- advertisements -
cool, now stop voting for more obamas
... and bushs, mccains, gingrichs, gores, kerrys,clintons, reagans, carters, nixons, etc. etc ad infinitum. Some are better than others, but they differ not in kind but in degree.
This is a game, and citizens are the pieces.
The USA needs a return to simple governance with simple laws. She needs Statesmen, not selfish pansies.
really? so you want anarchy and believe NO ONE can lead
what the hell is "simple governance?"
what is a 'simple law?"
A federal government explicitly restricted by the Constitution, let the States do their thing. Or Leviticus.
Hump Day playlist, enjoy the music!http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=D78860E6821CDD13
thanks. needed that for real.
What happens when some silly little man approaches you and offers to lend you money for interest? What then? Will we ever learn our lesssons?
“Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was ademocracy yet that did not commit suicide…” John Adams 1814
Picked this quote up from TedBits Commentary October 19, 2010 Newsletter.
Great Post....I am in commercial manufacturing and have commented before about James Goldsmith who predicted exactly what would happen back in 94'. Among the wisest of businessmen...He knew how business worked. Unfortunately he predicted America's impoverishment via GATT residue, destabilizing western society where we end up serving economic indices.
I recommend his book "The Trap", and this great interview on the Charlie Rose Show. He debates with Laura Tyson who is as dumb as a fence post when it comes to trade and business and still is. Warning...You might find Tyson's high pitch whinny voice a bit disurbing.
True, but so depressing.
"Rage, rage against the dying of the light."
Leviticus? But those crabs are just so darn tasty.
And let's not forget the boneless pork shoulder...
Sweet beats Mr. Murray!
Power back to the states.... About the only thing the Federal government need to worry about is National security, Which is Wall St. and the boarder....Keep the criminals beat back & let the people handle the rest...
Considering he said a "return" to simple "governance", it's pretty clear that he is not advocating anarchy.
At most, he is advocating a return to the Articles of Confederation.
Oh FFS. The Constitution is one of the most amazing pieces of paper ever written. It just needs to be observed.
I guess you don't understand what the words "at most" mean.
That said, I _would_ actually advocate anarchy, as long as we're talking, e.g:
"No rulership or enforced authority."
"A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."
but I think it's more likely I'll be on the no-return mission to Mars.
In short: sorry.
I don't know what the Bernanke is going on here, but I keep trying to post this with no success:
No indeed; well, at least not after a shedload of ales. I just fired that off because I wanted to big up the Constitution. I'd not want to argue with you, tmosley: I've read many of your posts and like where you are coming from. Had I been sober enough to check the username I would also have put a check on any response.
In short: sorry.
I'll be with you on the one way trip to Mars.
I've added "what the Bernanke" to my vocabulary. Thanks for this.
You're right, Obama is a completely unqualified leader. So were the war mongerers (criminals?) preceding him.
That's not what I said. I clearly stated that Statesmen are needed, instead of representatives who represent their own interests (which is the status quo).
Go read the USC, and if you can even read it - much less comprehend it - before you die, then you'll know what simple law isn't.
There's a reason why the founding documents consume mere pages. There's also a reason why the Ten Commandments are, well, ten commands long. It's simple. It restricts control over citizens to things that really matter, such as "thou shalt not kill". As an added bonus, simple law helps keep citizens from being whisked away in the middle of the night for breaking nebulous, obscure laws.
It's a problem when everyone is breaking some law every waking hour, and most aren't even aware. That's the sign of a top-heavy republic. And a dangerous one insofar as government control over people is concerned.
very good answer! +++++
"The more laws, the less justice." - Cicero
Negative, dunce boy.
What Edmon Plume is stating is that it is time for an actual statesman, as opposed to a long string of Wall Street representatives in the White House.
That should be rather obvious to anyone with even the most meager complement of neurons.
Anyone who forgets, or is ignorant of, Carter's main financial backer, David Rockefeller, and that it was Carter who first signed that directive to destabilize the secular government of Afghanistan by creating the mujahadeen, which led to the Soviet invasion of that country, is a lazy brained clown, not worthy of any comments. (Beginning with the Carter Administration, Wahabist Isalmic extremists were relocated from Saudi Arabia to the northern border of Afghanistan, fomenting religious revolution --- originally the occupants there were the milder Sufi Islamic people.)
From Nixon to the present White House occupant, we have been cursed with nothing but the Yes Men from Wall Street.
End of discussion.
"Anarchy" - as you so glibly mentioned, is what occurs when the imperialistic predatory capitalist empire of the USA finances the murder of countless Afghanistani secularists, academics, intellectuals, artists, and just decent folk, as happened back in the late '70s and early '80s.
Shame, shame on your kind.....
++ some righteous fury.
Statesmen? What are those? (/sarcasm)
These days there is no way those are rhetorical questions. Who was the last US statesman? The last one we had in Britain was Margaret Effing Thatcher, and it is in large part because of her that we are where we are.
