Why Americans Will Continue to Support a Corrupt Government

reply to post by NiNjABackflip
Let's all try to spread positive energy at this government "dis-information" site.

reply to post by smyleegrl


I agree wholeheartedly, but with one exception.

I do believe that eventually we will, or may be pushed to the last straw and at that point we, as a nation, will act.

What will it take?

A depression of which the govt is the recognized culprit. Our govt is spending money like it was going out of style...hell, why not, it isn't their money....it's ours.

Let the govt default, our economy crash and you will have people who have had access to the entertainments no longer able to be entertained....this is when people will gain the courage to stand up.

The Romans succeeded for so long by hosting gladiatorial games. Take away our TV, sports, computer games and internet and you will have a populace ready to riot.

We are talking about a depression of monumental magnitude though...it is coming, just when, I do not know.

reply to post by smyleegrl


SO true i couldn't have said it better myself.
Quite sad it is, People don't have values anymore, and they're more scared of their own government than 'terrorists' i bet.
Like you said with the weird pot of frogs thing, amaruca is a sinking ship. and many many will rather stay on the ship than bail out. me? i already bailed out, sad because most of my family is still in the ship but they're the usual titanium bubble dwellers, no matter how many times you try to pop that bubble it never pops and they never come out of it. :/

So i shall end my post with this.

Those whom are prudent can see the dangers ahead, those whom are prudent will walk away before they get caught in the hunters net.

Originally posted by alldaylong
The problem i see with The US, is that it was established by a group of people and it didn't evolve naturally like most countries do. That group of people where from the elite classes and business world on the whole. I don't think that i need to expand further.

Because you can't. The US was founded by people who were elite, yes. But if you read the constitution and fully understand it you will realize they made an attempt to set up a govt that was for the people, of the people etc etc, but would not be subject to the whims of the ignorant. (ie: direct democracy)

If by elite you mean people that were educated and willing to take the bull by the horns and do something instead of just sitting around whining, then yes. If by elite you mean people that were independent and were willing to work to achieve their goals, then yes. If by elite you mean successful entrepeneurs then yes. It would be rather silly and ineffective for a country to be founded by the ignorant and unsuccessful, now wouldn't it?

Our constitution is a piece of art in it's simplicity and effectiveness if actually followed verbatim. The problem is, is that it tends to be "interpreted" in ways that suit those in power and the whims of the day.

Checks and balances that were set up no longer control, no longer apply. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

We have deviated from the original premise of the constitution so far that our govt is no longer recognizable as what was intended by our founding fathers.

reply to post by bbracken677


The founding fathers of The US where nothing more than tax dodgers.

2nd

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by bbracken677

 

The founding fathers of The US where nothing more than tax dodgers.

2nd

It's called "tax resistance", to the PRIVATE IRS headquartered in Switzerland.

Dodge this, State slave!

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by bbracken677

 

The founding fathers of The US where nothing more than tax dodgers.

2nd

And exactly why is the govt entitled to however much of my money as they want? If they were doing more than just wasting most of it, I wouldnt mind so much.

I believe the issue with taxation in the colonies was the taxation without any representation in the govt whatsoever. It would be akin to you having to pay taxes to the govt, but having no right to vote.

Subtle difference, which I am sure you can appreciate.

maybe..

Originally posted by bbracken677

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by bbracken677

 

The founding fathers of The US where nothing more than tax dodgers.

2nd

And exactly why is the govt entitled to however much of my money as they want? If they were doing more than just wasting most of it, I wouldnt mind so much.

I believe the issue with taxation in the colonies was the taxation without any representation in the govt whatsoever. It would be akin to you having to pay taxes to the govt, but having no right to vote.

Subtle difference, which I am sure you can appreciate.

maybe..

Answer this question.

Why did the colonies of Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc not revolt? They where taxed the same as the 13 colonies of America. In fact during the Australian gold rush, huge amounts of tax where paid back to the motherland.
As i said, the founding fathers where just opportune tax dodgers. They where inn it for themselves.

Originally posted by alldaylong

Answer this question.

Why did the colonies of Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc not revolt? They where taxed the same as the 13 colonies of America. In fact during the Australian gold rush, huge amounts of tax where paid back to the motherland.
As i said, the founding fathers where just opportune tax dodgers. They where inn it for themselves.

Oh they where? (were)

Using someone else's inaction to explain another's action is bovine excrement and faulty logic.

