It only "beats it" if you use your perspective. Getting social results through the political/governmental process is ONE WAY to try to get a cultural change. If you think it's the ONLY way, then, again, that is your opinion.
How United States politics really works...
- Thread starter NoleSoup4U
- Start date
Really? I think you would agree that if someone were to wait for you to cash your check every week and then demand at the barrel of a gun, that you hand over 50%, you would rightly cal that armed robbery. Why is it okay in your violent, socialist mind for a lobbyist to petition a Congressman to use the tax collector to extract 50% of your wages to fund his little pet projects?
You're absolutely right about that. Libertarians have taken to the internet and, on the internet, you'd think they were gaining steam. I think that's skewed for now because a lot of libertarians are intelligent and forward-thinking people (almost exclusively forward thinking with limited appreciation for the past) and you'd expect their presence to be better represented online. I'm fascinated by what digital currencies could mean (moreso overseas than here for the time being), and I think that's a better focal point for them versus obsessing over the Federal Reserve (a modern monolith). I used to be a libertarian before I realized I didn't have any guns or any interest in arming myself.
I have a hard time focusing on the real issues. Like, robbing me of my hard-earned dollars to the MIC so they can kill 20 million people, bomb wedding parties with drones from a basement in New Mexico, while 90% of all deaths are civilians. Maybe I should sleep well knowing that you are changing things from the inside with your aligning with the D's & R's.
Really? I think you would agree that if someone were to wait for you to cash your check every week and then demand at the barrel of a gun, that you hand over 50%, you would rightly cal that armed robbery. Why is it okay in your violent, socialist mind for a lobbyist to petition a Congressman to use the tax collector to extract 50% of your wages to fund his little pet projects?
The thing is, people used to get robbed at gunpoint more frequently because the part of government that enforces laws against robbery used to be more difficult to enforce in such a wide-open country. To afford the part of the government that prevents that from happening more frequently, more taxes were levied. Republicans are supposed to argue that the first part should be the only focus of the government (we know that's not entirely true) and Democrats are supposed to argue that we should increase spending to help people who would have either been robbed or those who would have resorted to robbery (we know that's not entirely true).
You could sit still and do that or you could get off your ass and get Bernie elected. Or you could just post more grumpy threads telling everyone how horrible life is and wondering why nothing is ever good. Or go on Prozac. Thanks to liberals you have many choices at your finger tips. Fun how that works out.
"Meaningful changes?" Be more vague, please.
Do changes occur in our social structure from bills being made into laws? Yes, they obviously do. However, purposely limiting the voices in our governmental process to 2 is evidence that we (the citizenry) is being railroaded. I don't know if people's decision to play this rigged game is ignorance, stupidity, personal gain, or not having anything better to do.
I'm also not "pretending to be smarter" than anyone. I'm putting my comments out here like everyone else. I'm inclined to believe exactly what I'm saying. I have conviction. If, for some reason, you think that I think that I'm more insightful than others, then that's your problem. Choosing to mock me and ridicule me doesn't help you. But, be my guest. Do it all you want. If that's the best you have, please do.
It's kind of what the fedgov is, isn't it. It protects the private banking cartel aka The FedRes. Charles Ponzi did 3 years in jail. The Fed operates with impunity.
You can't run #'s on the street. But, if you're Harrah's, Trump or Sheldon Adelson, you pay off your Congressman and punish the competition.
Last edited:
Bernie? Are you serious? He's more of the same. You're what Lenin called a useful idiot.
Funny how you bring up Prozac. A drug that our government should be protecting its citizens from. Instead, the drug maker pays off the right people in the FDA to get to market.
I'm starting to see a pattern here. You're a lot like the politicians you worship. You, like them, are totally preoccupied with getting credit for something... anything. "Liberals gave you choices..."... please, dude. I guess I should expect this kind of ideology given that this is a sports forum. My Team Is Better Than Your Team is taken literally here.
