I'm Pre-Approved for an ObamaCard!

[CDB]

Agreed.. but in all honesty I think Ron Paul did shoot himself in the foot with that premise. He is not a Republican by any stretch of the imagination, and to run a campaign on the tainted party name was a kill shot for him.

Actually, and sadly, it was his best shot. As a third party candidate he was guaranteed to be shut out of all the debate and would have been given even less respect by the media outlets. He is a Republican in terms of the old right a la Patterson, Taft, Goldwater, etc.

I will always vote in the direction I believe, and that being third party. I only hope more and more of America will wake up to the idea that these two parties do not have our best interest in mind, and only further and further killing the sovereignty that made America great.

I think more and more of American will first try and 'get theirs' from the system before they even think of trying freedom for a change.

[DAdams91982]

Actually, and sadly, it was his best shot. As a third party candidate he was guaranteed to be shut out of all the debate and would have been given even less respect by the media outlets. He is a Republican in terms of the old right a la Patterson, Taft, Goldwater, etc.



I think more and more of American will first try and 'get theirs' from the system before they even think of trying freedom for a change.

One of the big problems across the board right now... the hand out mentality. Waiting for it to get filled. Masquerading as a humanity movement, essentially striping the youth of any type of need to pick up and do something for themselves.

Adams

[Jayhawkk]

It's politics... Even if you had a Libertarian movement that worked and gained political power on the Hill it would only be a matter of time before we ended up right where we are now. People more worried about keeping their seat of power over what their constituants want.

[EasyEJL]

It's politics... Even if you had a Libertarian movement that worked and gained political power on the Hill it would only be a matter of time before we ended up right where we are now. People more worried about keeping their seat of power over what their constituants want.

totally true. We'd have to establish 2-6 year terms in senate + house, and then a term limit of 1 term for anything to change. No more dynasties then, no more spending half your term campaigning for your next election, you have 1 shot to make a difference. We'll never see real change otherwise.

[Jayhawkk]

How do you get people to vote to have themselves limited to their jobs?

[EasyEJL]

I didn't say it would be easy but its the only way we can have our representatives actually represent us, rather than being career politicians. I mean seriously, after the obama presidency, what state do you think Hillary will try to become a senator in this time around? Arlen Specter anyone? He's changed parties then back again, solely to get past the PRIMARIES for his party. not so much even for the general election purposes, but just the primaries. Who does he represent? seems like mostly he represents Arlen Specter

[Jayhawkk]

Unfortunately, you're right

[CDB]

How do you get people to vote to have themselves limited to their jobs?

Well that's the kicker, ain't it? Which is why I don't support democracy in the end. One, the middle and lower half of the bell curve will always out vote the upper half which means legislation will always tend towards the moronic. Two, the incentive in an elected position is to serve the people who got you there, but that isn't 'the people' as we know them but the special interests who paid for your campaign. Hence, we have a bunch of dupes voting for a smaller bunch of dupes, and trusting that when in office and given the power to make law and grant special privileges they will become not only more intelligent, but altruists and serve the common good of all mankind. I call BS. They're gonna squeeze the system for all it's worth for as long as possible, and then bow out, hopefull before they've pissed off anyone to such an extreme that they resort to bullets to remove them from office. That's our system, take it or leave it. The only way to modify it is to mobilize enough people to outweigh the special intersts who really call the shots most of the time, or to start shooting at the politicians who don't abide by the constitution.

[AE14]

Well that's the kicker, ain't it? Which is why I don't support democracy in the end. One, the middle and lower half of the bell curve will always out vote the upper half which means legislation will always tend towards the moronic. Two, the incentive in an elected position is to serve the people who got you there, but that isn't 'the people' as we know them but the special interests who paid for your campaign. Hence, we have a bunch of dupes voting for a smaller bunch of dupes, and trusting that when in office and given the power to make law and grant special privileges they will become not only more intelligent, but altruists and serve the common good of all mankind. I call BS. They're gonna squeeze the system for all it's worth for as long as possible, and then bow out, hopefull before they've pissed off anyone to such an extreme that they resort to bullets to remove them from office. That's our system, take it or leave it. The only way to modify it is to mobilize enough people to outweigh the special intersts who really call the shots most of the time, or to start shooting at the politicians who don't abide by the constitution.

we need a lot of ammunition

[lutherblsstt]

As in the Constitution Party is not a viable option, or are you saying strict adherence to the constitution is paramount to scientology? Written word is hard to decipher sometimes.