The Colonies were not the only rebellion. Why did India revolt? Why did Iraq revolt? Why did the Irish revolt? Why did the Scots revolt?
I am sure that each rebellion of the era was for their own circumstances and reasons, as were the lack of rebelliousness of Australia and New Zealand.

To simplify the reasons for a rebellion as you have is facile at best.

Nice post, good reasoning. I've been saying for years that as long as the general public are kept entertained, there won't be any sort of rebellion.

It worked for the Romans, it will work for the USA.

In the USA, people are taught from a very, very early age that "politics is boring". It's a theme prevailent in schools all the way back to pre school. They're also taught that "finance is very complicated".

The reason that Americans are taught this is so that they don't look too closely into the political or financial systems. If the average American, instead of blindly learning the Pledge of Allegiance and that their gun and God will protect them, learned how the political and banking systems actually work against them, they wouldn't tolerate what their leaders are doing to their country.

The average American has no idea about investing and high finance, so the banks are able to carry on their illegal activities with little oversight and with few people questioning why this is going on.

Similarly, politicians are able to carry on with impunity as the average person has no idea as to what their rights are and that they can actually question what their leaders are up to.

The media is complicit in all of this, continually telling people that the USA is still the greatest country on the planet despite having a debt that is never, ever going to be paid back and will have perpetual interest being paid (the interest payments on the US debt alone are more than many country's annual GDP), and despite scandal after scandal after scandal involving their politicians and bankers, for which no one ever seems to go to jail.

The average person just doesn't care. After call, politics is boring and finance is complicated.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Peter Joseph's Zeitgeist is NOT a form of communism. Communism has a totalitarian government with military and police forces to ensure compliance by the elite over the people. Zeitgeist is a new way of looking at how money has corrupted society and what we need to do globally to assure a sustainable future for all of the Earth's population. Unless people come together globally by choice, it will never happen.

Originally posted by bbracken677

Originally posted by alldaylong

Answer this question.

Why did the colonies of Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc not revolt? They where taxed the same as the 13 colonies of America. In fact during the Australian gold rush, huge amounts of tax where paid back to the motherland.
As i said, the founding fathers where just opportune tax dodgers. They where inn it for themselves.

Oh they where? (were)

Using someone else's inaction to explain another's action is bovine excrement and faulty logic.

The Colonies were not the only rebellion. Why did India revolt? Why did Iraq revolt? Why did the Irish revolt? Why did the Scots revolt?
I am sure that each rebellion of the era was for their own circumstances and reasons, as were the lack of rebelliousness of Australia and New Zealand.

To simplify the reasons for a rebellion as you have is facile at best.

edit on 26-6-2013 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)

Tens of thousands of British subjects in the 13 colonies ( all people in the 13 colonies where British subjects) refused to join the rebellion. They didn't want to fight for the tax dodging elitist landowning class. They also believed to fight was an act of treason toward the crown. After the war these people moved to Canada.
The rebellion did not have 100% backing, as this shows. It was lead by people who where in it for themselves.

As for the rebellions in India, Scotland and Ireland, these where led by the indigenous people of those countries and not by the colonists. Please correct me if i am wrong, but did the Native American Indians start the rebellion in the 13 colonies? I think you will find the answer is no. As for Iraq, British rule was in the form of a "mandate", this being an agreement signed by both the British and Iraqi governments to allow Britain to administer the country. Iraq was never a British colony in the true sense of the word.

The American rebellion was all down to one single issue. Money.

reply to post by smyleegrl

This is why the Occuppy Movement ultimately will not change much. Don't get me wrong, I think the protests are great and economic boycotts can be very effective. But in the end, going up against the US government and truly changing things will have to be done a different way.

Well to be fair since you are picking on the Occupy movement. The tea party zealots are equally unsuccessful. Having stated that though,clearly only americans know what is good for america.
However i cant see how libertarians are your answer they have such severe austerity the elderly the poor the jobless the sick might simply starve to death or revert to crime to survive(atleast some of the jobless) if Rand Paul hypothetically speaking was your next President .
Also why is it these tea party folks never speak about cutting spending on the US military or other security agencies as though they are somehow sacrosanct and beyond being scrutinised for gov spending.

An Aussie

Originally posted by alldaylong


Tens of thousands of British subjects in the 13 colonies ( all people in the 13 colonies where British subjects) refused to join the rebellion. They didn't want to fight for the tax dodging elitist landowning class. They also believed to fight was an act of treason toward the crown. After the war these people moved to Canada.
The rebellion did not have 100% backing, as this shows. It was lead by people who where in it for themselves.

