IS the USA about to break up?

Originally posted by Bashibozkedi

Problems arise when you have more than three parties,and you can end up with ineffective coalition governments that don't last, made up of uneasy alliances between parties with vastly different beliefs. This has frequently happened in Italy, for example.

Not to upset you too much but coalition governments can be very effective. Holland usually has a coalition government and it is very efficient at serving its people. Holland has its problems but its social system works very well to put its society's member's ahead of others. The problems are not caused by the style of government, they're caused by self-serving MP's and members of society whom blame government for their problems rater than taking responsibility of their own lives.

The more ideas you have within parliament the better. Ideas give choice. Choice brings opportunity. Generally, in an ideal world, politicians should get some of their ideas from their constituents (the people they serve), the head civil servants (the people who know what the country can afford (the people who don't change their jobs every election)), some of their own and then they should weigh each idea according to merit and feasibility as opposed to the current "I-think-it-so-you're-getting-it" system. Also, politicians shouldn't toe-the-party-line due to job security fears. Politicians are elected to serve people not politics and government.


In the U.K we have many more than three parties. We even have a newly formed branch of the Libertarian party. The media likes people to think we have only three.

You make many valid points about the group mentality and how politicians play on that. I certainly understand how we can all fall into this mindset. What I'm getting at though is that if you follow it blindly and never examine the rhetoric of each political party/candidate with your own reasoning capabilities than the truth is you don't belong near a ballot box. The vote as our founding fathers seen it wasn't meant to so divisive and set into camps. people are supposed to weigh the merrits of a candidates platform not just wheather they are Rep. or Dem.

As for other areas of group identification that's fine and dandy but when it comes to the destiny of your country, financial future, and children's future I believe you should be a bit more developed and spend some time reasoning things out instead of "grouping" things together.

reply to post by lazy1981


And I agree with you.

Personally, I consider ideas and decisions based on merit, experience, projected outcome, my own preferred outcome, the impact of the idea on others and many other criteria (but not always). I heed other peoples' ideas but more often than not prefer my own or modify my own and others through debate.

This next bit will seem a little contrary to the above but by the time you've read the ending you will see that it isn't. Many people feel that they have to justify their own ideas and preferences (as well as other behaviour). We are brought up to justify ourselves. It starts with parents asking what we've done and to explain how we've done it along with why we've done it; it continues with teachers, members of society and authority. The constant requests to justify ourselves and to seek acceptance & affirmation give us a negative guilt complex even in absence of guilt for any acts against society and its members. People feel they've a right to force reasons from people and people feel they always have to comply with those requests. This causes people to give-up personal responsibility for their actions and to place that responsibility into a group with which they identify. It's easier. People have busy lives and so prefer mob/group mentality (not meant in a harsh way). They reason that a group with which they identify will make decisions not too dissimilar to their own hence being busy in life, being unwanting to have responsibility for their actions (because they can't be bothered to reason them) they follow the group.

I totally agree that such people who do not think for themselves might just give-up their right to vote; but then one has to think that perhaps one day people will be less busy and society might be less guilt conjuring and people might find something very important that they will want responsibility thus will take time to think and vote for their own needs rather than a group's needs. It's much easier to forsake a right than it is to regain it. We just need to wait for that time when society/man is sufficiently evolved/learned. And we need to ensure that people learn that all views are equally valid just not always appropriate or well thought through. No thought should find someone guilty - even the politest and wisest have fantasies.

People also need to learn that politics are not as complicated as they think - if they were most our politicians would be a lot cleverer.

reply to post by Rapacity


These are very good points you are making . Thanks for your reply.

Also, politicians shouldn't toe-the-party-line due to job security fears. Politicians are elected to serve people not politics and government.

I couldn't agree more with this . Unfortunately we see it less often as politicains of all stripe seem forced to toe the party line even more.
With the old hereditary House of Lords abolished and replaced with party appointees (lickspittles, toadys, and those who do what the government of the day tells them to) the ruling party has an even bigger carrot to dangle in front of them.

In the USA is the Upper House of representatives ,elected , appointed or what? Can some one enlighten me please?

This Libertarian party sounds interesting-tell me more!

Don't say there is someone I actually might want to VOTE for!

Good points and good questions.

The Libertarian party in the U.K has only recently been established. I know little about it or its authenticity hover its website can b found here.

I followed up on this story www.fourwinds10.com... and discovered it was linked with the Hal Turner Show, whom I was not familiar with. I listened to the show and was certainly in agreement with much of what was said, except the hate mongering and I was very disturbed by the talk of "race wars" --- follow along and you will see why this fits i this thread and the general "they" vs. "us" theory...