Adams

The Constitution is a historic document written in a language that requires the assistance of Professors of Law specialized in Constititutional Law to properly understand what the meaning is.

[DAdams91982]

The Constitution is a historic document written in a language that requires the assistance of Professors of Law specialized in Constititutional Law to properly understand what the meaning is.

Constitution lawyers make their living trying to make the constitution say what they want it to say... for instance the second amendment. It is pretty clear, till you have someone wanting more restrictions, then apparently the right is only extended to a militia.

Adams

[lutherblsstt]

Well that's the kicker, ain't it? Which is why I don't support democracy in the end. One, the middle and lower half of the bell curve will always out vote the upper half which means legislation will always tend towards the moronic. Two, the incentive in an elected position is to serve the people who got you there, but that isn't 'the people' as we know them but the special interests who paid for your campaign. Hence, we have a bunch of dupes voting for a smaller bunch of dupes, and trusting that when in office and given the power to make law and grant special privileges they will become not only more intelligent, but altruists and serve the common good of all mankind. I call BS. They're gonna squeeze the system for all it's worth for as long as possible, and then bow out, hopefull before they've pissed off anyone to such an extreme that they resort to bullets to remove them from office. That's our system, take it or leave it. The only way to modify it is to mobilize enough people to outweigh the special intersts who really call the shots most of the time, or to start shooting at the politicians who don't abide by the constitution.

Rightintheface here,

We all know there are puppets and puppet masters. I still reckon Obama is a step in the right direction.

I am curious though -
what would you propose as an alternative to democracy ?

[DAdams91982]

Rightintheface here,

We all know there are puppets and puppet masters. I still reckon Obama is a step in the right direction.

I am curious though -
what would you propose as an alternative to democracy ?

For starters, a REAL democracy would be the ideal alternative. I really don't remember voting in my life time for congress to get a raise.... any of the times. This whole elected official to represent you is bull****. There are way to many people between myself and the commander in chief.

Adams

[CDB]

The Constitution is a historic document written in a language that requires the assistance of Professors of Law specialized in Constititutional Law to properly understand what the meaning is.

Quite the contrary, the constitution and the law in general in the US were written in plain English so that the law would not be some inaccessible thing to the general population. The only people who benefit from the 'legalese' view of the constitution are the lawers in congress and in the private market who then rake in millions 'interpretting' the meaning of the laws and/or bending them to fit their needs.

I am curious though -
what would you propose as an alternative to democracy ?

As a practical matter? Nothing. As a far reach, monarchy of some kind so the head of state in effect owns the state and is interested in preserving and increasing its long term capital value as opposed to just squeezing it for all it's worth in the present, which is what elected stewards tend to do. Chances of that happening in the US though are practically zilch.

As a practical avenue, try and re educate people as to what many of the founders knew. That being, that the state is not a solution to life's imperfections and that its scope should be severely limited. That freedom is preferable than a possibly more cushy life but one in effect spent in bondage of some kind. A big part of this is recapturing the vocabulary. Rights used to mean restrictions on the state's power, these days it means government enablement. Freedom of speech meant the state couldn't stop you from speaking your mind, not that everyone was enabled to publish their own newspaper. These days the latter intepretation is more likely. Of old the free market meant just that, a market free from intervention. These days institutions like The Fed are considered 'free market', even though The Fed's job stated outright is to push interest lower than the market would have set it and to make money more freely available than the market would have. We live in a newspeak world where the operations of a government institution whose goal is to directly interfere with and change market prices for the direct benefit of a few politically connected bankers is considered 'free market' even though it's a page right out of the Marx/Engles play book, both of whom stated outright that a centralization and control of credit and capital would be instrumental in bringing about socialism/communism.

