Race baiting for political gain (Fearless Blue)

(My response to peanut-head new world order creep jimmy carter)

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned. An era of corruption will follow and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong it's reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed."

Abraham Lincoln
____________________________________________

The Dude knew what he was talking about way back then...funny how things never change.

abe / Zeba

I think this one may be the final blow. When they murder the Americans who oppose fascism (and they will because that's what they do) the world will become a much darker place for everyone.

Even though we didn't control the country we were at a point in our history where the conquered state was compelled to provide an illusion in order to complete their control grid. This illusion provided a compulsion to do the 'American thing', hence they robed resources in the name of democracy, democracy being that 'American thing'.

Earlier on in the history they were bound even more because they were deceiving men who were more righteous, and God revering men. Their attack is to erode moral fiber, disintegrate the American family, and control the minds of the citizens.

The world needs to wake up. It's not just Germany this time. This time it's global, its all of us and if you don't see what I see give it a couple of years and it should all become painfully clear to you.

People have been spouting this nonsense for generations. What they're really afraid of is change.

The moral compass of the world is begining to change direction, towards a more fair type of society in which equal opportunity actually means something. And most Americans cannot stand to believe it.

Its alright though. Every world-leading empire in history has gone through the same thing as their power waned.

"towards a more fair type of society in which equal opportunity actually means something"

More subjective words have never been spoken. The word "fair" causes as many divisions in society as any other public issue of the day.

Of course its subjective, BC. This entire thread is pesonal opinion.

What I mean by fair is the opening up of opportunity to all levels of society, not just those with more money.

Yeah, but the opinion of a UNITED STATES PRESIDENT matters a little more to me than the opinion of the average joe lol and not just one, look at many of my posts. I could argue entire topics with nothing but presidential quotes. Trust me, I'd love to be wrong.

It's not personal opinion. If one bothered to do a couple hours of research, one would find the evidence is all over the place and overwhelming.

Bludgeoning dissent with false accusations of racism isn't "fair". What a loaded word.

The percieved problems of the US system are not my own, so I'll refrain from further comment on that one.

Your view of government is entirely detached from my own, as is your moral prerogative.

You're correct, not all people like being free and making their own decisions. I see it in acquaintances and family even. Some people loved being bossed around. Get off on it I guess.

I sort of understand, powerful government can be alluring with all it's promises, but it always either fails to meet even minimal expectations or has serious caveats attached, because it's just rich people using the masses for personal gain. How many poor people have been members of congress? How can you expect the poor or middle class will have any sort of political power...because millionaires and their billionaire backers are looking out for them? And yet the faith in some sort of false messiah to come along and save them from their misery continues. All some people have to look forward to is hope. The same manipulation of complex emotions is used by religions as well as all other institutions of social control.

The abhorrence, or at least irreverence for critical thought is even more widespread and culturally expected, and that is no accident.

What do you think the sims of this game would think of us? Are we building public services because we care about a piece of data that has a nominal value attached, or do we want gold coins that come our way when the people aren't revolting or slacking off? We are the elites here.

Race baiting is a tool, a means to an end.
We need to back this thing up, disintegrate the world order and restore conquered nations and peoples.

No one "bludgeons" dissent by unmasking it. Rascism masked as dissent is what we are seeing in America today. Solomon's Lincoln quote is very prescient. False patriotism which in itself strives to undermine a democracy by attempting to make illegitimate an elected president is nothing short of veiled treason. Today we see a fifth column in America which holds up the constitution as it's banner while at the same time atempting to destroy the same.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

I sort of understand, powerful government can be alluring with all it's promises, but it always either fails to meet even minimal expectations or has serious caveats attached, because it's just rich people using the masses for personal gain. How many poor people have been members of congress? How can you expect the poor or middle class will have any sort of political power...because millionaires and their billionaire backers are looking out for them? And yet the faith in some sort of false messiah to come along and save them from their misery continues. All some people have to look forward to is hope. The same manipulation of complex emotions is used by religions as well as all other institutions of social control.<!-/Quote-!>

I agree with you on many points. But I would like you to elaborate on your "powerful government" point. What exactly do you mean? Which type of government comes to mind when you say "powerful government?"

You see, I would consider the Parliamentary Democracy which has evolved from the UK's Constitutional Monarcy to be a "powerful government" in comparison to the US system. At the same time, I do not see it as failing. Indeed - if you will forgive me - I see it as superior to the US system simply because it has several distinct advantages.

Firstly, it is simpler and more streamlined. The cuts down on costs by limiting beurocracy.

Secondly, there are more viable political parties. Whereas all we hear from the US is that either the Right (Democrats) or the far Right (Republicans) will win, we have three "major" parties on the Left (Liberal Democrats), Centre-Left (Labour) and Centre-Right (Conservatives) as well as the usual smattering of smaller entities, such as the Green Party, UKIP, Monster Raving Looney Party and the likes.

