Wouldn't we just be better off without them?

The words "...in order to form a more perfect union..." come to mind. The current system was designed to form a "more perfect union" so why is it all falling apart?

Because politicians aren't following the script to maintain that perfect union.

In light of the recent government scandals, it should be painfully obvious that there are very few in Washington that strive to support and represent their constituents. The question is, since our representatives stopped representing us, shouldn't we stop supporting them? This is not a conservative thing. This is not a liberal thing. This is a bipartisan thing, so check the blame game at the door.

Go out and check your politician's voting records. Would you vote for unjustified wars, the patriot act, indefinite detention, and bills that support big businesses that want to put poisons in our bodies? What about your friends, your families, your neighbors, or your coworkers? The people that are claiming to represent us are deliberately, and with malice of forethought, hiding agendas inside of unrelated bills and allowing bills to get passed that they didn't even read. Who in their right mind would sign a contract that they didn't even read anyway?

Moving on, a lot of our politicians are voting in favor of big corporations because their lobbyists are paying them loads and loads of money to vote in their favor. Now I've heard the argument, "corporations can afford lobbyists, but the people of the US can't" to explain why our corrupt politicians keep voting in their favor. However, we don't constitutionally have to pay for our lobbyists, as they are the men and women of the United States Congress. The problem with that now is that this group of people have stopped being our representatives and started being our "leaders in Washington".

So I guess the question is, "Where do we go from here?" Do we continue to subject ourselves to the oncoming sword of fascism that both capitalism and socialism will eventually lead to -- or do we cut a new path to forming that "more perfect union"?

...Or should we just fire everyone in Washington until we can find individuals who actual want to represent us?

reply to post by scolai


The thing is, we know most don't have the ability or heart to lead people but when you look at who you can trust to lead you: it's just as difficult as looking at all the politicians and asking who you prefer!

There's so many issues in day to day life where the change starts with the person, we all need a change of perspective.

reply to post by ScottProphhit


Well wouldn't a paradigm shift be easier if we metaphorically weened ourselves off the bottle that our government keeps giving us?

reply to post by scolai


Well the majority of Americans are medicated on prescription drugs and television, and the government is only one layer of the problem. There's a whole system dependent on electronic currency while all the real wealth is in the hands of people who are probably playing Golf while they get money from Al-Qaeda and slave labour to list two.

If you think that you could do something? It involves violence, and preferably before you guys are hit with Martial Law.

reply to post by scolai


I share your feelings scolai, but I've always been appalled by the hysteria which surrounds your elections, and disappointed that, as in Britain, there always seems to be enough fools to support the system by voting.

But I prefer the velvet glove to the iron hand beneath ...

mistersmith.

mistersmith
... there always seems to be enough fools to support the system by voting.

Voting itself is not the problem.
The problem is that voters, retardedly, keep voting for the exact same people as have been proven to be corrupt and unworthy.

I guarantee that the next time around in the USA, any congressional election, it will be the same. Democrat vs. Republican. And it will be the exact same career politicians who get voted in again.
Retardedly.

Where do we go from here?

I'm willing to give it one more election (less than a month away). If we (the people) are unable or unwilling to at least start to fix the problem, I think it is time to start talking about a hard reboot.

reply to post by alfa1


I agree that voting is not the problem -- the system is the problem.
My point is that it is foolish to prop up the system by voting in fresh candidates who will also be submerged in the system.

I think you'll put Obama back in --
He's so tall .....

mistersmith.

Doc Gator
Where do we go from here?

I'm willing to give it one more election (less than a month away). If we (the people) are unable or unwilling to at least start to fix the problem, I think it is time to start talking about a hard reboot.

Wouldn't it be better if instead of electing senate and house representatives we treated it instead like jury duty? With 300 + million people in this country we should have a steady supply to choose from. Serve 2 years,once in your life only,get paid only US Median salary.That would sure kick out the rich and powerful,cut down on corruption and allow people to be replaced quicker when they break the law.

reply to post by scolai


Many in the rest of the world certainly think so..and are planning for it.

China say's its time.


Ro

alfa1

mistersmith
... there always seems to be enough fools to support the system by voting.

Voting itself is not the problem.
The problem is that voters, retardedly, keep voting for the exact same people as have been proven to be corrupt and unworthy.

I guarantee that the next time around in the USA, any congressional election, it will be the same. Democrat vs. Republican. And it will be the exact same career politicians who get voted in again.
Retardedly.

I agree with you that voting is not the problem ... but I'm not convinced that the voters are the problem either. How do we know that the election numbers aren't faked? There is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that TPTB select the future president and somehow engineer their success as a candidate.

I refuse to accept that a vast majority of Americans lack enough intelligence to make a change. I may be wrong, but I refuse to accept it.

reply to post by alfa1

Voting itself is not the problem. The problem is that voters, retardedly, keep voting for the exact same people as have been proven to be corrupt and unworthy.

This was set-up intentionally.

Lets tug on some strings.

