It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Real State of the Union - Lets Discuss it
page: 4share:
His quote that got the first standing ovation was quite interesting. At about 6:45 of the first part, "I've never been more hopeful for America's
future, than I am tonight".
Originally posted by shasta9600
His quote that got the first standing ovation was quite interesting. At about 6:45 of the first part, "I've never been more hopeful for America's future, than I am tonight".
I hope I live to see him get knocked off of his high horse with extreme physical abuse
I don't see how our military sits around and does nothing about this government. Hopefully when they pass the bill that says Gays can openly serve in the forces they say enough is enough.
[edit on 28-1-2010 by Sky watcher]
Originally posted by endisnighe
Using only basic math and no fancy Finance trickery or even taking into account annual percentage rate interest.
12,000,000,000,000 (trillion) dollars
If we run a budget surplus of 483 billion dollars and we pay the basic yearly interest of the debt of 383 billion dollars, that leaves 100 billion to pay down the debt.
NOW divide 12 Trillion by 100 billion.
What do you get?
[edit on 1/28/2010 by endisnighe]
VERY IMPORTANT CONCEPT!
You guys who think you understand what is meant by budget deficit and budget surplus have no idea what is really going on. There are two budgets used in government... the one that the public gets to see, and then there is the COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT:
Article on CAFR
When a "budget" is proposed that is the OPERATING budget, and that is basically just the money that is being spent/earned from running the government and collecting taxes. This in no way represents the financial position of the United States.
Just because they operate at a deficit in the budget, that does not mean the U.S. is going into debt. That just means they are spending more in that cycle than what they are taking in with taxes. That, however, does not include the money they make from investments and other income-producing holdings. If you look at the true comprehensive financial situation of the U.S., it is worth about 60 trillion dollars or so...
Here is an example... let's say you have a million dollars in the bank, and you also have 100 million dollars in holdings and investments. Now, let's say you put together a budget for this years operations. You determine you will earn $100,000 and you will spend $200,000. That means your operating budget is $100,000 in deficit. However, because your operating budget does not show income from investments and other long-term financial instruments, your real INCOME for this year will be 5 million.
That is why the people in Washington are NOT that worried about things when it comes to keeping the wheels of government turning. It is true that the private sector economy got into the crapper, but as far as U.S. financial position is concerned, they are sitting pretty.
What happens is, they say they have a budget deficit, and they don't mention that it is an operating budget deficit, and they only give their CAFR to special groups, including the media, and then they CRY that they have to raise taxes, or cut services. This is because all the extra money they have hidden away is used for "secret" purposes, etc.
The true purpose of taxes is CONTROL. By using the tax system they can control how much extra money you have, how much you save, how you spend, etc. They do not really need taxes to operate, though it serves their purpose in controlling the public's perception of the government's true wealth.
They don't even need that much exporting, given that they still export the U.S. currency as a BIG money maker. Things may begin to change, however, as the rest of the world comes off the petro-dollar. In that case, the U.S. will begin to increase exports as a means of generating income (through tariffs, taxes, etc.) Mostly though, the U.S. government buys interest in businesses, real-estate, technology, weapons sales, etc.
This is all true and easily verifiable by doing a little research online. You can get copies of each state's CAFR online. Back in the 1990's and early 2000's the CAFR's contained ALL investment information, but recently, since the public has found out about these unpublicized reports, they seem to be missing certain things.... such as the fact that government corporations are some of the biggest investors in private companies. This is a fact that is NOT widely publicized.
[edit on 29-1-2010 by downisreallyup]
I thought the best part of the Address was when he tried to say:
"I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy; and I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But even if you doubt the evidence,"
with a straight face, but couldnt get through it without cracking that sinister grin.
Very telling in my opinion.
[edit on 28-1-2010 by skull_bones]
[edit on 28-1-2010 by skull_bones]
"I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy; and I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But even if you doubt the evidence,"
with a straight face, but couldnt get through it without cracking that sinister grin.
Very telling in my opinion.
[edit on 28-1-2010 by skull_bones]
[edit on 28-1-2010 by skull_bones]
There's a pretty big difference between everything Obama says and everything Obama does. That is almost like a universal constant, absolutely
consistent. The only real variance has been on health care - in which about half of his words are consistent with about half of his actions.
His concluding remark should have ended in a rhetorical, "If I told you I was a habitual liar, would you believe me?"
His concluding remark should have ended in a rhetorical, "If I told you I was a habitual liar, would you believe me?"
Originally posted by endisnighe
I will give you a 1111 character breakdown of the State of the Union there Ziggy and it will only take you 2 minutes to read it.
It will not take you 75 minutes through a bunch of bull# propaganda. It is really quite simple.
It took us 30 years to get where we are now. Through both parties spending like drunken sailors, we have accrued a national debt of >$12 Trillion bucks.
Using only basic math and no fancy Finance trickery or even taking into account annual percentage rate interest.
12,000,000,000,000 (trillion) dollars
If we run a budget surplus of 483 billion dollars and we pay the basic yearly interest of the debt of 383 billion dollars, that leaves 100 billion to pay down the debt.
NOW divide 12 Trillion by 100 billion.
What do you get?
120 years to pay off the debt.
That is your State of the Union.
Welcome to slavery
for every generation
in perpuity!
Thanks Obama, Bush and every other politician in the last 100 years. I myself give up on you. You are no longer my government.
The endisnighe!
[edit on 1/28/2010 by endisnighe]
Spot on, you explained it well and to the point. We are screwed and the govt. knows it. You haven't heard the news today except for CNBC saying about the S&P giving warning about the UK banks being in trouble, thats why the market was down starting at 10:15 am and stayed down. The next problem will be the EU countries defaulting on loans and bonds and so it will begin.
He read his teleprompter well, like the good little figure-head he is. One hour and ten minutes of meaningless words to lul the brain-dead followers
into mindless submission. He's just another tool in TPTB's belt. Just another speach in the 400 given in his first year as pawn-prez. Obama will
be of no use to TPTB soon. May God have mercy on his soul.
reply to post by downisreallyup
I know about the CAFR. Instead of chastising me for a SUPPOSED misinterpretation. Maybe you should have JUST brought it up.
I know the Federal Government and all the states HIDE their true income.
That is called fraud, plain and simple.
But if the income is not included in their stats, what am I supposed to do?
Start including these to dispute their Bull# numbers.
I have to use their numbers to show the problem. Do you know what I mean?
If I bring into it the CAFR's, I would look like a conspiracy theorist and that is how the gov disputes and derails the TRUE numbers.
I know about the CAFR. Instead of chastising me for a SUPPOSED misinterpretation. Maybe you should have JUST brought it up.
I know the Federal Government and all the states HIDE their true income.
That is called fraud, plain and simple.
But if the income is not included in their stats, what am I supposed to do?
Start including these to dispute their Bull# numbers.
I have to use their numbers to show the problem. Do you know what I mean?
If I bring into it the CAFR's, I would look like a conspiracy theorist and that is how the gov disputes and derails the TRUE numbers.
Originally posted by romanmel
He read his teleprompter well, like the good little figure-head he is. One hour and ten minutes of meaningless words to lul the brain-dead followers into mindless submission. He's just another tool in TPTB's belt. Just another speach in the 400 given in his first year as pawn-prez. Obama will be of no use to TPTB soon. May God have mercy on his soul.
I didn't see him looking down at all- in fact he was looking around at various members in the audience almost constantly so if what you say is true then there would have to have been teleprompters everywhere, if you'd watched you would have noticed he had an open three- ringed notebook on his podium.
With manners and decorum and respect intended, I can only offer this;
Although it was January 27th 2010,
it sounded like it was October 3rd 2009.
The onus is NOT the presidents to bear alone, we have the absolute laziest self absorbed self centered weak and purchased congress that a nation in trouble could have.
They are dysfunctional and sterile and need completely replaced.
That being said, the onus falls to the people.
Although it was January 27th 2010,
it sounded like it was October 3rd 2009.
The onus is NOT the presidents to bear alone, we have the absolute laziest self absorbed self centered weak and purchased congress that a nation in trouble could have.
They are dysfunctional and sterile and need completely replaced.
That being said, the onus falls to the people.
