Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Render

Congress very low in Americans' esteem

55 posts in this topic

I've been trying to stay focused on two points here and this keeps going way off topic. Create a new thread and I will respond to this (you may be surprised, maybe not?), otherwise, what I'm trying to say is that Congress is made up of different ideological groups and as long as this Administration can keep it confused, he can continue to attack the GOP and there are enough people still quaffing the koolaid. If he can weaken the whole, he can weaken the GOP. The Socialists are willing cannon fodder. They'll fall on their sword en mass for their leader. Down in the trenches, a huge battle is raging on. The future of our nation is in the balance. The MSM will do whatever it takes to keep the people asleep of the facts.

It's amazing that when we need to deal with runaway spending and a spiraling debt, the Administration will attack the GOP for being the party of "NO", when that is their job and he goes off having Uncle Joe make a big show of gun control. It's the same show we saw with the first fiscal cliff. Tell me, what of anything of value has the President really done? In my book this guy is worse than Carter.

Understood, the GOP's not in the wrong in your view, it's all the other sides fault, you're being biased. I haven't pointed a finger at any one group, I'm trying to expand to you that it's just as much the GOP's fault as anyone else's.

The President is one man, anyone who thinks that he has some special power (other then executive orders which must be reviewed in three months time) is being silly. Checks and balances exist, this is why it takes forever to actually get things done.

Edited by Hasina
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That alone will not work. We need to continue to boot the incumbent out over and over again until it no longer becomes appealing to stay as a politician. A third party won't work. Firstly, it will become just as corrupt as the other two.

Then you'll say, oh but we need a fourth party (etc., etc.), then no party will ever win the majority so then, they'll have to form coalitions and coalitions do not represent the people.

And coalitions imply professional politicians otherwise coalitions don't hold together. And nothing will change until we establish what the foundational ideology this nation will follow. Either the dreams of this President's father or the dreams of our Founding Fathers? Your choice.

The trouble with these politicians is because we do not follow our foundational beliefs in the first place. Many in the GOP House are trying.

What if the incumbent does a good job? What if the person they're running against is clearly worst? Would you still give the incumbent the boot? Plus I would think having Congress not needing to answer to the public would only make things worst. Why bother being honest and working hard if you're just going to get fired at the end of your term? While career politicans are a problem making Congress a revolving door isn't much of a solution.

And dreams change based on social changes. The dreams of a President's father would be much more appealing that some of the dreams of the Founding Fathers. Can they provide guidance and some solid examples to follow, yes. Should that dream be followed to the letter? Not in this century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the incumbent does a good job? What if the person they're running against is clearly worst? Would you still give the incumbent the boot? Plus I would think having Congress not needing to answer to the public would only make things worst. Why bother being honest and working hard if you're just going to get fired at the end of your term? While career politicans are a problem making Congress a revolving door isn't much of a solution.

And dreams change based on social changes. The dreams of a President's father would be much more appealing that some of the dreams of the Founding Fathers. Can they provide guidance and some solid examples to follow, yes. Should that dream be followed to the letter? Not in this century.

The problem is systemic, and is little changed by exchanging this or that Congressperson. A "good representative" is the one who brings the pork home to his constituency, but the problem why Congress is inefficient and sometimes on the verge of corrupt is because of the pork.

People have to realize that it is not the person who is the good or the bad but their own expectations are creating the problem. Which sums up to: Everybody likes the fruits of the corruption of the system but hates the system for being corrupt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont belive the Constitutional Republic is still left. Perhaps among the people and I like what you suggest as the rising pheonix that we pull we pull it from the ashes of its own death. But the government is fighting withing itself and the Constitutional Republic is dead to them. Big donations and Big Corp has seen to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal assessment is the House of Representatives is the only branch that has kept its commitment to America but I do believe they sold out at the last minute fiscal vote. Im not certain why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the incumbent does a good job?

Thank him for his service.

What if the person they're running against is clearly worst?

We could try setting up milestones and make recall easier as well as term limits. The individual must show that he belongs.

Would you still give the incumbent the boot?

Absolutely.

Plus I would think having Congress not needing to answer to the public would only make things worst.