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. ~ George Bernard Shaw

Who do we have dependent on the government robbing Peter? Welfare types, disabled, old folks on SS, everyone directly paid by the government; staffers, bureaucrats, teachers, fire, police. Those on the secondary tier: Lawyers, accountants, safety engineers, government contractors.... Once the pauls out number the peters you are in bad shape.

Now follow through on the beliefs of George Bernard Shaw, co-founder of the Fabian Society and the London School of Economics. LSE trains world leaders in politics, economics, banking and corporations.

The Real George Bernard Shaw – Fabian Socialist

KILLING THOSE “UNFIT TO LIVE”
“The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?”

Source: George Bernard Shaw, Prefaces (London: Constable
and Co., 1934), p. 296.
These are not isolated statements made at some point in his life. These statements and many others were made over decades consistently and repetitively....

The link has more quotes along the same lines. Sort of give a slightly different view of 'Socialism' doesn't it?

The Fabian Socialism was founded in 1884 by Beatrice and Sidney Webb, George Bernard Shaw and H.G. Wells. Aldous Huxley introduced Orwell to the Fabian society. His brother, Julian was a prominent member of the British Eugenics Society. Another link is Ceil Rhodes who died in 1902 leaving his fortune to Nathan Rothschild with directions to form a

to create a secret society that would bring the whole world under British rule. The exact wording from this will is:

To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world,... the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible, and promote the best interests of humanity.

en.wikipedia.org...

Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar...

Sir Julian Huxley was the first ever Director-General of UNESCO, The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. In 1946 he wrote its founding document entitled "UNESCO Its Purpose and Philosophy." The overall task of the organization can be summed up in this quote:

"to help the emergence of a single world culture,"

Throughout this paper Huxley clearly lays out the nature of this planned unified philosophy. He overtly mentions eugenics, explaining it to be the rational scientific way of managing the worldwide society. He altruistically speaks of bringing light to the "dark" areas of the world. These dark areas are labeled "backward", because of their lack of progress. Uniting the world requires forward thinking....
www.theageoftransitions.com...

The there is the 'Third Way'
Baron Anthony Giddens, served as Director of the London School of Economics 1997–2003. He an adviser to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. whose "third way" political approach has been Tony Blair's guiding political idea. In 1998, a couple years after ratification of the World Trade Organization, a new term hit the political scene.

According to two of the most powerful leaders in the developed world, US president Bill Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the 'Third Way'was the ideology of the future....
www.jstor.org...

How ever the Third way is NOT NEW.

Realize that the Corportate CEO, mistakenly called a 'capitalist,' Is not inclined toward a competitive market. It’s the very LAST thing any Corportate CEO wants. Even in Adam Smith said in “The Wealth Of Nations” ~’Rairly do men of means gather, even for merryment and [discourse?] but that the conversation turns to ways to [restrict competition and raise prices]’.

What a Corportate CEO wants is a monopoly where they can achieve the profit maximizing price point. Not competition. No “market” with many sellers but market consolidation both vertically and horizontally.

For example the EPA is used to forbid all sorts of things that can be done easily and cheaply, where the alternative is very expensive. So, want to make your own “trash to fuel machine”? Better check all those “regulations” on fuel refining and production … if you don’t have a few full time lawyers to fill out the paperwork and a few more to defend against the EPA suing you, it’s a no-go. And who DOES have those lawyers? AND the already established refineries???

The result of the last 50 years has been more companies in markets with Oligopolies that are essentially guaranteed by the government or where regulations and the government-corporate revolving door strictly restricts competition to the cartel. No Mom & Pop outsiders welcome thank you.

This is, basically how Fascist “Third Way” works FDR and Wilson both had high praise for The Third Way and you can see how they shifted America from a ‘free market’ toward “Third Way” government – corporation “cooperation” … It was this same process / tendency that Ike talked about in the “Military Industrial Complex” speech.

The USA until about 1970 was a “Mixed Economy” with some “natural monopolies” under government “control” via “regulation”; and with many competitive markets. the US has moved to more central planning and more central “regulation” and more corporate-government 'Cooperation' that the socialist call 'Capitalism' which it is not. It is Fascism rebranded as 'Third Way' socialism or Progressive because the name “fascist Third Way” got a bit tainted during W.W.II

Corporations are very happy under a Socialist Third Way / Progressive / Market Socialism / Fascist / “Government regulated Coopetition” (whatever you name you like to apply) The thing they are NOT HAPPY with is wide open competitive markets that is laissez faire capitalism.

reply to post by ohioriver


Unfortunately, I think it would have the opposite effect. I think many would view it as winning the lottery. Anonymity + unaccountability is a recipe for corruption.

I would much rather have knowledgeable, talented people who put the good of the nation and it's citizens first. Sadly, those people are not interested in descending into the vile cesspool that is politics in this country.

We need to get back to how this was originally envisioned. Serving as an elected official was supposed to be a burden. It was taken on reluctantly, and only because our community called and we felt it was our duty.

While I'm at it, I might as well wish that the flying unicorns are going to show up with a bunch of .22lr ammo for me.