Thank you for posting the text in it's entirety. I listened to the SOTU and was less than impressed. What bothered me the most was that the speech
was *not* state of the union. It was campaigning and promises. I felt Obama was vindictive and snarky at times and less than presidential.
He had several errors and some outright lies in the speech, some of which were actually pointed out by the mainstream media. (The biggest surprise of the night to me!) If POTUS truly wants small businesses to thrive, then it's time to get out of the way. Small businesses will not hire while the uncertainty of cap and trade (based on constructed science) and the mandatory health insurance are still up in the air.
He had several errors and some outright lies in the speech, some of which were actually pointed out by the mainstream media. (The biggest surprise of the night to me!) If POTUS truly wants small businesses to thrive, then it's time to get out of the way. Small businesses will not hire while the uncertainty of cap and trade (based on constructed science) and the mandatory health insurance are still up in the air.
Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by downisreallyup
I know about the CAFR. Instead of chastising me for a SUPPOSED misinterpretation. Maybe you should have JUST brought it up.
I know the Federal Government and all the states HIDE their true income.
That is called fraud, plain and simple.
But if the income is not included in their stats, what am I supposed to do?
Start including these to dispute their Bull# numbers.
I have to use their numbers to show the problem. Do you know what I mean?
If I bring into it the CAFR's, I would look like a conspiracy theorist and that is how the gov disputes and derails the TRUE numbers.
I did not chastise you and I'm sorry if it sounded that way. According to the actual government information, the CAFR IS the true books of the government, and the general purpose budget is just a slice of that view.
Let me say that again... the TRUE governmental accounting is done in the CAFR, according to their own statements. Go and look up any CAFR from any state or governmental institution in America. You will find many right on their own government websites.
It is only the misconception of the public that makes it look like the CAFR is some kind of exception document. Those who work in government know that the CAFR is the "bible" and the president's proposed budget is just that... a BUDGET.
A rich man may operate using a budget, but if he goes way over budget, it's not going to break him. A budget is just a guide or goal. And the word DEFICIT merely means "we are going to spend more than the taxes we take in" and for those who assume that taxes are the MAIN means for bringing money into the government, that may sound like a bad thing.
The fact is, taxes are not the main means, not when there are things like a 600 trillion dollar derivatives market that the government has a large interest in... they have so much money that they don't mind gambling with those kinds of figures.
This is not conspiracy stuff at all, but is widely known by many people who work with the government, and by many of the general public. The MSM never mentions it though, and so people assume it is not generally known. Read the article I linked to and you will see just how well established the CAFR is. They are not committing fraud... they just have a more complicated budgeting and accounting system than what most average people assume.
Let's face it... most people really have very little idea of what it takes to run a government day-to-day, and they try to guess what it might be like based on their running of little businesses or whatnot.
You are fully within the truth if you include the CAFR figures into anything you determine. You were assuming that the word DEFICIT means the same as DEBT, and just because a government claims a deficit in the budget, that does not mean it owes anything to anyone. Plus, the national DEBT that is supposedly owed is INTEREST owed to the Federal Reserve bank, which is a private government-sanctioned entity. All that congress would have to do is do what China recently did... simply refuse to pay the interest, or to simply wipe the slate clean. If the Fed actually has hundreds of trillions of dollars of assets, a loss of some tens of trillions of owed interest would not kill them at all.
Anyhow, I just didn't want you to paint a picture of indebtedness that is nothing like that experienced by every day people. Governments have a different way of working and a different way of seeing things. They don't work like people or like corporations. So, I really don't think the situation is that bad at all.... it's just made to look that way for public consumption as a means of political control.
There are some misconceptions about the CAFR, and you may be aware of them.
First, it represents the assets held and managed by the government. If the government is unable to pay debt because collections are extremely slow as is the case for most states and the federal government now, the ASSETS can be converted to cash or otherwise used to pay this debt.
Secondly, these assets were purchased by tax revenues. They rightfully belong to the American people and the people of the respective states. This may seem like common sense, but most Americans are not even aware of the existence of the CAFR of the federal and state government. A legitimate government would make sure their citizens were aware of how their investments were doing.
So, in affect, a corrupt government can transfer the assets represented by the CAFRs to bankers to pay illegitimate debts if they so desired, and in fact may be doing just that.
I say illegitimate, because the accounting is compromised for the purposes of concealment of crimes.
The situation is bad. When the cash flow from working tax paying Americans does not satisfy the powerful world financiers, they will insist upon our assets.
At some point, an asset rich and cash poor business, whether private or the federal government, has to convert assets to service debt.
First, it represents the assets held and managed by the government. If the government is unable to pay debt because collections are extremely slow as is the case for most states and the federal government now, the ASSETS can be converted to cash or otherwise used to pay this debt.
Secondly, these assets were purchased by tax revenues. They rightfully belong to the American people and the people of the respective states. This may seem like common sense, but most Americans are not even aware of the existence of the CAFR of the federal and state government. A legitimate government would make sure their citizens were aware of how their investments were doing.
So, in affect, a corrupt government can transfer the assets represented by the CAFRs to bankers to pay illegitimate debts if they so desired, and in fact may be doing just that.
I say illegitimate, because the accounting is compromised for the purposes of concealment of crimes.
The situation is bad. When the cash flow from working tax paying Americans does not satisfy the powerful world financiers, they will insist upon our assets.
At some point, an asset rich and cash poor business, whether private or the federal government, has to convert assets to service debt.
Okay Ziggy I had some time as to what I would say.
To the members of both Houses of Congress I place herein the State of the Union. I request that this letter in its entirety be placed into the Journal of both Houses no later than 8pm on the 27th of January, 2010. Furthermore, this letter has been sent to all news outlets, no matter how they present their news nor the format. In addition, this letter will also take advantage of Information Age technology and will be placed in clear public view for all to see.
Each year, as required by our great Constitution, the President is to provide to Congress the State of the Union. I have decided to take a step back from past Presidents and return to an old tradition of delivering this letter in written form. The State of the Union is not about me or my presidency; it is about the Union.
With that, I must report that the State of the Union is in dire straits.
Our economy has been hit hard by shoddy practices both in private industry and those that hold offices of public trust. We are still engaged in two wars that have our Men and Women in harms way. Unemployment has still been on the rise and it is completely unacceptable. The People no longer see us in Government as stewards but as looters. I do not blame them. For this is the task that the majority of us, including myself have failed miserably at.
During the signing of the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin sent a letter to the delegation to be read before all. He expressed his shortcomings in being able to fully accept the Constitution as it was. He knew, as many back during that time, that all men were fallible; although in their own minds see themselves as right and the source of truth.
We today are no different. Representatives from both sides of the aisle all believe that they have the right answers. Their way is better than the others. They speak that they hold true to party principles but do they hold true to the principles of the People, of the Common Good.
The Common Good of the country is what should always be at the forefront of our minds, of our debates and discussions! We are stewards of this country, given authority and responsibility by the People to protect freedom, prosperity, and happiness.
As of late, including my presidency we have no longer been guardians; instead we have been trying to be givers. We have for far too long believed it to be the duty of Government to create wealth, create jobs, create regulations, create equalities, and so on. For all this, is why I give the report that the State of the Union is diminished and in need of some help.
I propose the following to aide in our discussions on how to turn the country around and to bring us to the forefront of model nations. One where other nations look to us and see the freedoms we provide and the happiness that flows from that freedom.
We must encourage the American spirit of entrepreneurship! I propose we being to study a new tax structure. One that does not inhibit and slow growth, but rather provides a spring board for those that wish to take a chance. By September of 2010, I want to see as many a proposals for a lien, streamlined and fair tax structure that promotes this spirit.
Many have as of late believe it is the Government's job to ensure people have health care. Although I still firmly believe it is, this is not the role nor the job that we have. We are here to ensure equal protection under the law. To make sure that all opportunities are given equally to everyone, regardless of wealth, race or gender. I am calling on Congress to begin anew the debate regarding healthcare and this time around, I am asking them not to bar out the voices of dissent. Stop looking for power and start thinking of the Common Good.
Long have we found our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Currently we have been drawing down our forces in Iraq and I am proud of the efforts made by my predecessor, President Bush, in starting the process. I know before I was elected I promised something to you all. I promised to pull our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a foolish promise and one that I regret making. At the time, it was what I truly believed I was capable of doing. I was horribly mistaken.
