Why America Will FAIL without Intervention from YOU!

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy

Right, and as I said in my original response, the monkeys simply aren't ready to lead themselves yet.
Until we shift focus from a clan survival mentality to one of species survival, things will never get better.

That's a non-starter. As long as one of the clans survives, the species will, too.

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Since you are willing to give up your rights to "the masses", I'm curious about why you balk at giving them up to "representatives". If you are not in your own driver's seat, why do you care who IS?

Simple... I feel that my odds are better in the hands of ordinary citizens rather than ambitious would-be "leaders."
It is precisely the type of person who seeks power who is most likely to abuse that power.

Yet you would expand that "power base" to everyone... and against yourself. You would allow any Joe with aspirations to power to make your decisions for you.

that's a very interesting take - and a suicidal one for prospects of liberty.

Why do you believe your "odds would be better in the hands of ordinary citizens" more so than in your OWN hands?

reply to post by nenothtu

That's a non-starter. As long as one of the clans survives, the species will, too.

But if it's at the expense of other clans, then there is no "justice for all".. just more tyranny.

reply to post by nenothtu

Yet you would expand that "power base" to everyone... and against yourself. You would allow any Joe with aspirations to power to make your decisions for you.

Yes... exactly... a power base of 300 million vs a few thousand?

I'll take my chances with the masses over a handful of specialized "power brokers".

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Ah. You specified earlier "federal INCOME tax". Are we now changing the bar?

Nope, just thought you could infer...

So, do you pay income tax to the feds or not?
If not, why not share your secret? ...or do you have your own interests in mind over the citizens' interest?

No secret. When there is nothing to tax, no tax is forthcoming.

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
reply to post by nenothtu

 

That's a non-starter. As long as one of the clans survives, the species will, too.

But if it's at the expense of other clans, then there is no "justice for all".. just more tyranny.

make up your mind whether you are interested in "survival" or interested in "justice". Survival does not deal in terms of justice.

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Yet you would expand that "power base" to everyone... and against yourself. You would allow any Joe with aspirations to power to make your decisions for you.

Yes... exactly... a power base of 300 million vs a few thousand?

I'll take my chances with the masses over a handful of specialized "power brokers".

"Taking your chances" is exactly right. I prefer to leave less to chance, and make my own decisions.

reply to post by nenothtu

No secret. When there is nothing to tax, no tax is forthcoming.

Then I take it you own quite a bit of land, or otherwise produce goods with which you barter for food...?
I'm just guessing here, since you're not being very forthcoming yourself.

reply to post by nenothtu

make up your mind whether you are interested in "survival" or interested in "justice". Survival does not deal in terms of justice.

Well I guess we can see which team you're on...
You'd make a great politician with that mentality.

reply to post by nenothtu

I prefer to leave less to chance, and make my own decisions.

Yet, you don't decide which federal laws get passed, so your decisions are limited to your everyday choices within the confines of federal regulation... unless you're breaking their laws to live... but is it satisfying enough just to skirt the system and leave everyone to their own fate?

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
reply to post by nenothtu

 

No secret. When there is nothing to tax, no tax is forthcoming.

Then I take it you own quite a bit of land, or otherwise produce goods with which you barter for food...?
I'm just guessing here, since you're not being very forthcoming yourself.

I own land. "Quite a bit" is a subjective determination. it's a sufficient parcel for my needs, with little in the way of "surplus" that would amount to "income".

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
reply to post by nenothtu

 

make up your mind whether you are interested in "survival" or interested in "justice". Survival does not deal in terms of justice.

Well I guess we can see which team you're on...
You'd make a great politician with that mentality.

Yes, I would - if I had any interest in controlling others.

That doesn't change the fact that "survival" doesn't deal in "justice". Justice is what you make of it. Survival is what nature makes of it.

reply to post by nenothtu

Justice is what you make of it. Survival is what nature makes of it.

Ok, so we are having this 'conversation' where I think human justice is more important than personal well being, and you feel the opposite. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then!

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I prefer to leave less to chance, and make my own decisions.

Yet, you don't decide which federal laws get passed, so your decisions are limited to your everyday choices within the confines of federal regulation... unless you're breaking their laws to live... but is it satisfying enough just to skirt the system and leave everyone to their own fate?

My decisions don't involve circumvention, they involve compliance or non-compliance. therefore they are not "within the confines federal law". In most cases, Federal law has no bearing on them at all, and I'd like to keep it that way.

Which is why I stand foursquare against "direct democracy".

Yes, it's sufficient to leave everyone to their own fate, determined by their own decisions. It's not much different than leaving them to their own fate as determined by SOMEONE ELSE'S decisions. At least they have a fighting chance if they think for themselves, rather than blindly follow.

reply to post by nenothtu

Yes, it's sufficient to leave everyone to their own fate, determined by their own decisions. It's not much different than leaving them to their own fate as determined by SOMEONE ELSE'S decisions.

???
I won't ask for an explanation there, but.. alrighty then! Good chat.

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Justice is what you make of it. Survival is what nature makes of it.

Ok, so we are having this 'conversation' where I think human justice is more important than personal well being, and you feel the opposite. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then!

I suppose we will, because the concept of "justice" itself is subjective, rather than objective.

By "human justice" do you mean "social justice" or what? Judiciary "justice"... or some other sort of "justice" perhaps?