Concerned, I wrote the following to Hal's moderated board, where it did actually get posted...

"BTW -- Hal and all you other 'hate mongers' -- white, black and all colors in between... and I mean no offense to any of you because I respect your right to free speech... if people don't like it, they don't have to listen. But, do not let "them" divide "U.S." -- this is what they want and have planned... NOW is the time to set aside our differences of color and background and join together as "humanity" against the powers that be. When I noted "brothers" in an earlier reference, I mean every 'common man' out there. We are many opposing few, as they attempt to manipulate the inhabitants of the World to do their bidding for them. Simply a chess game... is it not?

I've seen pics of the U.S. and/or N. America divided into 10 segments... which would each have it's own Gov't... and then a Central Gov't, smaller than todays. Or view it as 10 Kingdoms... doled out to the elite rulers... Prince Dick? Putting even fewer in power, creating an even easier forum to complete the 'grand plan' -- simply a chess game... or a true life game of Risk."

Now -- my further thoughts... I guess the above would actually be "Duke Dick"? Ok... I wish to stress... it is my opinion that this is exactly what "they" want. Designed recently with allowing all the Mexicans in and doing nothing about it... creating hatred about them, in turn toward them... which was already accomplished with the whites and blacks, going back to the beginnins of slavery, stirred up recently with Imus and Ferraro and Obama's pastor. Consider what is going on in Iraq... "civil war" between different factions... change the name "race" to "faction" in the US and where is the difference really? It becomes that "civil war." This "game" has been played for a very long time by those who own the board... it is up to US to not play by the rules they have set in motion.

Consider that chaos plays into their hands... but also consider that a controlled breakup/secession also plays into their hands, when considering my above Kingdom/Serfdom scenario. But that's what it is about... the Power. Not the money... simply the Power and Control.

Regarding that article and:

"the possibility of Civil War inside the USA as a result of the collapse,

advance round-ups of "insurgent U.S. citizens" likely to move against the government"

I simply want to point out that a Civil War would be brother against brother... what "they" are speaking of attempting to control is citizen against government. That, my brothers, is Revolution.

One last thought -- consider the possibility of recent "tests" to test the human psyche and reactions of those involved and those onlooking from outside...

1> The obvious "false-flag events of 911 and of the 7/7 bombings in London... a quick you tube vid could prob. give you the quick jist on those -- but do you really believe that BOTH of those buildings pulverized to dust, in free-fall demolition style, in the exact same fashion... the first one hit was the 2nd one to fall (Dammit!! Who #ed up?!? I said the first tower, not Tower 1 dummy!! )... a smaller one Building 7 came down 5 hours later, in demolition style free fall fashion... the owner of the building is on camera admitting that he spoke with the fire dept. and they said they couldn't put out the fires (the few minor ones) because they had no manpower... so he told them to just "pull it" -- which is a term solely used in controlled building demolitions... which takes weeks to plan and install... one of the Bush family took over with his security firm months prior to that horrible day... adding one more thing, NO large building in history has ever collapsed because of fire, and that is given as the cause -- but all that fuel burned up instantly and those bldgs. were designed to be hit by planes... other older bldgs have had infernos burning 10, 12, 20 hours and never collapsed -- if I'm not mistaken, a plane flew into the Empire State Bldg. once as well (accident -- or just another test)

2> Recent "tests" now testing the public reaction and the "authority's" power over the people...

A> Katrina -- some say that storm was aided and steered by our technology -- even that aside -- those people were left... without help... no one coming in... like a FEMA was trained by the 3 stooges... or trained by G-dumb... all planned just like King G's stupidity in front of the cameras and in public... all done to gauge the ability to deprive the people of basic needs and reaction to "authority" coming in, taking guns, and "restoring order"

B> The SARS guy -- left the country -- they couldn't find him... remember? Kind of cute fiance/wife... again, I feel was nothing but a test on the mass psyche

C> Recalls... most importantly... FOOD recalls... "they" recalled TONS of beef because of some video tape... not because any was tainted... control the food in a time of need and you control the world... who the # needs money at that point?

D> Should I add my theory about the War of the Worlds incident, when masses of the public thought it was real... were you part of that? Gauging to see if the public was ready for the aliens... obviously not back then.

reply to post by grimreaper797


Yes Grim, yours was indeed one that I starred and I agree that no revolution was started by a gun alone. In fact it is how they end when all other courses of action have been exhausted by falling on deaf ears and closed minds.

Education is the key, and they are very well aware of it as witnessed by the general lack of education today. Even Undergraduate work is more to conformation than independant thought and exploration of ideas. Work towards a Master's degree is making another originators thought a reality but work, research and exploration of another's idea.