I wish to remake a promise to you at this time, to help with my failed promise. I am seeking avenues to bring home all combat troops from Iraq home by August 2010. We have formally asked the Iraqi government if we can maintain two bases in Iraq. One an Air Force and the other an Army base. I know it is not a popular route but we, the United States were the ones that began this in Iraq and we will make ourselves available to ensure the Iraqis have all the tools available to them to secure themselves and their country.
I draw this letter to an end with a note of encouragement. Although I have stated that the Union is not in the greatest of shapes; I will say that I believe our Country to be strong. The People of this country are strong. Our spirits maybe hampered, but they are *not* extinguished. We will rise to the challenges and we will become stronger as time goes by. We will look to the past and know our mistakes so we do not make them again. The American People are what makes this country work, not those that sit in the Halls of Congress or the White House. We are merely stewards of the Constitution and that is all we shall be.
-EDITED FOR MISTAKES-
Also I had much more to say but this was just a first draft:
I wanted to hit on bailouts, economic policies and climate change...maybe next post
[edit on 29-1-2010 by ownbestenemy]
To the members of both Houses of Congress I place herein the State of the Union. I request that this letter in its entirety be placed into the Journal of both Houses no later than 8pm on the 27th of January, 2010. Furthermore, this letter has been sent to all news outlets, no matter how they present their news nor the format. In addition, this letter will also take advantage of Information Age technology and will be placed in clear public view for all to see.
Each year, as required by our great Constitution, the President is to provide to Congress the State of the Union. I have decided to take a step back from past Presidents and return to an old tradition of delivering this letter in written form. The State of the Union is not about me or my presidency; it is about the Union.
With that, I must report that the State of the Union is in dire straits.
Our economy has been hit hard by shoddy practices both in private industry and those that hold offices of public trust. We are still engaged in two wars that have our Men and Women in harms way. Unemployment has still been on the rise and it is completely unacceptable. The People no longer see us in Government as stewards but as looters. I do not blame them. For this is the task that the majority of us, including myself have failed miserably at.
During the signing of the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin sent a letter to the delegation to be read before all. He expressed his shortcomings in being able to fully accept the Constitution as it was. He knew, as many back during that time, that all men were fallible; although in their own minds see themselves as right and the source of truth.
We today are no different. Representatives from both sides of the aisle all believe that they have the right answers. Their way is better than the others. They speak that they hold true to party principles but do they hold true to the principles of the People, of the Common Good.
The Common Good of the country is what should always be at the forefront of our minds, of our debates and discussions! We are stewards of this country, given authority and responsibility by the People to protect freedom, prosperity, and happiness.
As of late, including my presidency we have no longer been guardians; instead we have been trying to be givers. We have for far too long believed it to be the duty of Government to create wealth, create jobs, create regulations, create equalities, and so on. For all this, is why I give the report that the State of the Union is diminished and in need of some help.
I propose the following to aide in our discussions on how to turn the country around and to bring us to the forefront of model nations. One where other nations look to us and see the freedoms we provide and the happiness that flows from that freedom.
We must encourage the American spirit of entrepreneurship! I propose we being to study a new tax structure. One that does not inhibit and slow growth, but rather provides a spring board for those that wish to take a chance. By September of 2010, I want to see as many a proposals for a lien, streamlined and fair tax structure that promotes this spirit.
Many have as of late believe it is the Government's job to ensure people have health care. Although I still firmly believe it is, this is not the role nor the job that we have. We are here to ensure equal protection under the law. To make sure that all opportunities are given equally to everyone, regardless of wealth, race or gender. I am calling on Congress to begin anew the debate regarding healthcare and this time around, I am asking them not to bar out the voices of dissent. Stop looking for power and start thinking of the Common Good.
Long have we found our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Currently we have been drawing down our forces in Iraq and I am proud of the efforts made by my predecessor, President Bush, in starting the process. I know before I was elected I promised something to you all. I promised to pull our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a foolish promise and one that I regret making. At the time, it was what I truly believed I was capable of doing. I was horribly mistaken.
I wish to remake a promise to you at this time, to help with my failed promise. I am seeking avenues to bring home all combat troops from Iraq home by August 2010. We have formally asked the Iraqi government if we can maintain two bases in Iraq. One an Air Force and the other an Army base. I know it is not a popular route but we, the United States were the ones that began this in Iraq and we will make ourselves available to ensure the Iraqis have all the tools available to them to secure themselves and their country.
I draw this letter to an end with a note of encouragement. Although I have stated that the Union is not in the greatest of shapes; I will say that I believe our Country to be strong. The People of this country are strong. Our spirits maybe hampered, but they are *not* extinguished. We will rise to the challenges and we will become stronger as time goes by. We will look to the past and know our mistakes so we do not make them again. The American People are what makes this country work, not those that sit in the Halls of Congress or the White House. We are merely stewards of the Constitution and that is all we shall be.
-EDITED FOR MISTAKES-
Also I had much more to say but this was just a first draft:
I wanted to hit on bailouts, economic policies and climate change...maybe next post
[edit on 29-1-2010 by ownbestenemy]
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
O - Okay Ziggy I had some time as to what I would say.
Z - Hi OBE, I'll just respond when I disagree, or find what you said to be counter productive. Fair enough?
O - I have decided to take a step back from past Presidents and return to an old tradition of delivering this letter in written form. The State of the Union is not about me or my presidency; it is about the Union.
Z - Why? Representatives who oppose the President would just take the opportunity to twist his words. People like to look you in the eye when you are their elected executive.
O - I must report that the State of the Union is in dire straits.
Z - While true, I would do it like he did, in specifics. If you preface it this way, it would be called a scare tactic. The first ones to say it would be the opposition. Bad if said, bad if implied, no way to win a fixed game.
O - As of late, including my presidency we have no longer been guardians; instead we have been trying to be givers.
Z - When Americans were starving, the government did what the Constitution and the Union intended to be done. If your brother falls, you don't walk away, you shore him up until he can walk for himself. The states formed a Union to rise against/protect from a common enemy, and to shed common chains. In order to create a more perfect Union, we must progress, not regress.
O - We have for far too long believed it to be the duty of Government to create wealth, create jobs, create regulations, create equalities, and so on. For all this, is why I give the report that the State of the Union is diminished and in need of some help.
Z - The greed of the few forced the government to legislate away some of the ability of the powerful to enslave the weak. It is in the intent and meaning of the document that pursuit of happiness, life, and liberty are inalienable. Even if you use the Constitution to justify your means to deny them. Equalities are not created, they just "are'. Where there is inequity, we should level the field. The Constitution is a bill of every right for all intents and purposes.
O - For this is the task that the majority of us, including myself have failed miserably at.
Z - I have not been able to reverse 200 years of shoddy to criminal governance in 12 months. I will now commit ritual suicide.
O - The Common Good of the country is what should always be at the forefront of our minds, of our debates and discussions! We are stewards of this country, given authority and responsibility by the People to protect freedom, prosperity, and happiness
Z - I agree with this. I would add to it.
Z - edit to add to O - Which has put the government in the business of taxing wealth disproportionately, creating jobs to make up for ones lost to the crimes of the wealthy, and corruption of previous administrations, create regulations to remedy this, and enforce equalities as they are inalienable since all men are created equal, and address other inequities that threaten to place us once again under the foot of an oppresive elite ruling class. Like the recent SCOTUS decision.
O - By September of 2010, I want to see as many a proposals for a lien, streamlined and fair tax structure that promotes this spirit.
Z - Obama laid out some of the tax changes. I'm sure there will be more this year. Mid term elections coming up.
O - Many have as of late believe it is the Government's job to ensure people have health care. Although I still firmly believe it is, this is not the role nor the job that we have.
Z - Health care costs are skyrocketing, income is down, unemployment is at 10 %, again the central government has been forced to fall back on the Constitution for wisdom. It's told us we must interfere with the Pharmas, and insurance companies to prevent a disaster, and protect the people.
O - We are here to ensure equal protection under the law. to make sure that all opportunities are given equally to everyone, regardless of wealth, race or gender.
Z - You just said the government was not supposed to create equalities? I emboldened it above. Where they have been deconstructed, they must be re-created. You can't create an equality. we are either equal, or not. Slavery, and women's rights are good examples to ponder. You can restore equality denied.
