They are selfish people and they care not for their country, but their own vanities and pocketbooks.

Time has come to thin the herd.

We can not change this country simply by hanging out on the street with signs.

By the last sentence I surmise that by saying "a group" you refer to those on the left side of the political spectrum who believe that protesting with thier liberal signs are doing no good. With this I am inclined to agree.
However your statement also can easily be understood for the most part to refer to the rich, who do little for this country and only think of their pocket books. Your statement will find yea sayers from both sides of the spectrum, each thinking it refers to those others, depending on the political view. The ambiguity of the statement does nothing more than bolster which of the opposing views a reader wishes to promote.

In another reply you state


I'm speaking of the people on the extreme left that want to collect welfare checks, not work and spend this country into oblivion with other peoples money.
Labeling people who want to collect welfare checks, and not work as the extreme left demonstrates to me a profound misunderstanding of those you see as your enemies. It is the lazy who do not want to work, not the idealistically driven extreme left. The lazy are perfectly willing to collect on the largess of both sides of the political divide. Believing lazy people to be your enemies on the left only undermines your ability to truely confront them. The extreme left is as intelligent and as driven as those on the extreme right. And never doubt that so many of those who proclaim conservatism also accept those handouts.

Culling the herd is a concept promoted only by those who think that it is not THEY who need be thinned out.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Superhans
 


I am at a loss as to the equating of mutual interest with slavery and suffrage? Those were two issues, from the past, that caused deep division in the nation. Neither had anything to do with a two party system,. other than that it allowed those evils to fester years beyond what they would have had men possessed a capacity for logic over emotion.

As this thread demonstrates that parallel, today, can be found in the notion of social safety nets - welfare, OASDI, SSI, SSD, TANF, Medicaid, Medicare, etc. More specifically in the absolutism of the rhetoric regarding such things. We have become so polarized that the left is called "communist" and the right "fascist" and both sides seem entrenched in their dogmatic views and absolutes.

How many folks, on ATS, or in the mainsteam, do you see saying "There are a percentage of folks who abuse social services, just as there are corporations and banks currently basically doing the same thing through loopholes and deregulation."?

Personally, I find myself laughing outloud ( or in disgust ) when I see someone posting about how abused Social Security is. Anyone who has ever had dealings with the agency knows that getting benefits takes years and, even then, almost all those without attorneys are simply perpetually denied. Even with a lawyer the current time is about two years before a cent in benefits is seen.

My point. There is so much false information out there, designed to polarize us into "haves" and "have nots" that it is disgusting. The vast majority are in the middle and have been brainwashed into thinking that they are going to suffer. Both parties, at this point, vote out of fear, rather than for anything.

As I asked in my OP...

Who would benefit from this?
Who controls the monetary system?

It has nothing to do with a two party system - or even a ten party system. It has to do with indoctrination as a means of division, and division as tool of distraction.

As long as half of us are blaming the other half for our woes? Well, we'll never stop to actually look at whose hands are actually in our cookie jar. The answer is Congress and Wall Street.

We have a government that has already been bought and sold. If we don't address THAT issue, first, then we will never move beyond fear, reaction, mistrust, and playing the blame game. We have to fix the disease - and then seek to control the symptoms.

~Heff
edit on 10/12/12 by Hefficide because: bb code error



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


It's pretty funny that I'm still the only flag on this one, Heff.

This pretty much proves your point, and frustrates my position that America is moving beyond such cognitive bias. I see a country with good schools and mass communication tools and think that a stronger philosophy could develop and spread. Eh, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we're too ingrained in the status quo.

I really pride myself on a nonpartisan attitude. I do support one of the major candidates, yes, but I will not be found supporting every single platform of a single party.

Anyone else?

Edit: The only conclusion that I can draw is that those on ATS who are interested in politics are attached to one of the candidates,

Hopefully, the election cycle produces a partisan situation that really doesn't define America. People are just placing their hopes on one of the two sides. In the next few years, when problems persist, many will start illustrating their dissatisfaction with the current system.