Many good ideas have been presented to bring the beast back under control, but as of yet nothing has been tried. It is possible that term limits or the fair tax would be the worst idea ever attempted and destroy hundreds of lives in the process of implimentation but something has to be tried by some brave soul that isn't worried about a political career being at stake or the history books will forever condem their administration as the most despised, vile cock-up ever seen by the world. (and beating out steller examples of Adi-Amin and Pol-Pot would take some absolute failure)

Unfortuately we are left with the knowledege that only 1 in 20 have the nature ability to lead. And even fewer have the resources and motivation to take that command. But I whole-heartedly agree it does begin with one person educating others that educate more until the idea is spread far and wide. Very few even know anymore that the Battle at the Old North Bridge that became the "Shot Heard Around the World" was to protect Sam Adams and John Hancock while they withdrew to a safer position. Even in my day it was just glossed over as Lexington and Concord, first major battle of the war.

But in a day when 7 years old can be suspended when they mention G-U-N-S (yes the teachers spell it now, even when speaking to the parents) lord knows what other brain-dead nonsense they foster as a curriculum.

reply to post by RabbitChaser


A further note: I would like to point out, then, that this fits in with my D.C./London(Royals/Banking Elite)/Vatican connection and a one world gov't with a one world religion... see post -- www.abovetopsecret.com...' at bottom (I think I have the lead in "thread killing")



[edit on 3/22/2008 by RabbitChaser]

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Yes Grim, yours was indeed one that I starred and I agree that no revolution was started by a gun alone. In fact it is how they end when all other courses of action have been exhausted by falling on deaf ears and closed minds.

It is true that the mark of failure for a revolution is when those involved resort to violence.

Education is the key, and they are very well aware of it as witnessed by the general lack of education today. Even Undergraduate work is more to conformation than independant thought and exploration of ideas. Work towards a Master's degree is making another originators thought a reality but work, research and exploration of another's idea.

That isn't the only education I speak of. Education about yourself. I will be going into detail of what I mean in an upcoming podcast.

Many good ideas have been presented to bring the beast back under control, but as of yet nothing has been tried.

The one thing I have not seen is a movement of the people. Those that are educated believe that it is on them to make a change through government but that is not the case.

It is possible that term limits or the fair tax would be the worst idea ever attempted and destroy hundreds of lives in the process of implimentation but something has to be tried by some brave soul that isn't worried about a political career being at stake or the history books will forever condem their administration as the most despised, vile cock-up ever seen by the world. (and beating out steller examples of Adi-Amin and Pol-Pot would take some absolute failure)

Nothing will happen politically. No change can be made within the system, because the system is not at fault here. There is nothing wrong with the system, the problem is with people. We are the problem. Our mindset, and our perspective, is the problem, and I have not seen anyone looking to tackle that problem.

I think the reason is because the situation is so overwhelming that a person looks at it and says "It is too big for me to change". The truth is, it is too big for you to go and change the whole thing. That's why people feel so hopeless. People don't see the bigger picture though.

Unfortuately we are left with the knowledege that only 1 in 20 have the nature ability to lead. And even fewer have the resources and motivation to take that command.

This may be true, but I don't think its out of reach to be yourself. That is the key. I will explain this in full in my podcast.

But I whole-heartedly agree it does begin with one person educating others that educate more until the idea is spread far and wide. Very few even know anymore that the Battle at the Old North Bridge that became the "Shot Heard Around the World" was to protect Sam Adams and John Hancock while they withdrew to a safer position. Even in my day it was just glossed over as Lexington and Concord, first major battle of the war.

But in a day when 7 years old can be suspended when they mention G-U-N-S (yes the teachers spell it now, even when speaking to the parents) lord knows what other brain-dead nonsense they foster as a curriculum.

I think you are confusing education with information. You don't need to be a plethora of information to be educated. To be educated is knowledge. The first knowledge you must gain is that of yourself. So when I say "become educated" I don't mean science or history. Be educated about yourself. Learn who you are as a person. Find your talent. Find your passion. Then learn about the world around you, the situation.

History, science, math, etc. it is all just secondary information. It is not the key. The key is learning about what is most important, yourself.

reply to post by lazy1981


Lazy1981, I agree with everything, every single thing, that you said in this post. We, the people, have to be responsible for learning what we need to know about the government, but most people take the easy way out, the MSM spoon-feeding. I have come to realize that a lot of people apparently vote as if they are placing their bets, rather than choosing a representative.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
It is true that the mark of failure for a revolution is when those involved resort to violence.

reply to post by In nothing we trust


Relevance?

Not a one liner. Im just not sure the point of the picture.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
reply to post by In nothing we trust

 

Relevance?