How should we do currency? Y'all have a shot with bitcoin. You're not going to convince the masses that it's better to have the political government manipulate currency versus a private cartel. Should it be based on precious metals that are now almost useless in industry?
Sanders is not quite "more of the same." Sanders is not like Hillary/Mitt/McCain/Obama, etc. Sanders scares the establishment way more than Hillary. He's not CFR, nor is he in bed with Wall Street and corporations like Northrop Grumman.
I think it's skewed because most people are selective about which liberties they support. So, someone on the republican side might be against the income tax, but they'll be against something like gay rights. Then it might be completely reversed on the democrat side. Plus, there is always the fact that third party candidates just aren't welcomed into the debates anymore. That leads people to vote for someone in the two main parties because they believe to be throwing their vote away.
What if I already have the taste and want to live the rest of my life in a Prozac haze? Who's the government to tell me I can't take it?
If bitcoin ever became big enough to threaten the dollar it would be shutdown immediately. We've started wars over currency issues, shutting down a company would be child's play.
I think it's skewed because you have two choices and you have to work harder within your party (if you choose one) to get all of your views represented. There are other systems out there (proportional representation in legislative bodies - which still requires parties), but we'd need to amend our constitution to operate that way. And maybe that seems too difficult but maybe that's a worthier discussion than "Americans are stupid because they vote for the same two parties."
You see enemies behind every rock. Take out that windmill, it's really a giant in disguise. More of the same, LOL. Fools like you is how we get Lenins. Only the most radical will satisfy your need for vengeance. Pure folly, you would destroy civilization just to prove we're uncivilized.
It is fun that you want the FDA to protect us from industry. There might be hope for you yet.
Last edited:
Well said. And, usually, those who are paying much closer attention and realize how the system is corrupt, are almost always better represented by a 3rd party candidate. I vote for who aligns with me the most. I don't choose "who will win." That just perpetuates the corruption. And, I've never found a D or R nominee that even came close to my choices. Democrats got o war as much as Republicans, so humble foreign policy is lost in the 2-in-1 duopoly.
That's what's fascinating about bitcoin, it's not a company like a stupid MLM pseudo-barter enterprise. It's straight-up currency. It converts to dollars for now. Who are we going to invade if it works overseas?
You just need to allow all parties into presidential debates. Otherwise this isn't really worth discussing.
You wouldn't necessarily have to invade anyone. Someone would just find some bogus reason to shut them down. This wouldn't just come from the U.S. The people who own our money also own a lot of other peoples' money.
I'll gladly modify the discussion to go forward. We ALL know the system is corrupt. Let's change it!
Into which debates? So far, we've only had debates for candidates in a specific party. Also, if Americans are stupid enough to vote based on what politicians say in debates, what's to prevent your favorite politicians from misleading them in debates? Are they actually principled or have they not yet been afforded the opportunity to compromise their views in favor of maintaining their power?
Draw it up, dude. I'm talking about an amendment to the constitution which will change how representatives are elected. Do we still bother with the states? Or is the entirety of Congress based on how the entirety of the country votes for the various political parties who gain traction?
Which presidential debates? The Republican ones or the Democratic ones? Or do you want to coerce the private media into accepting all-comers for a debate labeled as a Republican/Democratic debate?
I apologize. I didn't realize that since the media/Republicans/Democrats labeled it a Republican/Democrat debate nobody else should be allowed into it.
It's a private organization. You want the government to force them to hold a debate and invite others? Now who isn't respecting Liberty? Why isn't the market resolving this issue?
Bitcoin is not libertarian. The government should ALLOW competition. There should be competing currencies. People the world over are forced to accept FedRes notes. Protecting dollar hegemony is the root of some wars today. Saddam Hussein was trading oil for Euros because he did not wish to receive a depreciating currency. Iran set up an oil bourse for the same reason. We see the fruits of that.
How is bitcoin not a part of that competition? It's not manipulated by any government. I'm not on the bitcoin train, but I don't understand your opposition to it.