Originally posted by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

Spoon feeds poison? What poison have I been spoon feed?
Governments always lie, especially those in war... it's called tactical deception, and deception is the root of all warfare. You know how you instill and rule class warfare, you deceive others as to what is happiness and show them it correlates with consumerism and consumption. Then when enough people have subsided their responsibilities and power of self enough... replaced it with government and economy. Bam! You now have a designed foundation in which you may construct control. Now... instead of independent and self aware mass, you have a dependent, unaware individual.

I was actually meaning litteraly being fed poison. Between GMO, Monsanto and FDA you are literally being fed poison.

What? Your wiki reference and comment, neither address what I said... nor defends or justifies their very existence.

It doesn't matter about The Minstrie of Crowns, they no longer have the same power they did back in the day. Once upon a time we were apart of the British Commonwealth but we are no more. Just like once upon a time America was inhabbited by only aboriganls.

Those who are not fine, and not 'fortunate enough' to have a life that allows for them to achieve their goals... well, if they live in the US ARE FORTUNATE ENOUGH to have a life that allows for them to achieve their goals. Unless there is some medical issue...

I personally know those who have 'made it out the ghetto', against all odds, and are wealthy.

Wow you are so close minded. You think that medical reasons are the only reason holding people back? How about if they lost their high paying job in the economic crash & had to declare bankruptcy and now works 2 jobs totaling 20hr long days, or if they have one job but factoring in the commute to work that some people have it's still a 20hr day and they are still barely making ends meet. Pretty sure they are grabbing the bull by the horns. Or kids who parents are messed up on drugs/alchol and can't properly take care of their kids so their kids intern have to resort to a life of crime and poverty.
While yes some people are fortunate enough to have made it out of the ghetto against all odds, there are still thousands who don't. Millions who struggle.

In 2010, 17.2 million households, 14.5 percent of households (approximately one in seven), were food insecure, the highest number ever recorded in the United States 1 (Coleman-Jensen 2011, p. v.)
In 2010, about one-third of food-insecure households (6.7 million households, or 5.4 percent of all U.S. households) had very low food security (compared with 4.7 million households (4.1 percent) in 2007. In households with very low food security, the food intake of some household members was reduced, and their normal eating patterns were disrupted because of the household’s food insecurity (Coleman-Jensen 2011, p. v., Nord 2009, p. iii.) .
In 2010, children were food insecure at times during the year in 9.8 percent of households with children (3.9 million households.) In one percent of households with children,one or more of the children experienced the most severe food-insecure condition measured by USDA, very low food security, in which meals were irregular and food intake was below levels considered adequate by caregivers (Coleman-Jensen 2011, p. vi).
The median [a type of average] food-secure household spent 27 percent more on food than the median food-insecure household of the same size and household composition (Coleman-Jensen 2011, p. vi)..

Or how about Poverty

In 2010, 46.9 million people were in poverty, up from 37.3 million in 2007 -- the fourth consecutive annual increase in the number of people in poverty . This is the largest number in the 52 years for which poverty rates have been published (DeNavas-Walt 2011, p. 14).
The 2010 poverty rate was 15.1 percent, up from 12.5 percent in 1997. This is the highest poverty rate since 1993, but 7.3 percentage points lower than the poverty rate in 1959, the first year for poverty estimates. (DeNavas-Walt 2011, p. 14).
The 2010 poverty rate for Hispanics was 26.6 percent, for Blacks 27.4 percent.
In 2010, the poverty rate increased for children under age 18 from 20.7 percent to 22.0 percent. (DeNavas-Walt 2010 p. 14).
20.5 million Americans live in extreme poverty. This means their family’s cash income is less than half of the poverty line, or about $10,000 a year for a family of four (DeNavas-Walt 2011, p. 19).
49.9 million people or 16.3 percent of the American people, do not have medical insurance (DeNavas-Walt 2011, p. 23).

source

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Yes, it's sufficient to leave everyone to their own fate, determined by their own decisions. It's not much different than leaving them to their own fate as determined by SOMEONE ELSE'S decisions.

???
I won't ask for an explanation there, but.. alrighty then! Good chat.

The explanation is very simple - personal responsibility for your own decisions MAKE your fate. "Social responsibility" places your fate in the hands of your conquerors.

Either way, you are left to your fate... it's just a matter of WHO determines that fate.

reply to post by nenothtu

Originally posted by wevebeenassimilated reply to post by MrJohnSmith I just sat and read through all 5 pages and there were many interesting suggestions but IMO this is the best one. Of course it won't work because there would be no way to get so many people on board, BUT IF it were possible and there were ZERO voter turn out at the polls in November I think that would send a powerful message.

How do you propose to keep Obama away from the polls all day so that he doesn't vote for himself, and the single vote of one man decides the entire presidency? Challenge him to a golf game that day?

Apparently I hadn't had enough coffee before posting...after posting, however, and thinking it through a little later I realized the obvious. What would keep the candidates from voting for themselves? Of course their families and friends would vote as well........

***Note to self*** fuel brain thoroughly with caffeine before posting!

Originally posted by mytheroy
How about they leave me alone and let me live my life the way I think it should be run, they should only protect our boarders to keep us from harm everything else is an over reach of power and is out of their jurisdiction!

Why would the people boarding with you cause you harm? Or do you mean "borders"

Actually, if you listen to Ron Paul, Border security is NOT a function of the Federal Government, it's an issue for those states that have borders with other countries. Ron Paul has said "if Montana gets attacked, it's up to Montana to defend themselves, that's not a function of the Federal Government".

The ONLY function of the President is to "protect, defend, and uphold the Constitution of the United States", it's the only function that the President agrees to in the oath of office. There is absolutely nothing about protecting the American people in the job description.