O - I am calling on Congress to begin anew the debate regarding healthcare and this time around, I am asking them not to bar out the voices of dissent. Stop looking for power and start thinking of the Common Good.
Z - OBE there was no dissent, what there was, is obstructionism, and lies. This is surprisingly Republican of you. What Congress? Half is headed for the hills, the other half is fanning the fires so they can elect some idiot they can manipulate to screw you, for me.
O - Long have we found our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Currently we have been drawing down our forces in Iraq and I am proud of the efforts made by my predecessor, President Bush, in starting the process. I know before I was elected I promised something to you all. I promised to pull our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Z - OBE I thought you were a constitutional proponent, how can you even bring up Bush? Obama said he would pull out of Iraq responsibly. He also said he thought the front was in Afghanistan.
O - It was a foolish promise and one that I regret making. At the time, it was what I truly believed I was capable of doing. I was horribly mistaken.
Z - It was a promise given not expecting to be mired in obstructionism, and a campaign of lies and innuendo that have so polarized the people that cowardly representatives are incapable of acting without being thrown out to be replaced by even worse Yahoos. Perhaps he expected too much from other representatives, there he was sorely mistaken.
O - I wish to remake a promise to you at this time, to help with my failed promise.
Z - Why do you need to see Obama lay down and beg your forgiveness? He's doing more for this Country than any administration since FDR's.
O - We are merely stewards of the Constitution and that is all we shall be.
Z - But keep in mind that the Constitution must never shackle those who keep it.
OBE I know you disagree with my progressive views. My only digs are related to your defense of President Bush. I think both parties are completely screwed. The Tea party in my eyes is a fringe created by Republicans to foment hate based on, fear, xenophobia, gun rights, and things I won't mention.
I believe the Libertarians are just not willing to see anything but Ayn Rand's vision. They would destroy the Country to "keep?" their property value up. No country means no property, no value. I think if you are wealthy enough to isolate yourself, go for it. But to create a little fortress and defend it is science fiction.
The Union is what made this country what it is, as screwed as it is, it's the worlds most powerful Nation. We are so essential, that at our weakest moment, our 2 biggest enemies (China and Russia) blinked, and did not team up against us. Russia suggested it, China being wiser, declined. Related to sinking the dollar at the point where we were minutes away from a global financial meltdown. we came close.
No doubt we need change, but if you think you are going to get anything but screwed from Republicans? I don't know what to tell you but look at the last 60 years and tell me what Republicans did besides pump money up to the wealthy, and hobble us through military expenditures, and sable rattling.
Not to mention Reaganomics which was the vehicle that got us here.
Bush served the last course with Iraq, and the SCOTUS just gave the vote to foreign interest.
I came to this conclusion the moment I read the decision, long before Obama mentioned it. It's obvious what the result of that is. At least it was illegal to buy elections before, now it's the law of the land.
It's going to take a few Presidents to undo the damage done.
Ziggy
O - Okay Ziggy I had some time as to what I would say.
Z - Hi OBE, I'll just respond when I disagree, or find what you said to be counter productive. Fair enough?
O - I have decided to take a step back from past Presidents and return to an old tradition of delivering this letter in written form. The State of the Union is not about me or my presidency; it is about the Union.
Z - Why? Representatives who oppose the President would just take the opportunity to twist his words. People like to look you in the eye when you are their elected executive.
O - I must report that the State of the Union is in dire straits.
Z - While true, I would do it like he did, in specifics. If you preface it this way, it would be called a scare tactic. The first ones to say it would be the opposition. Bad if said, bad if implied, no way to win a fixed game.
O - As of late, including my presidency we have no longer been guardians; instead we have been trying to be givers.
Z - When Americans were starving, the government did what the Constitution and the Union intended to be done. If your brother falls, you don't walk away, you shore him up until he can walk for himself. The states formed a Union to rise against/protect from a common enemy, and to shed common chains. In order to create a more perfect Union, we must progress, not regress.
O - We have for far too long believed it to be the duty of Government to create wealth, create jobs, create regulations, create equalities, and so on. For all this, is why I give the report that the State of the Union is diminished and in need of some help.
Z - The greed of the few forced the government to legislate away some of the ability of the powerful to enslave the weak. It is in the intent and meaning of the document that pursuit of happiness, life, and liberty are inalienable. Even if you use the Constitution to justify your means to deny them. Equalities are not created, they just "are'. Where there is inequity, we should level the field. The Constitution is a bill of every right for all intents and purposes.
O - For this is the task that the majority of us, including myself have failed miserably at.
Z - I have not been able to reverse 200 years of shoddy to criminal governance in 12 months. I will now commit ritual suicide.
O - The Common Good of the country is what should always be at the forefront of our minds, of our debates and discussions! We are stewards of this country, given authority and responsibility by the People to protect freedom, prosperity, and happiness
Z - I agree with this. I would add to it.
Z - edit to add to O - Which has put the government in the business of taxing wealth disproportionately, creating jobs to make up for ones lost to the crimes of the wealthy, and corruption of previous administrations, create regulations to remedy this, and enforce equalities as they are inalienable since all men are created equal, and address other inequities that threaten to place us once again under the foot of an oppresive elite ruling class. Like the recent SCOTUS decision.
O - By September of 2010, I want to see as many a proposals for a lien, streamlined and fair tax structure that promotes this spirit.
Z - Obama laid out some of the tax changes. I'm sure there will be more this year. Mid term elections coming up.
O - Many have as of late believe it is the Government's job to ensure people have health care. Although I still firmly believe it is, this is not the role nor the job that we have.
Z - Health care costs are skyrocketing, income is down, unemployment is at 10 %, again the central government has been forced to fall back on the Constitution for wisdom. It's told us we must interfere with the Pharmas, and insurance companies to prevent a disaster, and protect the people.
O - We are here to ensure equal protection under the law. to make sure that all opportunities are given equally to everyone, regardless of wealth, race or gender.
Z - You just said the government was not supposed to create equalities? I emboldened it above. Where they have been deconstructed, they must be re-created. You can't create an equality. we are either equal, or not. Slavery, and women's rights are good examples to ponder. You can restore equality denied.
O - I am calling on Congress to begin anew the debate regarding healthcare and this time around, I am asking them not to bar out the voices of dissent. Stop looking for power and start thinking of the Common Good.
Z - OBE there was no dissent, what there was, is obstructionism, and lies. This is surprisingly Republican of you. What Congress? Half is headed for the hills, the other half is fanning the fires so they can elect some idiot they can manipulate to screw you, for me.
O - Long have we found our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Currently we have been drawing down our forces in Iraq and I am proud of the efforts made by my predecessor, President Bush, in starting the process. I know before I was elected I promised something to you all. I promised to pull our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Z - OBE I thought you were a constitutional proponent, how can you even bring up Bush? Obama said he would pull out of Iraq responsibly. He also said he thought the front was in Afghanistan.
O - It was a foolish promise and one that I regret making. At the time, it was what I truly believed I was capable of doing. I was horribly mistaken.
Z - It was a promise given not expecting to be mired in obstructionism, and a campaign of lies and innuendo that have so polarized the people that cowardly representatives are incapable of acting without being thrown out to be replaced by even worse Yahoos. Perhaps he expected too much from other representatives, there he was sorely mistaken.
O - I wish to remake a promise to you at this time, to help with my failed promise.
Z - Why do you need to see Obama lay down and beg your forgiveness? He's doing more for this Country than any administration since FDR's.
O - We are merely stewards of the Constitution and that is all we shall be.
Z - But keep in mind that the Constitution must never shackle those who keep it.
OBE I know you disagree with my progressive views. My only digs are related to your defense of President Bush. I think both parties are completely screwed. The Tea party in my eyes is a fringe created by Republicans to foment hate based on, fear, xenophobia, gun rights, and things I won't mention.
I believe the Libertarians are just not willing to see anything but Ayn Rand's vision. They would destroy the Country to "keep?" their property value up. No country means no property, no value. I think if you are wealthy enough to isolate yourself, go for it. But to create a little fortress and defend it is science fiction.