As for the rebellions in India, Scotland and Ireland, these where led by the indigenous people of those countries and not by the colonists. Please correct me if i am wrong, but did the Native American Indians start the rebellion in the 13 colonies? I think you will find the answer is no. As for Iraq, British rule was in the form of a "mandate", this being an agreement signed by both the British and Iraqi governments to allow Britain to administer the country. Iraq was never a British colony in the true sense of the word.

The American rebellion was all down to one single issue. Money.

To imply that rebellions are always fully supported by the populace is disingenuous at best. Your point that the rebellion was not fully supported is as meaningless as the difference between the rebellion by the 13 colonies and that of the Irish and Scots. The facts are they all chafed under British rule.

As far as Iraq...does it make a difference how it came about? The main crux of the matter was that the Iraqis no longer wanted British rule, as did the Indians (in India). As did the Irish, as did the Scots, etc. Fully more than half of the British Empire that is no longer a part rebelled...the rest were given self-rule in the face of likely eventual rebellion. The British Empire could no longer afford to put down rebellion after rebellion.

Also...your implication that all those in the 13 colonies who were against the rebellion moved to Canada is just plain wrong as well.

To say that money played no part in the American revolution would be obtuse, but to say it was the main reason would be equally so.

Originally posted by bbracken677

Originally posted by alldaylong


Tens of thousands of British subjects in the 13 colonies ( all people in the 13 colonies where British subjects) refused to join the rebellion. They didn't want to fight for the tax dodging elitist landowning class.. After the war these people moved to Canada.

edit on 27-6-2013 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)

After the rebellion 70,000 people from the 13 Colonies moved to Canada. So tell me where i am wrong with the fact i gave.

I see you avoided the question about who started the rebellion. There is a great difference between a rebellion being started and continued by the indigenous peoples and colonists. Is that question uncomfortable for you?

reply to post by alldaylong


No...actually I just missed it. Not sure what you are fishing with there...but the Boston Tea Party could possibly be considered the starting gun, so to speak.

Are you implying that most rebellions are started by the entire populace at once, rather than being led by individuals? Name one.... Every historical event has had it's leaders, instigators or whatever....I really fail to see your non-existent point?

Regarding the move to Canada...you stated that all loyalists moved. Not only was that wrong, it wasn't even close to right...and again, I fail to see your point other than not everyone supported the revolution. Name a revolution which WAS supported by all of the populace... Just ONE.

"Loyalists were American colonists who remained loyal to the Kingdom of Great Britain (and the British monarchy) during the American Revolutionary War. At the time they were often called Tories, Royalists, or King's Men. They were opposed by the Patriots, those who supported the revolution. When their cause was defeated, about 20% of the Loyalists fled to other parts of the British Empire, in Britain or elsewhere in British North America." * So much for all the loyalists moving to Canada...which is what you were called on.


Got it? Are you trolling? Because you are not making any points by constantly making comments that are patently and demonstrably false or implying something that makes no difference. (such as the difference between the colonies who revolted and the "indigenous" populations that revolted in Ireland and Scotland).

In 1968 historian Paul H. Smith estimated there were about 500,000 Loyalists, or 16% of the white population.**

Yale historian Leonard Woods Larabee has identified eight characteristics of the Loyalists that made them essentially conservative and loyal to the king and Britain:
They were older, better established, and resisted radical change.
They felt that rebellion against the Crown—the legitimate government—was morally wrong.
They were alienated when the Patriots resorted to violence, such as burning houses and tarring and feathering.
They wanted to take a middle-of-the road position and were angry when forced by the Patriots to declare their opposition.
They had a long-standing sentimental attachment to Britain (often with business and family links).
They were procrastinators who realized that independence was bound to come some day, but wanted to postpone the moment.
They were cautious and afraid that chaos and mob rule would result.
Some were pessimists who lacked the confidence in the future displayed by the Patriots. Others recalled the dreadful experiences of Scots who rebelled in Scotland and lost their lands when the king won.
Other motivations of the Loyalists were:
They felt that the colonial assemblies and Parliament were the only legal channels of democracy, government and reform.
They felt themselves to be weak or threatened within American society and in need of an outside defender such as the British Crown and Parliament. This group of Loyalists included linguistic and religious minorities, recent immigrants not fully integrated into American society, and blacks and Indians.
They lived on the frontier and relied on the peaceful land negotiations and treaties that the British Government had contracted between European settlers and Native Americans.
They had been promised freedom from slavery.
They felt that being a part of the British Empire was crucial in terms of commerce and military protection.

