Naivete amuses me

a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

A week ago when the first ebola case brought ebola to the US nobody in my neck of woods were talking about it, this week everywhere you go people are talking, and talking they are

Yes, finally the news are getting down here in southern Ga.

a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

Saying you are "aware" or "awake" are just conspiratorial buzzwords to make you SOUND informed. But in reality, they have just dropped one faulty paradigm for another faulty paradigm.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

To an extent that is probably true. It would be nice if people would actually formulate some "game plan" as to where we go from here, but most of the time I think that is asking too much.

a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

Rather than a game plan for where "WE" go, how about a game plan for where you go? Once I left the tribe, my life went where I always wanted it. Peaceful and productive.

a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

Meh. It's the same as a dumb person trying to wear plastic frame glasses to try to "look" smart.

As far as formulating a plan for us to go from here, there are viable third parties that one could look into with ideologies that differ from the mainstream Republican and Democrat positions. The media likes to portray Tea Partiers and Libertarians as the same mindset, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Yes our positions align on some issues, but we differ on things like gay rights and the war on drugs (both should be legal across the board). But even joining a third party can cause paradigm problems.

But at the end of the day, you can't change humanity. We got to where we are through the efforts of people even less informed than we are. Society is one giant example of the blind leading the blind.

a reply to: Witness2008

While I understand and certainly appreciate the sentiment, my only argument to that is how can an individual do anything different, revolutionary, et cetera if their rights which enable them to do said such is stripped from them within a corrupt system?

Hi guys,

I thought I would toss some really complicated words in here.

I don't remember the meaning of the words "cognitive dissonance", but I believe it is in part responsible for people only paying cursory attention to the situation they are really in.

But, it is like you guys mention - what can people do - short of disconnecting?

a reply to: sensibleSenseless

Cognitive dissonance is basically when the truth is so diametrically different than what you have always been taught and told that you just refuse to believe it.

Hi SpeakerOfTruth,

Thank you for that.

Is it possible that what we have been taught is not necessarily by people, but by experience from birth that "the system cannot fail"? ie too big to fail - and this too, in spite of the skeptics who sit and say that the sky is falling.

I myself am skeptical about the future of the system that is being run in the fashion that I see it as being run... But, I am extremely scared of what that implies will be required on my part.

Many people reason that they do not wish to watch because it is too depressing.

Would reasoning that the system is too complex to analyze be a form of cognitive dissonance, in that some people are simply living in denial, given the reasons I've mentioned above?

a reply to: sensibleSenseless

Well, in order for there to be any REAL change, it would require drastic lifestyle changes in most of our lives. Let's face it, that's just not something most people are willing or inclined ,particularly in the U.S, to do.
People have had it far too easy for far too long, certainly in the U.S of A. I guarantee you, eighty percent of population couldn't make it if they had to live 100 years ago, and certainly not 200 years ago. They think the gravy train is just going to continue indefinitely. However, that gravy train is coming to a hault and many don't even have the awareness or sense to realize it has even slowed down. I feel sorry for that type of person when the wheels grind into the ground. They aren't going to have a clue as to what to do.

Speaker of Truth - I couldn't agree more.

By the people, for the people, from the people - what does that imply then, of the people?

a reply to: sensibleSenseless

Well, currently I don't see where the system is "by the people" and it certainly isn't "for the people." When I take a good look at what is occurring, not only nationally but globally, I see a system being operated and owned by large corporate conglomerates and banks. Those are NOT people. Hell I would argue our "leaders" aren't people, certainly not in the same sense as the average Joe you'd meet on the street are.
I don't particularly buy into the whole "we're being ruled by reptilian shapshifting brain eaters" argument, but I am inclined to believe the great majority of our "leaders" have psychopathic tendencies, and there are a multitude of studies that would support that claim. They don't value or believe the same way a typical, quote/unquote person does. So, to my way of thinking, any notion that the current system is "by the people and for the people" is borderline delusion. It's not and in all honesty, hasn't been for quite some time.

originally posted by: SpeakerofTruth
a reply to: Witness2008

Yes, but people are vehemently that way in politics. So much so that some states are literally blocking FORTY TWO percent of the population from voting because that FORTY TWO percent will not associate themselves with either the Republicans or Democrats.
It's happening!! Look into it. You'll see.

Spot on!
A viable third party would be a game changer and would draw a great deal of support away from the left and right.

a reply to: badgerprints
I believe so, yes. Of course, the hardline Republicans and Democrats will fight that every step of the way, but....

originally posted by: SpeakerofTruth
a reply to: badgerprints
I believe so, yes. Of course, the hardline Republicans and Democrats will fight that every step of the way, but....

No buts.
We need to short circuit the artificial duality of politics if we ever want to get past artificial democracy.
I think half of the voters out of there would go to a centrist party if it existed.

a reply to: badgerprints

I agree