The Union is what made this country what it is, as screwed as it is, it's the worlds most powerful Nation. We are so essential, that at our weakest moment, our 2 biggest enemies (China and Russia) blinked, and did not team up against us. Russia suggested it, China being wiser, declined. Related to sinking the dollar at the point where we were minutes away from a global financial meltdown. we came close.
No doubt we need change, but if you think you are going to get anything but screwed from Republicans? I don't know what to tell you but look at the last 60 years and tell me what Republicans did besides pump money up to the wealthy, and hobble us through military expenditures, and sable rattling.
Not to mention Reaganomics which was the vehicle that got us here.
Bush served the last course with Iraq, and the SCOTUS just gave the vote to foreign interest.
I came to this conclusion the moment I read the decision, long before Obama mentioned it. It's obvious what the result of that is. At least it was illegal to buy elections before, now it's the law of the land.
It's going to take a few Presidents to undo the damage done.
Ziggy
reply to jdub[i/]
Those were some great posts that exposed the BS, hypocrisy, and outright lies in the SOTU. Good job to you, and to others that saw through the smokescreen.
reply to Stewie[/]
Ugh! I can't stand that metronome head movement of nowwewantto LOOK LEFT FOR 1 SECOND -RIGHT FOR ONE SECOND - BACK TO LEFT TELEPROMPTER - RIGHT - LEFT -RIGHT...
I wish he were smart enough to deliver a speech without depending so much on a teleprompter.
As for the extended quoting in the OP, I would rather just have had the OP post two simple links, one for the videos, one for the text. But that's just me.
Those were some great posts that exposed the BS, hypocrisy, and outright lies in the SOTU. Good job to you, and to others that saw through the smokescreen.
reply to Stewie[/]
But, fear not, the script was skillfully read, and the actor executed the required facial expressions flawlessly,
and the myth lives on.
Ugh! I can't stand that metronome head movement of nowwewantto LOOK LEFT FOR 1 SECOND -RIGHT FOR ONE SECOND - BACK TO LEFT TELEPROMPTER - RIGHT - LEFT -RIGHT...
I wish he were smart enough to deliver a speech without depending so much on a teleprompter.
As for the extended quoting in the OP, I would rather just have had the OP post two simple links, one for the videos, one for the text. But that's just me.
Originally posted by ziggystrange
Hi OBE, I'll just respond when I disagree, or find what you said to be counter productive. Fair enough?
-Always
O - I have decided to take a step back from past Presidents and return to an old tradition of delivering this letter in written form. The State of the Union is not about me or my presidency; it is about the Union.
Z - Why? Representatives who oppose the President would just take the opportunity to twist his words. People like to look you in the eye when you are their elected executive.
See here we may differ but the reason I state this is because the State of the Union has become nothing more than an extended free stump speech. You cannot twist the written word. You can easily counter it also as what the President provided was the State of the Union, not idealism politics and a bully pulpit to slap around opponents.
O - I must report that the State of the Union is in dire straits.
Z - While true, I would do it like he did, in specifics. If you preface it this way, it would be called a scare tactic. The first ones to say it would be the opposition. Bad if said, bad if implied, no way to win a fixed game.
Hmm...scare tactics? By stating how the Union is fairing? There were specifics later on...albeit I didn't polish the speech up as it was a first draft. As a leader you cannot dance around the issue. You don't polish the turd so to speak because you are afraid what the opposition is going to say. You lead. Right now he is bouncing back in forth trying to find the niche that will give him the most popular brownie points. As in kickbacks to the Unions via Health Care, but saying its for the people. The populist notion of cleaning out the lobbyist, but then turning around and catering to certain lobbyist. Saying the Cambridge police acted 'stupidly' but then say absolutely nothing about the Black Panthers court case getting thrown out for their polling place bullying.
Please Ziggy tell me you see this....he is flopping like a fish. I want someone rock steady that is willing to lay it out all on the line. Say what you mean and mean what you say. He is not that at all.
When Americans were starving, the government did what the Constitution and the Union intended to be done...In order to create a more perfect Union, we must progress, not regress.
See above...being a leader is willing to know mistakes have been made. Wasn't that the cry of the Left during President Bush? Unwilling to admit that a path taken was not the best and learning how to correct it. By coming out and explaining that mistakes were made, it only makes you a stronger leader. That said, after admitting mistakes, you must make a notable turn around to correct those mistakes. I do not ever see the President doing this because he is too much in the pocket and too much in love with himself.
The greed of the few forced the government to legislate away some of the ability of the powerful to enslave the weak. It is in the intent and meaning of the document that pursuit of happiness, life, and liberty are inalienable...The Constitution is a bill of every right for all intents and purposes.
Yes equalities exist and are protected by the Constitution, not granted there within. Currently too many in politics feel they are the granters of such rights and not the protectors. Any group or person that tries to use the Constitution to distort those equalities should be held accountable.
I have not been able to reverse 200 years of shoddy to criminal governance in 12 months. I will now commit ritual suicide.
Wow Ziggy...I must have hit a nerve on this one. You have lumped all of American history into that one. You also are insinuating that President Obama is different? He is the savior of our country and will turn around those 200 years? Again, admitting mistakes is key, but you want feel good messages.
Yeah, but will it be tax proposals such as the disastrous VAT? Or will he say that the other side provided nothing again? I can think of a political neutral tax that no one in Washington would ever want because it takes the power from them and puts it with us....doubt he would even glance at it, let alone consider it.
Obama laid out some of the tax changes. I'm sure there will be more this year. Mid term elections coming up.
...It's told us we must interfere with the Pharmas, and insurance companies to prevent a disaster, and protect the people.
Please tell me the Article in which it tells Government to interfere?
O - We are here to ensure equal protection under the law. to make sure that all opportunities are given equally to everyone, regardless of wealth, race or gender.
Z - You just said the government was not supposed to create equalities? I emboldened it above...Slavery, and women's rights are good examples to ponder. You can restore equality denied.
Reread my statement....Ensure equal protection under the law, not create equality amongst people. Two different things. That being said, if you were to apply the Constitution to the present day culture, women would be allowed to vote, there would be no slavery, etc....Apply why it had to be amended based on the culture of the time. Things have changed as to why they clarified. They did not create equality, they extended the equal protection of the law.
OBE there was no dissent, what there was, is obstructionism, and lies.
There was a lot of dissent. Are you discounting the People? Show me a poll that shows a high favorably by the People in what Congress was doing. The owner of Whole Foods, a Democrat and Progressive was hung out to dry because he opposed the President's and Congress' attempt at a wholesale take over of health care. Repubs had bills denied from even seeing the floor or where buried as they didn't follow the Progressive movement.....there was dissent you are just unwilling to see it.
As for me including President Bush, yeah, credit is due. He began the troop draw down but you don't want to see that because of your extreme hate for the man. Not my problem.
[edit on 30-1-2010 by ownbestenemy]
reply to post by ownbestenemy
My friend never have I seen your eloquence and clear headed logic more evident than in this remarkable State of the Union Address you have offered. While you and I agree on much we too have slight differences of opinions, but on a whole I surely like the way you think. I thank you sincerely and from the bottom of my heart for your thoughtful and earnest Address.
I would like to speak to some of what you have offered, but would rather do so in my reply to our Good Brother Ziggy, and thereby address both your ideas and his as well. So, without further ado, I will post this and then my reply to both you and Ziggy.
My friend never have I seen your eloquence and clear headed logic more evident than in this remarkable State of the Union Address you have offered. While you and I agree on much we too have slight differences of opinions, but on a whole I surely like the way you think. I thank you sincerely and from the bottom of my heart for your thoughtful and earnest Address.
I would like to speak to some of what you have offered, but would rather do so in my reply to our Good Brother Ziggy, and thereby address both your ideas and his as well. So, without further ado, I will post this and then my reply to both you and Ziggy.
reply to post by ziggystrange
My Dear Brother Ziggy,
In the past few weeks I have seen you improve the form and style of your debate quite dramatically. You have, quite frankly, stepped up your game and you make me proud!
That said, you and I view the world from different sides of the same coin, and perhaps you and I will never agree on anything, or perhaps, as we continue to debate each other, and struggle to speak to truth and justice, we will find some common ground. Indeed, all ready you have made some points that in spirit and principle, I do believe I agree with.