So the first step I think is to take back the language, and then try and show people that by and large they are better off without the government sucking up half their income. To show them that a country where the government does just that on a regular basis is not properly considered free.

[lutherblsstt]

Quite the contrary, the constitution and the law in general in the US were written in plain English so that the law would not be some inaccessible thing to the general population. The only people who benefit from the 'legalese' view of the constitution are the lawers in congress and in the private market who then rake in millions 'interpretting' the meaning of the laws and/or bending them to fit their needs.



As a practical matter? Nothing. As a far reach, monarchy of some kind so the head of state in effect owns the state and is interested in preserving and increasing its long term capital value as opposed to just squeezing it for all it's worth in the present, which is what elected stewards tend to do. Chances of that happening in the US though are practically zilch.

As a practical avenue, try and re educate people as to what many of the founders knew. That being, that the state is not a solution to life's imperfections and that its scope should be severely limited. That freedom is preferable than a possibly more cushy life but one in effect spent in bondage of some kind. A big part of this is recapturing the vocabulary. Rights used to mean restrictions on the state's power, these days it means government enablement. Freedom of speech meant the state couldn't stop you from speaking your mind, not that everyone was enabled to publish their own newspaper. These days the latter intepretation is more likely. Of old the free market meant just that, a market free from intervention. These days institutions like The Fed are considered 'free market', even though The Fed's job stated outright is to push interest lower than the market would have set it and to make money more freely available than the market would have. We live in a newspeak world where the operations of a government institution whose goal is to directly interfere with and change market prices for the direct benefit of a few politically connected bankers is considered 'free market' even though it's a page right out of the Marx/Engles play book, both of whom stated outright that a centralization and control of credit and capital would be instrumental in bringing about socialism/communism.

So the first step I think is to take back the language, and then try and show people that by and large they are better off without the government sucking up half their income. To show them that a country where the government does just that on a regular basis is not properly considered free.

I understand what you mean.

I too have concerns about the governmental form of democracy as I see it in so many countries.

I have not problem with the concept of democracy itself, but with how in practice it has many problems.

It too has corruption, often inefficient decision making that leads to compromises that often have little to do with the original idea. One of the biggest problems is that most democracies are democracies in process but not in content.

Even the process is not really strictly democratic, but through representatives that act for the people rather than the people directly who participate. Of course there is justification. If we would have every nitwit in the country decide what is best for the country than that could be scary.

However the problem is still process vs. contents. If for example through a new law it would be decided by the House and the Senate that half the government has to consist of the KKK then that clearly is a democratically taken decision, despite the content of the decision being very undemocratic.

Governmental forms that differ from democracies in the end usually have far more abuses of human rights.

One would have to search history to find a couple of absolutists whose ruling does not escalate.

I can think of Frederick II of Prussia for example, a so-called "enlightened absolutist". There aren't too many others. Charles v, perhaps ? Charlemagne ?

A pure monarchic form of government in reality only is fairer and better than the concept of democracy is that monarch approaches the perfection of God in terms of having the ability to do only good, be perfectly fair and having absolute wisdom and knowledge.

The fallibility of man, the conditions of man being subject to beliefs, passions, culture make that almost per definition impossible. Thus in hindsight, I never say that democracy is the best way of the government but the least worse one.

[suncloud]

Just as hitler kicked out the jews so his native german people could prosper, soon the only way we will be able to prosper as a country again is to remove a large proportion of the immigrants. Every english person I know supports hitler style policies of england for english people, judging by the responses in this thread I would think a lot of americans share the same views.

