We're in an awful lot of trouble

reply to post by ZeroReady


We know all this..

What's your point?

the photo sprayer guy looks like he is Truly Mentally Retarded..

Safety Helmet and all.. supposedly he got a bigger settlement for his PTSD from the incident than his victims.


And we are in a WHOLE HEAP of trouble..

We crossed the rubicon with the WW2 bombs.. After that, we needed to wipe out everyone before they caught on.

reply to post by ZeroReady


Food for thought

1 — Staggering Increase in the Cost of Elections, with Dubious Campaign Funding Sources: Our 2012 election reportedly cost $3 billion. All of it was raised from private sources – often creating the appearance, or the reality, that our leaders are beholden to special interest groups. During the late Roman Republic, elections became staggeringly expensive, with equally deplorable results. Caesar reportedly borrowed so heavily for one political campaign, he feared he would be ruined, if not elected.

2 — Politics as the Road to Personal Wealth: During the late Roman Republic period, one of the main roads to wealth was holding public office, and exploiting such positions to accumulate personal wealth. As Lessig notes: Congressman, Senators and their staffs leverage their government service to move to private sector positions – that pay three to ten times their government compensation. Given this financial arrangement, “Their focus is therefore not so much on the people who sent them to Washington. Their focus is instead on those who will make them rich.” (Republic Lost)

3 — Continuous War: A national state of security arises, distracting attention from domestic challenges with foreign wars. Similar to the late Roman Republic, the US – for the past 100 years — has either been fighting a war, recovering from a war, or preparing for a new war: WW I (1917-18), WW II (1941-1945), Cold War (1947-1991), Korean War (1950-1953), Vietnam (1953-1975), Gulf War (1990-1991), Afghanistan (2001-ongoing), and Iraq (2003-2011). And, this list is far from complete.

4 — Foreign Powers Lavish Money/Attention on the Republic’s Leaders: Foreign wars lead to growing influence, by foreign powers and interests, on the Republic’s political leaders — true for Rome and true for us. In the past century, foreign embassies, agents and lobbyists have proliferated in our nation’s capital. As one specific example: A foreign businessman donated $100 million to Bill Clinton‘s various activities. Clinton “opened doors” for him, and sometimes acted in ways contrary to stated American interests and foreign policy.

5 — Profits Made Overseas Shape the Republic’s Internal Policies: As the fortunes of Rome’s aristocracy increasingly derived from foreign lands, Roman policy was shaped to facilitate these fortunes. American billionaires and corporations increasingly influence our elections. In many cases, they are only nominally American – with interests not aligned with those of the American public. For example, Fox News is part of international media group News Corp., with over $30 billion in revenues worldwide. Is Fox News’ jingoism a product of News Corp.’s non-U.S. interests?

6 — Collapse of the Middle Class: In the period just before the Roman Republic’s fall, the Roman middle class was crushed — destroyed by cheap overseas slave labor. In our own day, we’ve witnessed rising income inequality, a stagnating middle class, and the loss of American jobs to overseas workers who are paid less and have fewer rights.

7 — Gerrymandering: Rome’s late Republic used various methods to reduce the power of common citizens. The GOP has so effectively gerrymandered Congressional districts that, even though House Republican candidates received only about 48 percent of the popular vote in the 2012 election — they ended up with the majority (53 percent) of the seats.

8 — Loss of the Spirit of Compromise: The Roman Republic, like ours, relied on a system of checks and balances. Compromise is needed for this type of system to function. In the end, the Roman Republic lost that spirit of compromise, with politics increasingly polarized between Optimates (the rich, entrenched elites) and Populares (the common people). Sound familiar? Compromise is in noticeably short supply in our own time also. For example, “There were more filibusters between 2009 and 2010 than there were in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s combined.”

As Benjamin Franklin observed, we have a Republic — but only if we can keep it.

reply to post by ZeroReady


How do voter ID laws keep people from voting? As far as I know to cash a check or drive or numerous other things require an ID.

There is a reason why Republicans hold most of the House seats with a minority of popular vote.

Take a look at the electoral map of counties. The vast majority of counties vote red by preference. So, even though the urban populations are larger than the rural ones, you can only gerrymander out urban populations so far into the hinterlands (yes, Democrats gerrymander, too). Also, the House of Reps are supposed to be apportioned to the people of the country and are supposed to make sure that it is not simple rule by majority. In other words, there is supposed to be a representation of people from all nooks and crannies, including flyover, and most of the country is flyover and votes red, meaning that most of the Reps will tend to be red.

Also, Reps are voted on every two years. Blue voters only tend to care about the big elections every four years. That means that red voters are more reliable to turn out to vote for their Reps again meaning that most Reps will tend to be red. Btw, this election in 2014 is not a big year for blue voters because it's not a presidential election year.

reply to post by VoidWalker


I really tracked with your post and only disagree with point 7 and 8.

On point 8, you quote the "popular vote" as if it had some relevance to a "Republic" based system. We don't have any elections that are a national popularity vote. None.

Even the elections for the Presidency is 50 federal elections, in each state, held at the same time.

That holds true for congressional seats. I see you as a supporter of the republic system, flawed as it is, so mentioning a (media?) invented "popular vote" percentile as inaccurate.

Point 8 is opinion. I see an obvious movement to the left for decades. One only has to listen to JFK's speeches to see how far the Democrats have moved left in 60 years. That, in my view, says we've "compromised" too much already, if one is a supporter of the Constitution. Compromise has morphed into outright subversion of that document and our original ideals.

I feel this is the time to dig in our heels, say "no more!". Not compromise....just my opinion, though.LOL

reply to post by ketsuko


There is no such thing as "national popular vote" and no one is elected in the U.S. by that system.

Never will be. This country would be destroyed by it!

reply to post by nwtrucker


I agree with you on digging in our heels and you make valid points on 7 and 8 I do appreciate your input!