You have made the point in your response to ownbestenemy, that we must progress not regress. In fact, in another thread you have made the same point and I bring it up now, simply because I admire the way you phrased it, which was:
Progressive = Good
Regressive = Bad
I admire this statement for a few reasons. First of all, it is no secret that both OBE and myself are profoundly conservative by nature, just as it is no secret that you are just as profoundly progressive. I believe you to be fairly called a "liberal" as well because I do believe you take a "liberal" view of the constitution, but for the purposes of this argument, it is best to leave the term "liberal" out of it and keep it to conservatism and progressivism.
I appreciate very much how you have chosen to use the term regressive as something to be reviled rather than rely upon the term conservative to do this. In fact, in my humble opinion, it strikes me that by using the term regressive, you have not even attempted to necessarily link it with conservatism, and merely suggest that what OBE, and perhaps you think the same of my ideas, are regressive. While I am not so sure I agree that OBE's nor my own ideas are necessarily regressive, this is what debate is for.
I have long insisted that conservatism and liberalism are two sides of the same coin, and for the purposes of this debate, I will argue that progressive and conservative are two sides of the same coin. What I believe is that neither are bad and that both are necessary. You are 100% correct Ziggy, that progress is imperative. However, progress brings with it inherent dangers and even greater risks of abandonment of principles too valuable to sacrifice.
Conservatives are not the sworn enemies of progressives, (at least not true conservatives), they are the prudent brothers and sisters that attempt to warn, persuade and protect those progressives who too often look before they leap, jump to conclusions and charge up battle hills ill prepared. This is not to say that all progressives do this, and in order to truly progress and to do so in the right direction it takes people with grand vision to get us there. Great visionaries do not act imprudently and the conclusions they reach are thought out and considered. If charging up a battle hill is necessary, it is best that a visionary of great wisdom and fortitude lead that charge.
Conversely, conservatives do not lack vision nor greatness, they merely attempt to conserve that which they believe are the principles and guidelines that best facilitate progress. This is their truest and grandest vision, that while progressing we must never abandon that which makes our progress possible. The question then remains just what principles and guidelines do we rely upon and just where and how do we progress?
While I will not disagree with you that if the POTUS had given an Address closer in language to OBE's that some would attempt to frame that Address as scare tactics, however I do not agree that they are scare tactics but necessary words that must be spoken to We the People who are, after all, the holders of the inherent political power in this country. Those that would frame such honest discourse and willingness to confront problems head on as scare tactics are not themselves being honest and worse, are avoiding confront and in that regard, merely regressing, rather than progressing, merely contracting rather than expanding.
I firmly believe that it is We the People who must expand as individuals and not at all allow our government to do so. If and when We the People finally agree to expand as individuals, the necessary reigning in of an expanded government would not be regression, but would necessarily be progress and a progression in the right direction. A populace filled with people who are more than willing to govern themselves and have done what is necessary to expand in ways to make such governance feasible is not a Utopia, but rather the natural state in which people should live.
Ziggy, you speak of how the opposition would shred a President who dared to speak honestly and show a willingness to confront, and I agree with you they would. Had President Obama found the where-with-all and temerity to confront the nation and speak of the many problems we face with grace and honesty, the Republican members of Congress, and across the nation would no doubt use this refreshing honesty as an opportunity to attack his viewpoints and suggestions and most likely accuse the President of engaging in scare tactics.
Conversely, had it been a Republican President who attempted what OBE has in his own post, no doubt the Democratic Party would respond the same way, attacking the President's views and suggestions while declaring his honesty and willingness to confront as scare tactics. This only demonstrates what a serious and intolerable problem we have with the entrenched and stagnant two party system. Indeed, it speaks to the problem of political parties all together. As the holders of the inherent political power, We the People do not need political parties in order to find men and women to elect to office who could uphold their oath to obey the law and serve the people they've been elected to serve.
You have spoken to a "fixed game" that only demands such chicanery be halted and that the "fix" that is in be exposed for what it is, and the playing field be leveled once again so that the game is one that can be played by all and that whatever victory or losses as the consequence of that game, the efforts in playing this game are what matter. Niccolo Machiavelli has suggested that the end justifies the means, but I insist that he was wrong and that it is the means that justify the end, and all ends ultimately end as they do because of the means used to get there.
Machiavellian tactics are strategies used to obtain and keep power, and government officials in the U.S. who rely upon Machiavellian techniques are nothing more than usurpers and treasonous rouges who have broken their sacred oath in exchange for power that is not theirs to take and keep. Lord Acton once said that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", and I believe this to be a truism that all American people should come to understand. It is, in fact, why this is a government of the people, for the people and by the people, because such power is best dispersed amongst the people, and not concentrated in any branch or position of government.
Ziggy, you speak to OBE and insist that when the people were starving that the government did what the Constitution and Union intended it to do. OBE had asserted that we have become a government predicated on giving rather than guarding the protections of rights, that truly the Constitution mandates and was indeed the purpose of this Union. The government can not feed the people unless they raise revenues by taxation in order to do so. The government can not give anything it hasn't first taken from We the People.
It is a "liberal" view of the Constitution, I believe, to state that this Constitution mandated welfare programs to feed the starving, or any other welfare program whereby the government first takes so that it may then give...
Out of space, continued next post...
[edit on 30-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]
My Dear Brother Ziggy,
In the past few weeks I have seen you improve the form and style of your debate quite dramatically. You have, quite frankly, stepped up your game and you make me proud!
That said, you and I view the world from different sides of the same coin, and perhaps you and I will never agree on anything, or perhaps, as we continue to debate each other, and struggle to speak to truth and justice, we will find some common ground. Indeed, all ready you have made some points that in spirit and principle, I do believe I agree with.
You have made the point in your response to ownbestenemy, that we must progress not regress. In fact, in another thread you have made the same point and I bring it up now, simply because I admire the way you phrased it, which was:
Progressive = Good
Regressive = Bad
I admire this statement for a few reasons. First of all, it is no secret that both OBE and myself are profoundly conservative by nature, just as it is no secret that you are just as profoundly progressive. I believe you to be fairly called a "liberal" as well because I do believe you take a "liberal" view of the constitution, but for the purposes of this argument, it is best to leave the term "liberal" out of it and keep it to conservatism and progressivism.
I appreciate very much how you have chosen to use the term regressive as something to be reviled rather than rely upon the term conservative to do this. In fact, in my humble opinion, it strikes me that by using the term regressive, you have not even attempted to necessarily link it with conservatism, and merely suggest that what OBE, and perhaps you think the same of my ideas, are regressive. While I am not so sure I agree that OBE's nor my own ideas are necessarily regressive, this is what debate is for.
I have long insisted that conservatism and liberalism are two sides of the same coin, and for the purposes of this debate, I will argue that progressive and conservative are two sides of the same coin. What I believe is that neither are bad and that both are necessary. You are 100% correct Ziggy, that progress is imperative. However, progress brings with it inherent dangers and even greater risks of abandonment of principles too valuable to sacrifice.
Conservatives are not the sworn enemies of progressives, (at least not true conservatives), they are the prudent brothers and sisters that attempt to warn, persuade and protect those progressives who too often look before they leap, jump to conclusions and charge up battle hills ill prepared. This is not to say that all progressives do this, and in order to truly progress and to do so in the right direction it takes people with grand vision to get us there. Great visionaries do not act imprudently and the conclusions they reach are thought out and considered. If charging up a battle hill is necessary, it is best that a visionary of great wisdom and fortitude lead that charge.
Conversely, conservatives do not lack vision nor greatness, they merely attempt to conserve that which they believe are the principles and guidelines that best facilitate progress. This is their truest and grandest vision, that while progressing we must never abandon that which makes our progress possible. The question then remains just what principles and guidelines do we rely upon and just where and how do we progress?
While I will not disagree with you that if the POTUS had given an Address closer in language to OBE's that some would attempt to frame that Address as scare tactics, however I do not agree that they are scare tactics but necessary words that must be spoken to We the People who are, after all, the holders of the inherent political power in this country. Those that would frame such honest discourse and willingness to confront problems head on as scare tactics are not themselves being honest and worse, are avoiding confront and in that regard, merely regressing, rather than progressing, merely contracting rather than expanding.