My hope is that a third party/independent candidate will at least demand a spot in the debates. Better yet, there would be a 10% representation in congress against the Dems/Reps in 2016
edit on 10/12/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: add



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 

My hope is that a third party/independent candidate will at least demand a spot in the debates. Better yet, there would be a 10% representation in congress against the Dems/Reps in 2016
A debate with Obama, Romney, one tea party activist and one occupy activist. I'm sure it could take no more than a couple of weeks for both sides to put forth suitable representatives. We could have Marr and Limbaugh moderate.
Seriously though we need to remember the 2000 at the first Gore/Bush debate. Ralph Nader was running on the Green Party ticket. He was polling around 6% as I recall. He was not invited. Not only was he not invited, when he arrived at one of the satellite audiences for the debate, as a private citizen, he was not allowed to remain. He was ushered away by police, onto a bus and taken to a holding center removed from the debate center.
And there was little hue and cry from anyone within the two party belief system.
Clearly they are not allowing third parties unless it suits their own purposes.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 


Hi Patrick,

Im gonna make this short and I apologize because at the moment I have more pressing things on my mind.

There are certain measures I would take.

For example, for those who had been on welfare for a long time I would require a little bit of community service to stay on it. For example picking up trash, working at a soup kitchen and other things that benefit the community.

I would require drug tests for welfare recipients.

I would require proof that they are actively seeking a job or per suing some sort of education gearing them to set up a small business.

If these actions are not worthy of the welfare recipients time, then I would cut them off completely.

Otherwise I would take actions to ween them off slowly.

Hope this helps, but as I said I have another pressing issue that requires my attention at the moment.

I hope to return and explain these ideas in more detail at a future time.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by TerryMcGuire
 


Hi Terry,

As much as I love every person that I meet in life. I do not see this as a time for that. Time is short and soon it may be very short, this could be the furthest thing from our minds. I do not have many natural enemies, for most people that I meet I become friends with, very rarely do I become enemies with anyone.

By thinning the heard, I was speaking of making the entitlement class, less effective, by limiting their membership through other means.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


I underestimated you from your previous posts.

I agree, people should be more responsible in taking responsibility in the community.

Sorry if I came off as overly aggressive, I thought you were proposing that benefits should be cut off without any circumstantial consideration.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 


thats ok sir.

I am aware that my post came off to some as a little bit weird.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by TerryMcGuire
 


The debate commission maintains that a candidate must have 15% support to debate. This is too much in my opinion. Let's consider the size of the American electorate. 5% would be well over a few million, Nader got something like 3% of the popular vote in 2000.

I agree with your point.

If a candidate has over a million supporters, they should have a podium.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


Uhhhh it is a Friday night and let's say I'm a bit eh, not completely sober.

But, celebration! See! An Obama supporter and opposer can respect each other!




posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 


Absolutely.

I went and watched a double feature at the drive in with my woman, had a couple lime--a-ritas, but still working on it.

Now im just drinking a few cold ones at the house.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Regarding the podium issue. Media, unfortunately, destroys the logical conclusion that it should be easier to reach the masses due to mass consumption ( mass media ). The reality is that those who control the airwaves and networks control who gets to use them. Thus they control our choices by only exposing us to whomever they choose to.

Most Americans aren't even aware that there are actually five major political parties in the US - not just two or three. And there are dozens upon dozens of lesser parties.

It's profound psychology really. If you walked into a grocery store, walked up to the butchers counter, and, before you could speak - the clerk said "Chicken or fish today?" You'd feel like you had a choice. But, in reality, you were offered a false choice. Obviously there's pork, beef, and a slew of other things you might actually have preferred. Your options were stated falsely, from the start, but in a way that gives the illusion of options.

Most will say that, if a grocery store clerk did this, they'd instantly recognize the limitation and demand what they actually wanted. And rightfully so.

So why don't we do the same with politicians?

~Heff



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 


Absolutely.

I went and watched a double feature at the drive in with my woman, had a couple lime--a-ritas, but still working on it.

Now im just drinking a few cold ones at the house.


They serve alcohol at the drive in? Where do you live? Is it paradise ? You were going to say paradise weren't you?



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Because the politicians think we work for them.

Not the other way around.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


Yeah, I feel like a shmuck posting below my usual intellectual standard.

But, let's rejoice in common ground! Neither candidates are for prohibition!

Bahhhhh i need to quit drinking, on my way to reed the thread on addiction assistance.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Superhans
 


LOL no. Its a drive in haha so BYOB.

But yes Texas is not quite a paradise, but close enough to it.

They have a theater called Alamo Draft House, the serve beer wine and food.





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join