Thirdly, at the national level - where elections really matter - every vote is worth the same. A voter in Yorkshire holds no more power over the system than somebody from Lancashire or Cornwall.

Of course, the Queen still holds "absolute power" and she could just decide to do away with democracy entirely. Not that she would... I hear she's a Monster Raving Looney Party member.

Oh, and for those of you who have read all the way through to this point and now feel a sense of righteous indignation, go back and read it again, but add in a sarcastic tone from the second paragraph onwards this time.

It'll make far more sense. ^_^

Neidy you said:
"False patriotism which in itself strives to undermine a democracy by attempting to make illegitimate an elected president is nothing short of veiled treason."

For this to be true:

1. We would have to be dealing with a democracy, we are not. Even the democratic ideals that are embraced by the American Republic are put aside because the republic has been destroyed. The people have less say in their government now than in any other time in history, even with colonial England.

2. Jimmy Carter is NOT an elected president any longer. High treason is meeting with foreign leaders without the consent of the US Government or the People. Actually it's FELONY. Carter should be in prison.

3. Since when did exercising your First Amendment right become wrong in your eyes, AND TREASON AT THAT? Is it since you decided to worship the propaganda machine or were you brainwashed out of it long before?

4. This doesn't have to be true to disarm your argument but, I would like to inform you that there are more important things going on here than the color of our skins. It is clearly an 'all about me' attitude when it is about that. You alienate yourself when it's all about the color of your skin to the point of crying wolf about racism.

We would like to heal(for real) and not have the wounds driven deeper, if you don't mind. Now go click on my link up there and celebrate our differences!

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Celebrate our differences!<!-/Quote-!>

That is the quote of your life, Solomon. Hang on to it.

Thanks for the reply Solomon. Regarding your first point about people having less say. The U.S. Republic actually allows some people more say than less. I say this because of the representative division in the senate. 2 Senators for each state regardless of population gives certain groups within those states and the less populated states much more unequal representatiion, Also, since the electoral college is made up of the number of congressman and senators per state this leads to the election of presidents without the popular vote majority. We are after all a republic, not a democracy. Our real American problem is not the inability to exercise our democratic rights, but our failure as a whole to take advantage of them. Of all eligeble voters, roughly 60% actually register to vote and only anout 60% of those registered actually vote. This means about only 4 out of 10 vote. We could make laws to force everyone to vote but that in itself might interfere with the people's right to not express a preference.
Concerning point #2. Jimmy Carter is a private citizen. He is exercisig his right to promote causes. There is nothing treasomous about that. We are not at war with the Palestinians. The U.S. even supplies economic aid to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Many Israelis believe there should be peaceful reconciliation with the Hamas led government, yet no one accuses them of treason. Jimmy Carter is doing nothing that undermines the legitimacy of our current or past presidents.
Regarding point #3. Did I question the right to dissent in my comment? No, I question the MOTIVE behind that dissent. On the face of it, we have a president whose every action is labeled Nazism, Communist, Socialist, and every other ism or ist one can think of. His birth certificate is questioned, his religion is questioned (as if that should even matter.)These so called dissenters want their "country back",(ie. white, Christian country?) as if it only belongs to them exclusively. So they attempt to undermine legitimate elected government and strive to make an administration fail and thus damage the country in the process. That is not patriotic and thus it is a form of legitimized treason. Do I say we should take away their rights? No, of course not. But as stated in my earlier post, it should be called out for what it is.
Finally, concerning point #4. Of course it isn't about skin color and shouldn't be. That is why I as a white person, chose a Black man TO BE MY PRESIDENT. It is those groups on the far right who use the color of President Obama's skin as their motivation to dissent. One only needs to look at the placards they hold up at rallies as proof. They are the ones crying wolf, and they are the ones alienating themselves from the rest of the nation.

Neidy:


The Senate in which you refer is bought and paid for by Corporations at the very least. A more grim description is that of a shadow government. If former Governor Ventura isn't lying and the Republicans and Democrats aren't really opposed to each other then they don't really represent the people but only provide the illusion that they do. For this you must agree there must be dissent.

That covers the first paragraph...

Jimmy Carter: You say "Jimmy Carter is a private citizen. He is exercising his right to promote causes. There is nothing treasonous about that."

I agree, there is nothing wrong with promoting a cause. Meeting with foreign dignitaries to promote your crime cause(policy), again... FELONY.

Neidy you say:
"Regarding point #3. Did I question the right to dissent in my comment? No, I question the MOTIVE"

So we need the Thought Police to determine what I was thinking? How did you get to TREASON on what I may or may not have been thinking?!

The actions of the current 'puppet with strings of gold' warrant being labled "Nazism, Communist, Socialist, and every other ism" for a reason.

