Hillary Going For Broke

[babe]

We really do need more 3rd parties, and Independents to run.

Also, if the right would swing more to the Libertarian side, and away from the Tea Party they would be going in a good direction.

I can see the "libertarian" side as being more of a movement for human rights and based on principle. . . . and maybe in your view the "Tea Party" is a knee-jerk ideological camp with fantasies about "patriotism" and maybe even the Constitution.

Not much we can really do about people's stupidity, and there's a lot of it to go around. I think the attempt to raise the discussion to a higher level is worth the effort, and it takes some willingness to respect others to do that. A lot of "liberals" have good reasons for believing what they do, I just think the presence of some big players. . . "500 pound gorillas" . . . .has effectively co-opted our political process, and turned it into some pretty ignorant uses.

We have been cut out of the deal, and that is the fundamental problem. Therefore, the fundamental solution is to restore our importance, and our capacity to control our destiny.

 

[LogGrad98]

I can see the "libertarian" side as being more of a movement for human rights and based on principle. . . . and maybe in your view the "Tea Party" is a knee-jerk ideological camp with fantasies about "patriotism" and maybe even the Constitution.

Not much we can really do about people's stupidity, and there's a lot of it to go around. I think the attempt to raise the discussion to a higher level is worth the effort, and it takes some willingness to respect others to do that. A lot of "liberals" have good reasons for believing what they do, I just think the presence of some big players. . . "500 pound gorillas" . . . .has effectively co-opted our political process, and turned it into some pretty ignorant uses.

We have been cut out of the deal, and that is the fundamental problem. Therefore, the fundamental solution is to restore our importance, and our capacity to control our destiny.

It's our most abundant natural resource.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

I really don't think the fact that American democracy sows "choice" to the extent that......from 1989 to potentially 2025 our presidential office could be held by the Bush family, the Clinton family, and Obama should bother anybody.

 

[babe]

I really don't think the fact that American democracy sows "choice" to the extent that......from 1989 to potentially 2025 our presidential office could be held by the Bush family, the Clinton family, and Obama should bother anybody.

American Democracy????

The Bush family dynasty can be tracked back to before the American Revolution as British-aligned opium merchants. Mitt Romney was a Bush dynasty "stand-in", probably meant to lose. The Clintons are solid Rockefeller assets from their toe-in-door days in Arkansas under Arkansas' Governor Rockefeller. The Bush "Dynasty" has always been aligned with same overseers that the Rockefellers have served. British interests, as set up and manipulated on the world stage by essentially British "royalty" or elites or banking interests, via the laughably "US" Council on Foreign Relations.

Obama, though a supposed marxist ideologue according to his own fantasies, is essentially a "plantation manager" for the same "higher" interests.

The fact underlying all this is that "American Democracy" has been hijacked by largely "British" interests. . . . the same interests that ruled the British Empire under a powerless manipulated King George in the 1770s/ / /

Even Ronald Reagan was effectively "managed" in part through the selection of his running mate and a clear signal shot in the head.

The basic problem in American as well as world politics has always been the question of human rights, human dignity for the ruled underclasses. The basic "management" strategy has always been "divide and conquer", splitting the people into manipulable groups and pitting them one against another in the context of effective "strings" enabling "higher" control.

 

[ema]

I really don't think the fact that American democracy sows "choice" to the extent that......from 1989 to potentially 2025 our presidential office could be held by the Bush family, the Clinton family, and Obama should bother anybody.

Exactly, so much for democracy. It bothers even me.

 

[The Thriller]

Exactly, so much for democracy. It bothers even me.

We aren't a Democracy. Why do people keep calling us one? We aren't.

 

[ema]

We aren't a Democracy. Why do people keep calling us one? We aren't.

Lol, tell that to the people you carry Democracy to.

 

[babe]

We aren't a Democracy. Why do people keep calling us one? We aren't.

Those who look to the founding principles of this nation might want to call it a "Constitutional Republic" or "government of the people, by the people and for the people."