I firmly believe that it is We the People who must expand as individuals and not at all allow our government to do so. If and when We the People finally agree to expand as individuals, the necessary reigning in of an expanded government would not be regression, but would necessarily be progress and a progression in the right direction. A populace filled with people who are more than willing to govern themselves and have done what is necessary to expand in ways to make such governance feasible is not a Utopia, but rather the natural state in which people should live.
Ziggy, you speak of how the opposition would shred a President who dared to speak honestly and show a willingness to confront, and I agree with you they would. Had President Obama found the where-with-all and temerity to confront the nation and speak of the many problems we face with grace and honesty, the Republican members of Congress, and across the nation would no doubt use this refreshing honesty as an opportunity to attack his viewpoints and suggestions and most likely accuse the President of engaging in scare tactics.
Conversely, had it been a Republican President who attempted what OBE has in his own post, no doubt the Democratic Party would respond the same way, attacking the President's views and suggestions while declaring his honesty and willingness to confront as scare tactics. This only demonstrates what a serious and intolerable problem we have with the entrenched and stagnant two party system. Indeed, it speaks to the problem of political parties all together. As the holders of the inherent political power, We the People do not need political parties in order to find men and women to elect to office who could uphold their oath to obey the law and serve the people they've been elected to serve.
You have spoken to a "fixed game" that only demands such chicanery be halted and that the "fix" that is in be exposed for what it is, and the playing field be leveled once again so that the game is one that can be played by all and that whatever victory or losses as the consequence of that game, the efforts in playing this game are what matter. Niccolo Machiavelli has suggested that the end justifies the means, but I insist that he was wrong and that it is the means that justify the end, and all ends ultimately end as they do because of the means used to get there.
Machiavellian tactics are strategies used to obtain and keep power, and government officials in the U.S. who rely upon Machiavellian techniques are nothing more than usurpers and treasonous rouges who have broken their sacred oath in exchange for power that is not theirs to take and keep. Lord Acton once said that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", and I believe this to be a truism that all American people should come to understand. It is, in fact, why this is a government of the people, for the people and by the people, because such power is best dispersed amongst the people, and not concentrated in any branch or position of government.
Ziggy, you speak to OBE and insist that when the people were starving that the government did what the Constitution and Union intended it to do. OBE had asserted that we have become a government predicated on giving rather than guarding the protections of rights, that truly the Constitution mandates and was indeed the purpose of this Union. The government can not feed the people unless they raise revenues by taxation in order to do so. The government can not give anything it hasn't first taken from We the People.
It is a "liberal" view of the Constitution, I believe, to state that this Constitution mandated welfare programs to feed the starving, or any other welfare program whereby the government first takes so that it may then give...
Out of space, continued next post...
[edit on 30-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]
reply to post by ziggystrange
Continued...
You have rightfully stated, Ziggy, that if my brother falls I don't walk away but instead should shore him up until he can walk for himself. However, if I am to shore up my brother, then it is I who should do so and not I in the guise of government doing so, for this is nothing more than passing the buck and asking everyone to do what I alone should do. Now, you might argue, how can I help all who fall? I, of course, can not do so, and indeed, if it is I who have fallen, I could hardly help one let alone all.
Ziggy, in the course of my life I have fallen many times, and I have been fortunate enough at times to have a brother or sister who helped me back on my feet and at other times I was alone and had to find a way to climb back up myself and keep on walking. Never, at any point, did I rely upon government welfare for this assistance. I did not do so out of some sense of stubborn pride, although I will admit that in my prideful nature I can and will be stubborn, I did not rely upon the government for help because I saw no help in the programs they offered, nor do I believe it is their responsibility to help me in this way.
I understand that of the many reasons We the People have come together, in order to form a more perfect union, one of those reasons was to promote the general welfare of the People. I do not see how the government programs in place have done anything at all to promote this general welfare and instead have only taken from the People in order to give very little to those in need. Further, the programs created to "help those in need" have created huge unwieldy bureaucracies that have placed more money in the "civil servants" employed for these bureaucracies than have placed money in the pockets of any individual brother or sister who has fallen.
Those employed by the federal and state governments who issue "food stamps" do not themselves need to rely upon "food stamps" in order to eat, because they are well paid to issue these "food stamps" to people not nearly as well paid. Should they be well paid? Perhaps, but too many of these well paid bureaucrats belong to Unions many of which possess the word "international" in the name of that Union. Local, state or Federal employees who rely upon taxes from the American people to pay their salaries yet pay dues to an international union gives the appearance of a conflict of interest not at all beneficial to that Union we call the federal government and it is dubious, at best, that such an alliance actually promotes the general welfare.
Further, I am compelled to address this notion of altruism you speak to, Ziggy. Altruism simply defined, is a quality of unselfish concern for the welfare of others. This is an ideal not so readily apparent in human nature. There exists a word in the English lexicon called "selfless", which would be perhaps a synonym for altruist. I think it is self evident that there is no species on the planet, including humanity, that acts in any selfless way. By our own subjective nature we can only view the world from our own selfish point of view. I can no more view the world through your eyes than you can through mine. I can attempt to walk a mile in your shoes, and you in mine, but in the end, we will still see the world from our own personal viewpoint.
Ah, but you might argue that selfishness is a chief concern for ones own interest, especially with disregard for others, and I would counter; how can one live in society, have a chief concern for ones own interest and not recognize that disregard for others is counter productive to that self interest? Why should selfishness be defined than any thing other than a chief concern for ones own interest, period, without the qualification of disregard for others? What word exists to define those who hold a chief concern for ones interest especially with regard for others? Is it so impossible to act in ones own interest and have regard for others? Is it not in all our individual best interests to hold great regard for others?
You speak to the greed of the few Ziggy, as if it is merely a few who experience greed, and by extension implying that the many are not greedy. I have a different experience of greed, my brother. I have seen both those who lavish themselves with the wealth the have, and those who languish in poverty act just as greedy. I have seen hard working and nobel men and women have their moments of greed, and I have seen lazy sloth like rich people who have wealth through inheritance be greedy, and I have seen self declared altruists who were every bit as greedy. Greed is as common amongst humanity as is ambition, or desire.
You speak of progress as necessary but surely it takes men and women of ambition to forge this progress. It takes the desire to muster up the will to fight those battles that impede progress and throughout this march towards progress, the feelings of greed will consume us all. Perhaps when Oliver Stone wrote that famous line for Gordon Gekko in Wall Street; "Greed is good, greed has marked the upward surge of mankind", Stone meant to expose the evils of greed. What he did instead was speak a truism that offers a tool of progress, and here Ziggy, is one of those contradictions in your own philosophy that becomes problematic.
All of us act in ways that are perceived to be in our best interest. Even those who tend towards self destruction, are usually acting in ways they believe are their best interest. That personal self interest can often times become a justification for plunder is a tragic truth, and there are many throughout history who have plundered the many in order to satisfy their own greed. It is not greed, however, that was and is the problem, it is plunder that is the problem. Plunder, by definition, is to loot or take illegally.
It is not illegal to be greedy, and if it is greed that drives a person towards wealth, and if this wealth has been earned, then it was not plunder. Plunder is unearned and theft. People can attempt to vilify greed and even legislate against it, but this will not keep people from continuing to act in greedy ways, it will merely make criminals out of people who have acted in a natural way. It is not unnatural to want more. It is unnatural, however, to plunder, which is why only a few do so when compared to the many. The many will have their moments of greed, just as they will have their moments of contentment, but the many are not who plunder, it is those twisted few who do, and it may be motivated in part because of greed, but to reduce this plunder to simply greed, ignores that it was plunder that was the crime, regardless of the motive.
Greed has become a popular buzzword among those Cultural Marxists who insist that greed can be suppressed. Yet, history has shown that there were many leaders who used the ideas of Marx to rule over a populace while they themselves lived in opulence. Their own greed justified, while they criminalize or demonize the greed of others. Yet another mark of Marxism is the argument that we are all equal, which is a different argument than equality under the law.
OBE has argued, correctly so I believe, that one of governments purpose is to ensure equality under the law, and you Ziggy, have countered that OBE has contradicted himself when he suggested that it is not governments job to create equalities. You have argued, correctly I believe, that equalities are not created, and then you continue with what I believe to be an incorrect assumption by arguing they just are. What is equal about us all is that we are all equally free regardless of race, creed or circumstance. We all possess inalienable rights regardless of our citizenship and regardless of our position of wealth or poverty.