You should have stopped at Reagan. He's the father of modern partisan politics and the first really shit President. Nixon managed to do a lot of good despite being a paranoid wreck and Carter knew what we should have done but was unable to be re elected because of the recession that hit during his presidency.
The tawdry shits that got reagan in are now the heads of fox news, and attend symposiums funded by the koch's.
The watery shits that got Obama collectively elected give a million bucks a pop to Media matters, religiously watch MSNBC and attend Kos meetings.. Your point is what?
You can thank Nixon for introducing the "neocons" into the Republican party!!
Prior to Nixon, they operated under the Democrat flag under LBJ (wherein they introduced "The Great Society", Medicare, Medicaid, escalating war in Vietnam, proposed dropping gold-convertibility of USD, and some other "great ideas"). They were a young power group under the wing of LBJ's vice-president Humphrey -- then jumped ship to support Nixon as soon as they saw that Humphrey was going to lose to Nixon in the next election (Johnson had decided not to seek re-election). If they hadn't jumped ship to Nixon, they would have become sidelined.
They have grown in power and influence -- and have effectively controlled BOTH parties -- ever since. One of their first successes as Republicans was getting Nixon to drop the gold-USD convertibility in 1971 (which they had first got Johnson to propose in 1968).
Hopefully America will wake up out of their malaise.
also stop voting for corporatist globalist shills who appoint corporatist globalist shills to the supreme court and regulatory agencies.
Just stop voting. If you want to do something constructive, throw a brick through the window of you local mega-bank branch. You know the ones.
To Fearless Rick:
Finally, a cogent and intelligent suggestion.
One of the few brave men who was willing to take the blue pill and share the reality of our plight, Mr. George Carlin (and yes I am serious). Take the time to watch and listen:
Don't look to the Whores of Washington to save our sorry asses. Listen to what Max Keiser says about American "pussies" with all their guns compared to the French whom fight for their freedom and liberty:
Here is a blast from the past, the best economic commentator of our time (I think they killed him. No really, no uploads in the past year):
Yeah ole Max Keiser sure lost his shit yesterday on AJ's show. I had to laugh. I have been there and done that.
Junked you for the "stop voting" nonsense. Vote for a third party, or at the very least vote for yourself. And don't give me that "waste a vote" bullshit, especially if you're only willing to sit on your ass. If you're not voting or running for office, you are part of the problem because you sure as shit aren't in the streets getting it done.
I beg you to watch, Mr. Murray:
Disclosure: I have cast three ballots in my lifetime - Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura, and Ron Paul. I will never vote again as I believe voting grants legitimacy to a corrupt institution. Plus I am not an aggressive person.
I will never vote again as I believe voting grants legitimacy to a corrupt institution.
I will never vote again as I believe voting grants legitimacy to a corrupt institution.
I'm with ya man. Only voted twice: Perot and then Buchanan (can't believe I just admitted that).
I'm done. Fuck this system.
And BTW: anarchy isn't about bandannas and Molotov cocktails. The nut jobs at Alcoholics Anonymous have no governing body. It is effective anarchy - and it works. And these loons are alcoholics.
FFS, if they can do it, why can't we?
I agree completely. On my more cynical days I think people embrace government only because they're afraid they cannot make it on their own. Responsibility's a pain. AA has more collective courage in that room than the (drunk) zombies we "choose" to rule us.
Voting endorses one's own slavery. Would you like a red chain or a blue chain? Theeerrre's a good citizen.
fellas, I think we are splitting hairs on some levels, but I will say: VOTE.
It may seem trivial, but VOTING is what has kept Ron Paul in the national conversation. Ron Paul is ever-so-slightly beginning to multiply. VOTING will create more Ron Paul's.
Either we are gaining ground on them, or they are on us. I do not need to remind anyone that our ancestors died so that we could vote (however you gauge its impact). When they finally get to our doorstep to take our guns and gold, then we have no other choice but to unleash the furry of whatever arsenal we have. Until then, VOTE.
...just my two cents, friends.
+1 Agreed, fellas
I like you Chopper. Truely. I've read your posts - your heart is in the right place.
This link is for you: http://www.larkenrose.com/blogs/tmds-blog/1894-youre-not-the-boss-of-me.html
fantastic. thank you for posting.
That's it. You nailed it.
Yes, voting may well grant legitimacy to a corrupt institution. I understand the predicament, but sitting back and not voting also grants legitimacy to a corrupt institution. The latter method is just a passive way of doing it.
You're not helping to end the corruption by not voting.
Jesse Ventura, who immediately ran to the Democrats and started spending.. Thanks for inflicting him on us.. You are right you should not vote..
Tips: tips [ at ] zerohedge.com
General: info [ at ] zerohedge.com
Legal: legal [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertising: ads [ at ] zerohedge.com
Abuse/Complaints: abuse [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertise With Us
Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide
How to report offensive comments
Notice on Racial Discrimination.