Hitler said "No jew shall feast while a german man goes hungry", now hitler was generally a nutcase, but the belief that germany should support german people above all others was an honourable belief, a belief that captured the hearts of millions of people and allowed him to gain power. It is only a matter of time before a similar extremist leader gains power again. That will be the day civil war begins.

a rise of mccarthyism in america? i know that's a general consensus in america that immigrants are taking "our" jobs, but there's also the flipside, that we pay so much money for professionals that the best doctors from developing nations (malaysia, india, china) move to the US where they get paid the most. they also very rarely take "our" jobs - i know very few out of work doctors.

what we have to be careful of here, is we have to make sure illegal immigrants are prosecuted, and not build up a fear of the legal immigrants. an old coworker of mine is an illegal immigrant and on his 5th DUI. they told him if he got another one, he MIGHT be deported. IMO it is the immigrants that create problems that have to be dealt with more harshly, and leave the rest alone.

[strategicmove]

...
It's apparent you're part of the DumbMasses. You're welcome to leave this country if you don't like it.

Wow!

[strategicmove]

.

Immigrants are what made this country strong. It's the illegal ones that are giving the problems. Hitler didn't relocate Jews, he slaghtered them! Don't try and make what he did seem beneficial by choosing your words carefully. We've been in recessions before without a total world meltdown of anarchy and civil war. I think it's a bit too early to be sounding the trumpet of tribulation.

Good post!

There can be no justification for using Hitler's antisemitism, and the accompanying grave consequences, as an analogy or hint for a social paradigm. Besides, Hitler's Germany was a completely different historical setting, especially in the light of the World War I reparation payments Germany was burdened with, coupled with the high level of unemployment of the time. So, Hitler's lopsided, ethically and morally problematic approach to the social challenges of the Germany of his era, including his infamous Solution of the so-called Jewish Question, should not and cannot morally be cited, even in a very remote sense, as a prescriptive model for modern-day policy action.

[Random181]

Hitler was a nutcase, I in no way support his policies of slaughtering the jews or anyone for that matter, the fact I was stating was that one of hitlers main policies was germany would support german people first- he believed that the jews and immigrants did nothing but make it harder for german people as a whole. Using this idea he convinced the german people that the answer to their problems was to be rid of the jews. In modern society a large proportion of the population is of the opinion that our countries would be better were it not for the illegal immigrants- there you have the hate of immigrants already set up, it is a very small step to move to believing that removing the illegal immigrants (and a large amount of the lazy legal ones) would solve our countries problems and again a large percentage of the population also believes this. The step to take measures to remove these immigrants will be a small one, it is a matter of time before such a situation occurs. Jayhawk I agree it is to soon at this time to be sounding the trumpet of tribulation, it is only a matter of time before a situation where the immigrants are removed occurs, every day that passes more move in and more strain is put on our countries already struggling systems.

edit: @irish cannons last quoted comment, well said irish

[suncloud]

Hitler was a nutcase, I in no way support his policies of slaughtering the jews or anyone for that matter, the fact I was stating was that one of hitlers main policies was germany would support german people first- he believed that the jews and immigrants did nothing but make it harder for german people as a whole. Using this idea he convinced the german people that the answer to their problems was to be rid of the jews. In modern society a large proportion of the population is of the opinion that our countries would be better were it not for the illegal immigrants- there you have the hate of immigrants already set up, it is a very small step to move to believing that removing the illegal immigrants (and a large amount of the lazy legal ones) would solve our countries problems and again a large percentage of the population also believes this. The step to take measures to remove these immigrants will be a small one, it is a matter of time before such a situation occurs. Jayhawk I agree it is to soon at this time to be sounding the trumpet of tribulation, it is only a matter of time before a situation where the immigrants are removed occurs, every day that passes more move in and more strain is put on our countries already struggling systems.

edit: @irish cannons last quoted comment, well said irish

removing the illegal ones would help our country specifically with regards to rising health care costs (50% in the last 2 years) because we have to offset the costs of providing free emergency room services to an illegal population that we cannot bill because they don't "live here".

i feel that illegal immigrants also tarnish the image of legal immigrants that work very hard to live in this country. you also are comparing hitler's "we have to remove all immigrants from our country" to the current "we have to remove all illegal immigrants from our country". i think we note a difference between those who followed the right steps to come here, and those that did not.

i could be wrong though.