Who said Congress did not need to be answerable to the public? Establish it so that each Congressman is answerable for his actions even long after his term is over.

Why bother being honest and working hard if you're just going to get fired at the end of your term?

This isn’t really a matter of being fired. It’s a matter of doing well on your short watch. All a man has is his honesty.

While career politicans are a problem making Congress a revolving door isn't much of a solution.

Well, it will cut out corporations spending millions on campaigns. Congress should have never been anything but a revolving door. Congress is about leadership, not profession.

And dreams change based on social changes.

Liberty and Freedom never change.

The dreams of a President's father would be much more appealing that some of the dreams of the Founding Fathers.

Really? Have you read any of “Dreams of my Father”? It’s pretty much a Socialist manifesto.

Can they provide guidance and some solid examples to follow, yes. Should that dream be followed to the letter? Not in this century.

If your core foundation is built on Liberty and Freedom then the dreams of our Founding Fathers are just as relevant now as they were then. The Constitution remains timeless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understood, the GOP's not in the wrong in your view, it's all the other sides fault, you're being biased. I haven't pointed a finger at any one group, I'm trying to expand to you that it's just as much the GOP's fault as anyone else's.

That’s incorrect. The GOP has just as much blame as the Socialists. But you are absolutely right in that I am biased and blatantly so! Socialism is something I utterly abhor. And it gets the lion’s share of the blame on the basis of ideology. Socialism is a poison to our Constitution. It’s the people that should really get the blame for allowing it to get this far in the first place. But who knew in 1913 that this would be the outcome? Our nation is still just too young to learn from the past. That is why Franklin was skeptical at us retaining a Republic.

The President is one man, anyone who thinks that he has some special power (other then executive orders which must be reviewed in three months time) is being silly. Checks and balances exist, this is why it takes forever to actually get things done.

Executive Orders are powerless. EO’s are just another Fiscal Cliff. These are just tactics by a wannabe dictator to misdirect and divide. No one is obligated to follow an EO but the Administration is going forward, presenting an air of confidence as if that was the case. That only works on the low-information voters. And right now, those are in the Administration’s back pocket.

He has the charisma that all dictators had and he exerts that power over many. With his charisma, ‘checks & balances’ are just temporary obstacles. What has he really done that actually helps the people and the nation as opposed to what he has done to consolidate power? Tarp was pretty much useless. The Stimulus was a failure. Obamacare only infringes on our rights far more than it helps the needy. He was reelected despite his record. This is just a recipe for the perfect storm. This is how a nation falls into slavery and dictatorship. So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause.

I've found that evil usually triumphs unless good is very, very careful. Well, the GOP hasn’t been so careful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does Nickelback have to be in the same catagory as traffic jams and cockroaches?... I happen to like Nickelback... :cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's incorrect. The GOP has just as much blame as the Socialists. But you are absolutely right in that I am biased and blatantly so! Socialism is something I utterly abhor.

To the point that you refuse to use your 401K?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the point that you refuse to use your 401K?

OK, you got my curiosity up. What do you mean by that cryptic statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, you got my curiosity up. What do you mean by that cryptic statement?

That was a demand of the Socialist International in 1905 so workers could build up capital by themselves.

Edit: If you can't find it look for the term collective capital formation.

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a demand of the Socialist International in 1905 so workers could build up capital by themselves.

Edit: If you can't find it look for the term collective capital formation.

Before you added your edit, I was looking at the Declaration of Principles of Socialist International. I have of yet seen anything different. I am googling things on “collective capital formation” but haven’t found anything specific although it’s clear it’s implied in there somewhere.

The idea of course sounds great but like all ideas, they are like a$$holes, everybody’s got one. This is probably one of the key reasons Socialism doesn’t work. You always see the idea pushed forward but never much on full implementation. The bare facts about it is that, yes of course, the worker is allowed to build up capital on their own, but when it is needed by the State, the State will take it (for the common good) and you will have no say in the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before you added your edit, I was looking at the Declaration of Principles of Socialist International. I have of yet seen anything different. I am googling things on "collective capital formation" but haven't found anything specific although it's clear it's implied in there somewhere.

