Are You Willing to be Non-Partisan ? What is Your Liberty Worth ?

It doesn't take this much to find a spot to make a stand. You don't have to sign an 'oath' to anyone except yourself.

Freedom to speak without fear. The liberty to live one's life as one chooses. Nothing odd... nothing we shouldn't know.

Yeah, our elected officials are idiots but we don't have to be. Our constitution is still firm and so long as it stands, we have foundation.
Yes, we also know there is an effort to drill into it it from a number of directions... but all we have to do is to take a personal stand that we will never allow any disrespect to that document, to become something we either obey or bow down to.

There are 300+ million Americans and if we don't bite on some court order to roll over and be slaves to a police state... they lose. It doesn't require violence or guns or even kitchen mixers.

You just say NO and go on with your life. Don't let them make us the cause...

Just a thought.

whyamIhere
reply to post by AlienScience

 

"never vote for one of the two parties"

Who are you quoting?

I know you love to argue.....Can't just make stuff up.

It is a general quote that many people like to throw around to make it seem like they are smart...but it just shows how clueless they are of how the system actually works.

I wasn't quoting anyone specific...are you telling me you have never heard people say this before?

reply to post by AlienScience

So please tell me...what exactly are you doing to change this system?

It is quite simple! HONOR the Constitution of the United States of America!!

Everyone elected took an oath to do so. Why don't they?

Corporations ARE NOT people! We have tons of laws on the books that are NOT Constitutional, yet we beg for more laws!

What disturbed me about your post was your attitude. "If we can't beat em join em!"....

I think that was what the OP had intended in this post. Things need to change! If we don't do anything to change this corrupt system, prepare for one big downward spiral!

Being a knight versus being a pawn will have the same consequences for ALL of us!

What if one of these parties we would be boycotting is equally invested in protecting the same things we are?

You know, I honestly don't care if people want to be partisan. Part of partisanship stems from simply having differing views on how best to solve the problems of society.

Had we stuck with the original model for governance in this country - a Republican one where the states were the real laboratories of government and the Fed was remote enough that who got elected President generally mattered not at all to most people - then there would likely be a state for every flavor of partisan with the Fed designed to serve as merely a referee keeping the states from preying on each other and keeping other countries from preying on us as a whole.

Instead, we fought the Civil War and what emerged was the Federal Government as supreme and suddenly there is a one size fits all sheriff in town and it matters a lot who is partisan and how and which side wins.

If only a ten thousand people voted for the presidential candidates, they would probably consider it a legitimate election and inaugurate the new president. I don't think Congress would even flinch an eyelash, the winners would be celebrating the victory, ignoring what we are trying to tell them. The politicians are so disconnected from society it is rediculous. Guess what....the old tactics they have been using on us to steer us don't work so well anymore.

We only get to pick from two candidates chosen by people who get major contributions from big businesses. Many of these business get their income from our money and are often overpaid for their services because Congress knows that they have to supply these businesses with money to donate. So do we really have a choice who we vote for....we vote for those chosen because they will play by the rules of the parties games.

This isn't a conspiracy, it is just the way it is and has been for a while.

Our military is forced to take equipment they don't even want as part of their allotments.

reply to post by AlienScience


You just helped inform people about how the system is faulty to begin with. I would say that the spirit of the pledge in the OP is the same as your reason for typing your post... essentially both you and him/her (and myself) are dissatisfied and want to see something fresh and fair take the place of what we have now? Can I assume that much?

I was without a party for years and then Obama came around and I fell for it hook, line, and sinker... but only a few weeks into the campaign I remembered how corrupt everything is and realized that he was working for the same people they all do. So I swore off party politics. I dont really have a "left" or a "right" view and not really a "center" kinda guy either... it gets messy cause I like a little bit of all kinds of directions.

For now can we all just pledge to stop yelling about which president was worse ... and instead work together to come up with a better system?

AfterInfinity
What if one of these parties we would be boycotting is equally invested in protecting the same things we are?

What if the sky is really purple and alien beings are flying above our heads daily?

If there is a legitimate and sensible argument with some examples to suggest either party is acting in the best interests of the people before that of their own political party? I'm very interested in looking to see if there is anything to it. After all, writing off both sides has not come easy for me. The alternative ...is a little empty. To say the least.

I won't back anything or anyone on party or political affiliation alone though. Pretty much, ever again. Bush burned the Right and we got hammered. HARD. Obama has screwed the left and they're getting hammered with 3 more years to see what comes next. Both were elected, in part at least, by the partisan hatred of the OTHER side. "I didn't vote for Obama! I voted NO on Bush!" ...I swear I can hardly hold my tongue when I hear that logic ..used by either side.

AlienScience

 

So why be a pawn when you can be a knight and actually be part of the game?

This part of your post I do not agree with 100%. I will admit that on some days I do... but most days I dont like the idea of stepping over people to get ahead...

I get the chess reference, but you wouldnt be a "knight" - more like a "thug" or "worm" or a "snake"...

IMO a knight is someone who would stand up for what is right (our Constitution) no matter what... especially is the system is flawed from the outset.

reply to post by henryleo


And another problem with all this is how do we define what "fair" is anyhow. Some people see fair as simply having the exact same set of rules everyone plays by while others see "fair" as everyone having the same outcome.

I wonder how the American Revolution would have gone if it were fought today.

"I'd help that Paul Revere guy out but didn't I see him at an OWS protest last year?"

"I'd fight with you, General Washington, but you're anti-abortion, so. . . sorry."