To be continued...
Continued...
You have rightfully stated, Ziggy, that if my brother falls I don't walk away but instead should shore him up until he can walk for himself. However, if I am to shore up my brother, then it is I who should do so and not I in the guise of government doing so, for this is nothing more than passing the buck and asking everyone to do what I alone should do. Now, you might argue, how can I help all who fall? I, of course, can not do so, and indeed, if it is I who have fallen, I could hardly help one let alone all.
Ziggy, in the course of my life I have fallen many times, and I have been fortunate enough at times to have a brother or sister who helped me back on my feet and at other times I was alone and had to find a way to climb back up myself and keep on walking. Never, at any point, did I rely upon government welfare for this assistance. I did not do so out of some sense of stubborn pride, although I will admit that in my prideful nature I can and will be stubborn, I did not rely upon the government for help because I saw no help in the programs they offered, nor do I believe it is their responsibility to help me in this way.
I understand that of the many reasons We the People have come together, in order to form a more perfect union, one of those reasons was to promote the general welfare of the People. I do not see how the government programs in place have done anything at all to promote this general welfare and instead have only taken from the People in order to give very little to those in need. Further, the programs created to "help those in need" have created huge unwieldy bureaucracies that have placed more money in the "civil servants" employed for these bureaucracies than have placed money in the pockets of any individual brother or sister who has fallen.
Those employed by the federal and state governments who issue "food stamps" do not themselves need to rely upon "food stamps" in order to eat, because they are well paid to issue these "food stamps" to people not nearly as well paid. Should they be well paid? Perhaps, but too many of these well paid bureaucrats belong to Unions many of which possess the word "international" in the name of that Union. Local, state or Federal employees who rely upon taxes from the American people to pay their salaries yet pay dues to an international union gives the appearance of a conflict of interest not at all beneficial to that Union we call the federal government and it is dubious, at best, that such an alliance actually promotes the general welfare.
Further, I am compelled to address this notion of altruism you speak to, Ziggy. Altruism simply defined, is a quality of unselfish concern for the welfare of others. This is an ideal not so readily apparent in human nature. There exists a word in the English lexicon called "selfless", which would be perhaps a synonym for altruist. I think it is self evident that there is no species on the planet, including humanity, that acts in any selfless way. By our own subjective nature we can only view the world from our own selfish point of view. I can no more view the world through your eyes than you can through mine. I can attempt to walk a mile in your shoes, and you in mine, but in the end, we will still see the world from our own personal viewpoint.
Ah, but you might argue that selfishness is a chief concern for ones own interest, especially with disregard for others, and I would counter; how can one live in society, have a chief concern for ones own interest and not recognize that disregard for others is counter productive to that self interest? Why should selfishness be defined than any thing other than a chief concern for ones own interest, period, without the qualification of disregard for others? What word exists to define those who hold a chief concern for ones interest especially with regard for others? Is it so impossible to act in ones own interest and have regard for others? Is it not in all our individual best interests to hold great regard for others?
You speak to the greed of the few Ziggy, as if it is merely a few who experience greed, and by extension implying that the many are not greedy. I have a different experience of greed, my brother. I have seen both those who lavish themselves with the wealth the have, and those who languish in poverty act just as greedy. I have seen hard working and nobel men and women have their moments of greed, and I have seen lazy sloth like rich people who have wealth through inheritance be greedy, and I have seen self declared altruists who were every bit as greedy. Greed is as common amongst humanity as is ambition, or desire.
You speak of progress as necessary but surely it takes men and women of ambition to forge this progress. It takes the desire to muster up the will to fight those battles that impede progress and throughout this march towards progress, the feelings of greed will consume us all. Perhaps when Oliver Stone wrote that famous line for Gordon Gekko in Wall Street; "Greed is good, greed has marked the upward surge of mankind", Stone meant to expose the evils of greed. What he did instead was speak a truism that offers a tool of progress, and here Ziggy, is one of those contradictions in your own philosophy that becomes problematic.
All of us act in ways that are perceived to be in our best interest. Even those who tend towards self destruction, are usually acting in ways they believe are their best interest. That personal self interest can often times become a justification for plunder is a tragic truth, and there are many throughout history who have plundered the many in order to satisfy their own greed. It is not greed, however, that was and is the problem, it is plunder that is the problem. Plunder, by definition, is to loot or take illegally.
It is not illegal to be greedy, and if it is greed that drives a person towards wealth, and if this wealth has been earned, then it was not plunder. Plunder is unearned and theft. People can attempt to vilify greed and even legislate against it, but this will not keep people from continuing to act in greedy ways, it will merely make criminals out of people who have acted in a natural way. It is not unnatural to want more. It is unnatural, however, to plunder, which is why only a few do so when compared to the many. The many will have their moments of greed, just as they will have their moments of contentment, but the many are not who plunder, it is those twisted few who do, and it may be motivated in part because of greed, but to reduce this plunder to simply greed, ignores that it was plunder that was the crime, regardless of the motive.
Greed has become a popular buzzword among those Cultural Marxists who insist that greed can be suppressed. Yet, history has shown that there were many leaders who used the ideas of Marx to rule over a populace while they themselves lived in opulence. Their own greed justified, while they criminalize or demonize the greed of others. Yet another mark of Marxism is the argument that we are all equal, which is a different argument than equality under the law.
OBE has argued, correctly so I believe, that one of governments purpose is to ensure equality under the law, and you Ziggy, have countered that OBE has contradicted himself when he suggested that it is not governments job to create equalities. You have argued, correctly I believe, that equalities are not created, and then you continue with what I believe to be an incorrect assumption by arguing they just are. What is equal about us all is that we are all equally free regardless of race, creed or circumstance. We all possess inalienable rights regardless of our citizenship and regardless of our position of wealth or poverty.
To be continued...
new topics
-
What Joe Rogan said Vs The View
Dissecting Disinformation: 50 minutes ago -
Biden's "Reckless" Decision To Escalate Russia-Ukraine War
World War Three: 1 hours ago -
Inca stone masonry at Sacsayhuaman, Ollantaytambo and the Sun Temple
Ancient & Lost Civilizations: 9 hours ago
top topics
-
President-Elect TRUMP Picks Former Florida A.G. PAM BONDI to be U.S. Attorney General.
2024 Elections: 13 hours ago, 14 flags -
Putin will warn civilians in targeted areas
World War Three: 16 hours ago, 11 flags -
Biden's "Reckless" Decision To Escalate Russia-Ukraine War
World War Three: 1 hours ago, 11 flags -
The Popular Vote does not matter
Political Issues: 17 hours ago, 9 flags -
A Mysterious Orb filmed over NYC by local news
Aliens and UFOs: 15 hours ago, 9 flags -
Inca stone masonry at Sacsayhuaman, Ollantaytambo and the Sun Temple
Ancient & Lost Civilizations: 9 hours ago, 6 flags -
What Joe Rogan said Vs The View
Dissecting Disinformation: 50 minutes ago, 6 flags
active topics
-
President-Elect TRUMP Picks Former Florida A.G. PAM BONDI to be U.S. Attorney General.
2024 Elections • 29 • : CarlLaFong -
What Joe Rogan said Vs The View
Dissecting Disinformation • 4 • : CriticalStinker -
Biden's "Reckless" Decision To Escalate Russia-Ukraine War
World War Three • 11 • : WeMustCare -
Post A Funny (T&C Friendly) Pic Part IV: The LOL awakens!
General Chit Chat • 7811 • : underpass61 -
A Mysterious Orb filmed over NYC by local news
Aliens and UFOs • 14 • : Lazy88 -
Putin will warn civilians in targeted areas
World War Three • 36 • : Xtrozero -
Inca stone masonry at Sacsayhuaman, Ollantaytambo and the Sun Temple
Ancient & Lost Civilizations • 3 • : theatreboy -
Yet another Hack...
Rant • 13 • : mysterioustranger -
The Reactionary Conspiracy 13. The plot’s theology.
General Conspiracies • 307 • : MarxistDebunker2 -
Well we know Putins ICBMs won't fail in their silos
World War Three • 135 • : Oldcarpy2