(You also said: "So they attempt to undermine legitimate elected government")

Lets not forget the special interest system

I have to add this:

"Of course it isn't about skin color and shouldn't be. That is why I as a white person, chose a Black man TO BE MY PRESIDENT"

This has been referred to as 'duelism'. You are saying that you voted for him based on skin color because you shouldn't vote for him based on skin color.

Hello again Solomon,
You seem to contradict yourself on your points. No doubt, the Senate and House wreak of influence peddling by corporations. My point was that this is not imposed on Americans but rather allowed by essentially a somewhat lazy electorate that doesn't simply exercise their right to change things.(only about 40% of eligible voters go to the polls).
As for Jimmy Carter, I'm glad you now agree that he has a right to meet foreign leaders, the fact that you disagree with his beliefs and think he should be put in jail for a felony actually puts you in the camp of the "thought Police".
Speaking of number three, dissent /treason. Again I re-state that they have a right to their opinions and a right to dissent, However, when that dissent itself calls for rebellion or tries to make illegitimate a fair and honest election where the majority voted for a new direction, and does it through false innuendo and out right lies, then the basic patriotism of people promoting such discontent has to be questioned. Something I have a riht to do. To paraphrase a famous quote. "I DISAGREE WITH WHAT THEY PROMOTE,BUT WILL GO TO MY DEATH TO DEFEND THEIR RIGHT TO PROMOTE IT. Will current right wingers do the same for me?
Finally, who said I voted for President Obama because he is black? Anyone reading my post clearly would understand that I voted for him because I felt he was the better candidate. I chose him based on "the content of his character, not the color of his skin." Unfortunately, you are guilty of the typical right wing attempt to misrepresent someones view, assume the misrepresentation as fact, and then rationalize a differing view based on the misrepresentation. A typical right wing tactic.Finally, you can't be a Nazi, Communist, Socialist all at the same time. You got to pick one.

Sorry Solomon, I was working on corps for my brother in law who plays the game and posted off his game site by mistake(Winston Churchill). That is my post, not his. Didn't want you to get confused. This disussion is so interesting, I actually forgot to go to my own page!

hmm wow, you really aren't very good at this are you?

1. You fail to present how I contradict my point, only say that I do. (liberal tactic)

2. You say your point is something other than what it really was. (another liberal tactic- like it won't be noticed)

3. It is clear that I still don't agree with you on Jimmy Carter yet you claim that I do. (yet ANOTHER liberal tactic)

4. I become the 'Thought Police' by opposing other views? How ridiculous! Again, if there is a law broken then there is a crime committed.(not a difficult concept) That has nothing to do with whether or not I oppose his political views.

5. With this, I have to question what planet you're on:
"tries to make illegitimate a fair and honest election"

6. "discontent has to be questioned. Something I have a right to do."
We are in absolute agreement on that one.

7. You said: "Finally, who said I voted for President Obama because he is black? Anyone reading my post clearly would understand that I voted for him because I felt he was the better candidate. I chose him based on "the content of his character, not the color of his skin."

I ask you... is that what the following means, am I to clearly understand what you say above by what you say below?

"Of course it isn't about skin color and shouldn't be. That is why I as a white person, chose a Black man TO BE MY PRESIDENT."

8. You said: "you are guilty of the typical right wing attempt to misrepresent someones view" My response is:
You are the one claiming to be talking about something different than what you were actually talking about. If you made an error on your subject how can you blame me for responding to your error? Every instance I demonstrate here is an example of tactics used by the political left wing, yet you claim I am guilty of what you are doing! (which is of course a left wing liberal tactic LOL!)

Pathetic liberal tactics aren't going to work on me. LOL!

SOLOMON GRUNDY SMASH LEFT WING LIBERAL TACTICS!! GRRRRRRRR!!

I don't mean this to be so adversarial.

For the record I'm not a right winger. Though I am a FORMER conservative republican. Realizing that I had run into the arms of a wolf in sheep's clothing I no longer consider myself right wing, conservative, or republican.

I ran into the arms of a fake sheep, what really bothers me is that you readily ran into the arms of the wolf without the sheep's clothing, that troubles me.

"That is not patriotic and thus it is a form of legitimized treason."

I thought I was, along with Jimmy, the only American willing to confront the (OBVIOUS) truth. Well said.


Glenn Beck should be arrested, along with the clown known as Rush Limbaugh

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

. You said: "Finally, who said I voted for President Obama because he is black? Anyone reading my post clearly would understand that I voted for him because I felt he was the better candidate. I chose him based on "the content of his character, not the color of his skin."

I ask you... is that what the following means, am I to clearly understand what you say above by what you say below?

"Of course it isn't about skin color and shouldn't be. That is why I as a white person, chose a Black man TO BE MY PRESIDENT."<!-/Quote-!>

Funny you say that. Because I understood what he originally meant. He didn't vote for him because he was black. Unlike the right wing, he voted for him despite him being black.

The misunderstanding appears to be on your part, Solomon.

Eh, could be... Are you Gene Dixon in real life? lol

No matter, history will prove me right.