Practical "progressives" today clearly believe they hold a superior wisdom for the planet that justifies totalitarian governance. While there is a wild sort of variance within that camp that includes everything from ideological marxists through various brands of socialism all the way to cartelist principles that could be described as government of the money, by the money, and for the money. . . . they all actually believe they possess some superior wisdom that justifies an "in-crowd" of social, financial or intellectual elites of essentially a statist or fascist world view just taking the helm of planet earth. This is the underlying "wisdom" of "global governance".

The elite "media" cartelists package this and propagandize it as "democracy", and a lot of people believe it.

The UN does not have elected officials who represent the actual "people".

 

[The Thriller]

Lol, tell that to the people you carry Democracy to.

Who have we carried Democracy to? I'd love to know. I've seen us blow a lot of stuff up and make a lot of foreigners rich. But I'm not sure if I've ever seen us give Democracy to another people in my lifetime.

In fact, I'm a big believer that members of a certain country are actually the ones who decide what form of government they will ultimately have.

If we truly were a Democracy and could vote on wars, I think the last country we would have given "Democracy" to would have been Japan. All other wars since have been completely unnnecessary.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

We aren't a Democracy. Why do people keep calling us one? We aren't.

Sure we are. As defined in the language of our times. Direct democracy is almost completely obsolete in modern times so democracy has just shifted to being an umbrella term for various government configurations. Representative democracy fits into the context of a Republic just fine.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

The elite "media" cartelists package this and propagandize it as "democracy", and a lot of people believe it.

And of course I agree with this too. Our language is totally getting muddled and 1984'd on purpose.

 

[babe]

Who have we carried Democracy to? I'd love to know. I've seen us blow a lot of stuff up and make a lot of foreigners rich. But I'm not sure if I've ever seen us give Democracy to another people in my lifetime.

In fact, I'm a big believer that members of a certain country are actually the ones who decide what form of government they will ultimately have.

If we truly were a Democracy and could vote on wars, I think the last country we would have given "Democracy" to would have been Japan. All other wars since have been completely unnnecessary.

Well, it may depend on what definition of "Democracy" you consider valid. The term is used in western media to mean "government like ours, with regular showcase "elections" where voters are supposed to choose between a few choices put forward by an elite, enlightened set of folks who have good connections and enough money to pay for influence as well as name recognition.

OK, OK, OK. . . . . you're absolutely right.

I share your antipathy for our penchant for blowing stuff up. Institutional, national, militarized "terror", isn't it???

People just aren't ever going to have any rights, liberties, or political power they don't insist on having. I think it takes some unusual circumstances to get enough people to effectively "insist". I prefer educational efforts over "blowing stuff up", and for the most part, the people in this world just have never seen it as a realistic expectation in life. I think I could do quie a bit of writing on examples of manipulators using false rhetoric agitating for "the people" in one way or another. I put it down as a rule that those who are calling for any kind of violence. . . ."blowing stuff up". . . . are just going to prove to be worse monsters than the ones we have in place now.

I'm studying Gandhi now.

 

[ema]

Who have we carried Democracy to? I'd love to know. I've seen us blow a lot of stuff up and make a lot of foreigners rich. But I'm not sure if I've ever seen us give Democracy to another people in my lifetime.

In fact, I'm a big believer that members of a certain country are actually the ones who decide what form of government they will ultimately have.

If we truly were a Democracy and could vote on wars, I think the last country we would have given "Democracy" to would have been Japan. All other wars since have been completely unnnecessary.

When I'm saying "you", I'm obviously and certainly not referring to you or any other American citizen, especially to the ones who are aware of the "Giving Democracy to the World" lie. With that sentence I'm trying to refer to that very lie itself. And please don't tell me that that lie isn't said and told by million times, actually billion times by the prevailing media which is belonging to no one else but those rich people you mentioned.

Actually the most disgusting thing isn't even the lie itself but the way it's been said. It was almost like "Look isn't it glowing! They are gonna have freedom and democracy!", while all that blowing a lot of "stuff" up was happening! It is disgusting and wicked as much as the terrorists blowing "stuff".