Hmm...I do not see anything listed by this historian regarding disliking tax evaders.....I think I will believe a Yale historian over a troll any day.



* Wikipedia
** Paul H. Smith, "The American Loyalists: Notes on Their Organization and Numerical Strength," William and Mary Quarterly (1968) 25#2 pp. 259-277 in JSTOR

reply to post by elysiumfire

That is exactly what we need to do, not just in America, but in all the developed western nations, and make it a cooperative, collaborative, international revolution of peaceful civil disobedience

All western nations you say. I assume that also means us down in Australia.
Nice fantasy however what you fail to realise is that not all western nations are doing badly economically at the moment at all. Australia for many(middle class)is doing quite well.
In any case Australia is nation where the masses are easily distracted with all kinds of bread and circuses e.g. I am sure as a pom your familiar with our love for sport especially rugby and cricket two major distractions for many aussie males.
So nice fantasy however speaking for my own western nation i dont think this will fly.

They get to hide behind certain curtains, one is capitalism as long as its profitable its right, another is law, bush turned around and said americans military were not subject to the geneva code of conduct.....he got away with this by surrounding himself and his administration with laywers.......another major factor is the media who are part of the establishment they might play off the left right thing but its all a circus, there is no real liberal media anywhere.....as there are no real liberal billionaire media magnets anywhere.

Originally posted by surfin4
They get to hide behind certain curtains, one is capitalism as long as its profitable its right, another is law, bush turned around and said americans military were not subject to the geneva code of conduct.....he got away with this by surrounding himself and his administration with laywers.......another major factor is the media who are part of the establishment they might play off the left right thing but its all a circus, there is no real liberal media anywhere.....as there are no real liberal billionaire media magnets anywhere.

No real liberal media? hmm...if that is the case, then why did Obama get a free ride from the press his first 4 years? Even now the kid gloves are still on.
Imagine the media outrage if the NSA scandal and the IRS scandal had occurred during the Bush Admin? Imagine if the Senate cloakroom had been bugged during Bush's last few years? It's all being brushed under the rug by the likes of MSNBC and others...Meanwhile Barry just smiles and continues on.

This is the game being played these days. They all head in the same direction but the masses are sidetracked with meaningless garbage. Reality show, anyone? Sports? Video games? Meanwhile the govt is bleeding our pocketbooks dry and demand more while spending more than they take in year after year after year in order to pay for the "freebies" to keep those votes coming.

Next will be the destruction of our health system, piece by piece.

Originally posted by ABNARTY
I'll throw this in the ring although it is not a new thought.

What is your average American to do? Specially? They put down the game controller/remote/whatever and walk out the door to begin. What do the do?

Write their representative? They do not have a representative or more accurately that person does not represent them. Matter of fact, they do not have much of a government unless you count the parts which gathers and spends money you have no say in.

Protest? Who even cares. More people with signs, with their permit, on the edge of town.

Fight fire with fire, amass a gazillion dollars and wrestle the helm right again? Good idea but that is an elite club not fond of new members. How long does it take to save a gazillion dollars anyway?

Blow something up? Who gets hurt? Your average American. What are you supposed to blow up anyway? You are now just a lone not-job and your actions further erode the freedoms of others. Almost like that was of the plan or something. (BTW, don't blow something up)

Go to the press? We have seen how that works out with whistle blowers.

Revolution? The power players are still in place even if we replace the whole government. The Constitution is a good thing but it cannot create something immune from corruption. Asides from the makings of a good action-thriller, I am not sure how you go after the lever-pullers in the world.

So instead of saying Americans will continue to support a corrupt government, perhaps say until a good avenue comes along, they do not have much of a choice but to ride the bus.

Well, this may sound inconsequential to many and it goes against everything we've been taught, but I can think of only one thing that won't result in our immediate demise.

We need to show our dissatisfaction by refusing to show our support. Refusing to vote for the lesser of two (or 3, or 4 etc.) evils. Doing so is, after all, still voting for evil. Is it not?

A substantial drop in voter turnout would, at the very least, send a very clear message. (1) That despite decades of brainwashing (a common response i received after making this suggestion to a number of people, was an immediate negative backlash, or simply a look of confusion), we are still capable of rational decision making and (2) the Nation, as a whole, is on to you and we are growing very, very tired of all the BS.

Getting a high voter turnout has always been extremely important and a high priority of the gov. Makes you wonder what may happen if people simply stayed home on election day?