The idea of course sounds great but like all ideas, they are like a$$holes, everybody's got one. This is probably one of the key reasons Socialism doesn't work. You always see the idea pushed forward but never much on full implementation. The bare facts about it is that, yes of course, the worker is allowed to build up capital on their own, but when it is needed by the State, the State will take it (for the common good) and you will have no say in the matter.

As you said, so we have to conclude that social changes are not fueled by ideology but by necessity, and the necessity stems from where a society, as a whole, wants to go to: the next sensible step or extinction.

So, it does not help you to detest socialists, or communists or the Chinese, what you have a problem with is that society is not what it used to be 300 years ago. Well it is not, in fact it is not what it was 3000 years ago either. And it changed in accordance to its possibilities and means where each individual chooses the path that most becomes him. And the majority of individuals form the social norm.

You can detest all you want, the fact remains is that nothing is as persistent as change.

And if you look at the society now and the society 150 years ago you will notice real fast that those things you call "socialistic" are but a reaction to the change in our lifestyle. And a reaction without which the end of our society would come real fast.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you said, so we have to conclude that social changes are not fueled by ideology but by necessity, and the necessity stems from where a society, as a whole, wants to go to: the next sensible step or extinction.

So, it does not help you to detest socialists, or communists or the Chinese, what you have a problem with is that society is not what it used to be 300 years ago. Well it is not, in fact it is not what it was 3000 years ago either. And it changed in accordance to its possibilities and means where each individual chooses the path that most becomes him. And the majority of individuals form the social norm.

You can detest all you want, the fact remains is that nothing is as persistent as change.

And if you look at the society now and the society 150 years ago you will notice real fast that those things you call "socialistic" are but a reaction to the change in our lifestyle. And a reaction without which the end of our society would come real fast.

I don’t detest change. That is one thing our Founding Fathers took into consideration and gave us a document that would work then, now and far into the future. It was another step out of the Socialist quagmire. The whole concept of Liberty and Freedom is timeless. Yes, society must evolve but it must evolve forward. Socialism is what existed 3000 years ago and we knew it as kingdoms.

The Ancient Greeks understood this and gave us the basic concept of Democracy, but they weren’t perfect. The Romans picked up on this and advanced the ideology (12 Tablets) but they weren’t perfect. The British added to it (Magna Carta) and now we continue on (Constitution) but we’re not perfect. But we also have a chance to working out more kinks until we pass it on. And one of the things we can do is say no to evolving backward into Socialism.

The current incarnation of Socialism is a poison and a curse plaguing Man. It began its creep into the modern world in the 1870s and it got a foothold in this nation by 1913. In order to fight that, we must be steadfast with the principles of the Constitution. The enemies of Liberty and Freedom will say that’s clinging to the past but in reality, it is holding onto the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im a direct decendent of one of the founding fathers of the America. His view on democracy was and I quote

The assistants then asserted their right to veto the general court's decision, sparking the controversy. Winthrop argued that the assistants, as experienced magistrates, must be able to check the democratic institution of the general court, because "a democracy is, amongst most civil nations, accounted the meanest and worst of all forms of government."

Although he was an avid Puritan his views and writing are still referenced today by many politicians today including JFK and Sarah Palin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't detest change. That is one thing our Founding Fathers took into consideration and gave us a document that would work then, now and far into the future. It was another step out of the Socialist quagmire. The whole concept of Liberty and Freedom is timeless. Yes, society must evolve but it must evolve forward. Socialism is what existed 3000 years ago and we knew it as kingdoms.

The Ancient Greeks understood this and gave us the basic concept of Democracy, but they weren't perfect. The Romans picked up on this and advanced the ideology (12 Tablets) but they weren't perfect. The British added to it (Magna Carta) and now we continue on (Constitution) but we're not perfect. But we also have a chance to working out more kinks until we pass it on. And one of the things we can do is say no to evolving backward into Socialism.

The current incarnation of Socialism is a poison and a curse plaguing Man. It began its creep into the modern world in the 1870s and it got a foothold in this nation by 1913. In order to fight that, we must be steadfast with the principles of the Constitution. The enemies of Liberty and Freedom will say that's clinging to the past but in reality, it is holding onto the future.