Not a one liner. Im just not sure the point of the picture.

It's a black flag.

It has several meanings.

Pirates used to fly it to give fair warning. I think they preferred intimidation to violence.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by In nothing we trust]

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
It's a black flag.

It has several meanings.

Oh, ok....want to explain them?

I mean you posted it. Am I expected to know what they mean?

edit: OK, fair warning...what relevance does that have to what I said? I'm not a psychic, you need to say what you are thinking.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by grimreaper797]

The answer to everyone's questions are; yes the US is going to break up. So is the rest of the world.

reply to post by Rapacity


At the risk of sounding agreable, I have to say that yet again you make very valid points. And though they are true and I agree with the logic I don't like that sort of reasoning (not to say that you do either). I feel that this is precisely the sort of irrational and underdeveloped (lazy if you will) sort of copout that has put our once great nation in the current predicament that we are in today.

As for the idea of "forsaking" their rights I beleive that this has already been done and I couldn't agree with you more that it is much harder to regain them if not impossible short of bloodshed. I beleive that you will find the best exspresion of this that I can muster (though not my words) in my signature. It is one of the truest things ever said by one of the greatest men that this country has ever been graced with Benjamin Franklin. My GOD what this country could be agian with but a handfull of true patriots of this sort once more.

Then again they would probably end up in Guantanamo Bay as "subversive enemy combatants" under this administration. Our founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew what has become of all their sacrifices.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Oh, ok....want to explain them?

I mean you posted it. Am I expected to know what they mean?

It means that me and mine would prefer to avoid a bloody violent revolution if possible. It is a last resort. Subterfuge is the prefferred method of warfare.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by In nothing we trust]

Personally, I hope the U.S. breaks up.

I think a balkanized America would be best for all of us.

The only way that happens though is through some sort of insurrection/revolution/civil war.

I personally cant wait for that either.

Originally posted by Bashibozkedi
reply to post by Rapacity

 

These are very good points you are making . Thanks for your reply.

Also, politicians shouldn't toe-the-party-line due to job security fears. Politicians are elected to serve people not politics and government.

I couldn't agree more with this . Unfortunately we see it less often as politicains of all stripe seem forced to toe the party line even more.
With the old hereditary House of Lords abolished and replaced with party appointees (lickspittles, toadys, and those who do what the government of the day tells them to) the ruling party has an even bigger carrot to dangle in front of them.

I absolutely hate it when politicians "vote rank and file" I know that we have some Brits. and others in here but speaking for myself when I see perfectly good legislation get struck down because these idiots have to vote up and down party lines it boils my blood to no end!

When did "our" politicians stop being good Americans" (likewise for you other guys you know what I'm getting at) and think that it was enough to become merely good Republicans/Democrats?????

We need to put a stop to this trash somehow and soon. And it falls back to the voters because the politicians fear that if they don't vote this way they will not get reelected.

In the USA is the Upper House of representatives ,elected , appointed or what? Can some one enlighten me please?

It doesn't matter what part of the Congress it is they are all elected wheather it be The Senate or The House of Rep. The only branch that is appointed is the Judiciary and the President's Cabinet.

Now for the "Truth," All U.S. elected officials are first appointed by the media pundits and then elected by a popularity contest. And that is the sad reality of it.

This Libertarian party sounds interesting-tell me more!

I don't Know a great deal about the Libritarian Party but what I do know is that they (for the most part) have a platform that's inline with the original ideas in the U.S. Constitution. In as much as the government should stay out of peoples lives as much as possible. That's about as much as I know at present. We have somewhat of a Libritarian Party here in the States but nobody that we can realy get behind yet to the best of my knowledge. I think the Green Party is even larger than they. If I get a chance to look at it more thoroughly I will reply something here.


Don't say there is someone I actually might want to VOTE for!

Originally posted by Annoyed
reply to post by lazy1981

 

Lazy1981, I agree with everything, every single thing, that you said in this post. We, the people, have to be responsible for learning what we need to know about the government, but most people take the easy way out, the MSM spoon-feeding. I have come to realize that a lot of people apparently vote as if they are placing their bets, rather than choosing a representative.

Thank you, and it's good to see that there are still people in the world that have a mind of their own that functions properly. "Use it or loose it brother." And now there are two, and three, and four so far. The key is to try and spell this thing out for the people that we know (and this goes for all of us reading this post) and maybe we can start an epidemic of political rational and break free from the "Party" bonds that we (and I use "we" loosely) have let the media and society put upon us.

The real test is will you go all the way and hold back your own political views and try to remain objective, simply reach the goal of getting those around you to do nothing more than think for themselves?