"Fight along side of Ben Franklin? Isn't he a Tea Partier?"

reply to post by ketsuko


I think this could be a good idea ... web-based video meetings. Although it raises tons of security concerns with the ability to intercept their signals and listen in on government secrets....

I'm not going to pretend I know a ton about what its like to be a congressman, but I imagine it involves going to lunch with lobbyists all the time... So maybe splitting all of them up back into their districts would help stem some of this activity?

In the mean time:
We could make sure they actually live in the neighborhoods they represent... Set term limits... Elect some that aren't millionaires... Make them use the same insurance systems we do... etc...

reply to post by ketsuko


True. This is a puzzle. But its a discussion that should happen. I think "fair" could start with a defined set of rules that apply equally for all societal levels. Where your money means nothing in the face of those rules ...

That way a bank that launders millions for drug cartels doesn't pay a tiny fine, while a guy with a sack of weed and wad of cash gets a mandatory minimum for 'intent to distribute'...

Maybe we should make another thread?

We could make a "What do you think is fair" series. Each new thread would be about one topic. For example: this week would be "What do you think is fair: Healthcare" - and we all could discuss the myriad of other options besides the train wreck that is Obamacare??? Who is with me???

reply to post by seeker1963

It is quite simple! HONOR the Constitution of the United States of America!!

Everyone elected took an oath to do so. Why don't they?

Corporations ARE NOT people! We have tons of laws on the books that are NOT Constitutional, yet we beg for more laws!

What disturbed me about your post was your attitude. "If we can't beat em join em!"....

I think that was what the OP had intended in this post. Things need to change! If we don't do anything to change this corrupt system, prepare for one big downward spiral!

Being a knight versus being a pawn will have the same consequences for ALL of us!

I'm sorry, but I just have to laugh at the naivety of your post.

Your big solution to changing the two party system is to "HONOR the Constitution"...tell me...exactly how does that eliminate the two party system?

Tell me, who set up our FPTP election system....oh right...it was the founding fathers. They were smart guys, they knew exactly what a FPTP system would do...it's almost like they designed it that way.

So you really have said how you want to change the two party system...all I see is a bunch of rhetoric with no real value behind it.

And I think you mistook my attitude...it is not a "if we can't beat them join them" attitude, it is a "I use what is available to me" attitude.

beezzer
I wonder how the American Revolution would have gone if it were fought today.

"I'd help that Paul Revere guy out but didn't I see him at an OWS protest last year?"

"I'd fight with you, General Washington, but you're anti-abortion, so. . . sorry."

"Fight along side of Ben Franklin? Isn't he a Tea Partier?"

Bravo...

This is the point (only worded smarter) then the point of the OP.

Until we can get our Liberty restored, partisan agendas make no sense.

The pledge means nothing. It is our Liberty that is Priceless.

reply to post by henryleo


Sounds good. I recommend you read Thomas Sowell's The Quest for Cosmic Justice before we start. It outlines both sides to that kind of debate.

reply to post by henryleo

This part of your post I do not agree with 100%. I will admit that on some days I do... but most days I dont like the idea of stepping over people to get ahead...

I get the chess reference, but you wouldnt be a "knight" - more like a "thug" or "worm" or a "snake"...

IMO a knight is someone who would stand up for what is right (our Constitution) no matter what... especially is the system is flawed from the outset.

Yes, it is a chess reference...you shouldn't correlate a chess knight with the fantasy romanticized storybook "knight".

It's not about stepping over people to get ahead, but then again...isn't that the entire principle of our FPTP system and to a certain extent also our Capitalistic economy?

The analogy is more about being able to make moves and effect outcome rather than being used and serving only a sacrificial purpose.

reply to post by seeker1963


Thing is with respect to the popular anti Citizens United decision slogan. What the decision was for was a group of private citizens ... say you, me, and 20 other people get together and formed a 501(c)3 in order to pool our individual monies and make election ads and contributions to try to effect the campaign. In other words, we wanted to pool our resources to have a bigger impact in a landscape filled with organizations like big unions and super rich donors, so we effectively incorporate ourselves (what a 501(c)3 is). Did we then stop being people?

The left didn't want to give little people that kind of power to organize so they started using the corporations are not people slogan to get you to think that it was really about opening the door to allowing Sony whoever all else to start openly campaigning for candidates. Corporations already have their say in donations and usually donate pretty even handedly across the board because of the crony capitalist games. They can't afford to alienate on party of the other too much. They also have lobbyists who are far more effective and less risky than political attack ads.

No, this is about not biting into the money action that orgs like Big Labor provide with any form of competition, much less disorganized competition from people like us. Notice how quickly the IRS was called in to quell organizing of 501(c)3 groups that were not politically advantageous during the last election cycle?

reply to post by whyamIhere


You may not vote for either party, but this is a republic and "they" will.
You will accept their candidate, because you have no real recourse without major difficulties.
First thing, we need money out of politics.
Then we need to limit corporations and disallow them human rights.
Companies are NOT people, I will believe they are people the very first time they put all of the board to death for their crimes against the peoples of the world.

beezzer
I wonder how the American Revolution would have gone if it were fought today.

"I'd help that Paul Revere guy out but didn't I see him at an OWS protest last year?"

"I'd fight with you, General Washington, but you're anti-abortion, so. . . sorry."

"Fight along side of Ben Franklin? Isn't he a Tea Partier?"

You don't think it wasn't like that?

LOL...those are some rose colored glasses you are wearing there.