So, I guess you live in a large multigenaration family to not need the "socialism"? Or, as in the case of the 401K you pick and choose what socialism is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take away socialism in our government and see if these same people that complain about it can bear to watch children starve to death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So socialism, a political theory formed in the nineteenth century, was around three thousand years ago. Man we should fully support socialists. They have time machines!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im a direct decendent of one of the founding fathers of the America. His view on democracy was and I quote

So am I. So I guess I have an obligation to defend a legacy. I just hope that my passion of Liberty and Freedom is just as strong.

The assistants then asserted their right to veto the general court's decision, sparking the controversy. Winthrop argued that the assistants, as experienced magistrates, must be able to check the democratic institution of the general court, because "a democracy is, amongst most civil nations, accounted the meanest and worst of all forms of government."

Although he was an avid Puritan his views and writing are still referenced today by many politicians today including JFK and Sarah Palin.

That’s why you won’t find “Democracy” in the Constitution. Democracy in the extreme form is Socialism. Even though we utilize democratic principles, we are a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy.

Many of the Founding Fathers had similar views, just approached it from different experiences. I like to quote these:

“…democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property. And have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

James Madison Essay #10, Federalist Papers

“We are a Republican Government, real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy.”

Alexander Hamilton

“Democracy never lasts long. It soon exhausts and murders itself.”

Samuel Adams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So am I. So I guess I have an obligation to defend a legacy. I just hope that my passion of Liberty and Freedom is just as strong.

No but genetics are genetics. I understand better today where some of my core beliefs came from and why a good portion of my family migrated through the South for the Civil War then West. Federalization is not something I take kindly too. Never have never will and thats a personal opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take away socialism in our government and see if these same people that complain about it can bear to watch children starve to death.

That’s historically disingenuous don’t you think? Considering that Socialism has crept into our society now for almost a century, that by ridding us from it cold-turkey, the dependency that it has caused would create a vacuum. And that vacuum would cause more problems. If we didn’t have that dependency in the first place, then the children wouldn’t have to starve. Because of Socialism we have more and more children that do starve. Once you stop the dependency, then you can stop the hunger. That’s the problem we face today and that is how to minimize that vacuum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your talking about 350mil+ people now across all socioeconomic backgrounds. Youll never replace all socialism. I for one cant see why when we have proven technology like Lasix surgery to correct vision it cannot be applied as a socialist use rather then a the haves and have nots scenario we are currently in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your talking about 350mil+ people now across all socioeconomic backgrounds. Youll never replace all socialism. I for one cant see why when we have proven technology like Lasix surgery to correct vision it cannot be applied as a socialist use rather then a the haves and have nots scenario we are currently in.

Shockingly, some "socialists" like the British NHS (and a few more European insurance systems) provide it free of charge

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont believe its included in Obamacare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I guess you live in a large multigenaration family to not need the "socialism"? Or, as in the case of the 401K you pick and choose what socialism is?

You certainly know how to present vague points???

No, I do not live in a multigenerational family and even if I did would not need Socialism. Either way, I am an individual living in a community of individuals. I am not a sheep in a collective. I am occupied with doing what I do, keeping the outcome of my labor, knowing that that improves the overall condition of Society. As opposed to having someone else determine that the fruits of my labor would benefit someone else better than myself.

A 401K is not what is Socialist. I should be able to build a 401K without any government involvement. But that is what they are talking about. Taking my 401K to pay for Obamacare. Since it didn’t register with you, I’ll insert the last part of that post of mine. Maybe it’ll sink in the second time around??

The idea of course sounds great but like all ideas, they are like a$$holes, everybody’s got one. This is probably one of the key reasons Socialism doesn’t work. You always see the idea pushed forward but never much on full implementation. The bare facts about it is that, yes of course, the worker is allowed to build up capital on their own, but when it is needed by the State, the State will take it (for the common good) and you will have no say in the matter.

If I was in a multigenerational family and the patriarch came to me and said that I needed to surrender my wealth to help grandma. I would quietly decline, pack up grandma and leave. In a Socialist society, I really don’t have that choice. The government would freeze my assets and either force me to play nice or let me go without my wealth. And probably would let grandma come with me to get rid of two mouths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.