Gov't keeping us in check

Discussion in 'Politics' started by 5446was my#, Aug 8, 2008.

  1. I've always taken the thoughts of our founding fathers into mind and heart.

    One of the ideas that circulated between them was that when the government became too oppressive, overbearing, and things of that nature it is our duty as citizens to step up and make the changes necessary to living a free and happy life.

    ''A little revolution now and then is a good thing; the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."- Thomas Jefferson

    This is very hard to do nowadays, with all the weaponry, surveillance, and technology the government possesses (not to mention the hold it has on so many people). A revolution seems out of reach.

    The other day a thought crossed my mind: The government does certain things to keep the general population in check (or to make sure they still are). For example, the outlandish jump in gas prices this past year. I know foreign factors play a role in this, but how much?

    I've lost motivation and I will stop rambling but hopefully someone got the point I was trying to make. Does anyone else believe the government does such things? Or better yet.. to such an extent?
  2. We have lost a lot of control of our government, it's no longer representative of the moderate majority. It has shifted to the right in extreme measures over the past 30 years; today's democrats would be considered moderates 30 years ago.

    As a result, we have had many constitutional rights stripped, a huge deficit that our children will have to pay off, and welfare for wallstreet in using tax dollars to prop up failing companies.

    Phone companies and the like have been collecting information even months before September 11, 2001 and passing it on to the government, but we'll never know the extent because of the goold ole telelcom immunity that was slipped in the last amendment to FISA.

    We're fucked in a lot of ways, and neither Obama nor McCain can save us; they are part of the same machine, and it's going to get worse before it gets better.
  3. Revolution need not be violent.
  4. I ideally would love for change to come about without violence. But it appears to me lots of violent things are happening now as a result of our machine..namely to soldiers and iraq/afghan civilians.

  5. It seems to be the most effective method to me.

    Edit: Maybe not effective, but successful..
  6. Things will NEVER be like the 60s again. People will not fight against a vacation-going Congress until something drastic happens. And it will. A cataclysmic event will have to occur for sheep to open their droopy eyes and realize what is actually going on. Even my parents believe a huge event will occur sooner than later.
  7. Really?

    Let's list some successful non-violent revolutions off

    • India
    • Czechoslovakia
    • Poland
    • Bulgaria
    • Portugal
    • Philippines
    • Georgia
    • Estonia
    • Lativa
    • Lithuania
    Shit, even Canada was able to attain it's independence by asking nicely.

    Plus all these non-violent revolutions have the benefit of nobody dying, and not recklessly damaging the country's economy and infrastructure.

    Really, these revolutions were better for everybody.

    The real truth in this, is that no country can ever exert total control, because the power will always remain in the people. It's their collective decisions which decide the fate of nations.

    Perhaps your fellow countrymen don't feel a revolution is in order.
  8. #8 Perpetual Burn, Aug 8, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 8, 2008

    I think you mean "left." It's true that today's Democrats are moderate compared to the Democrats of the 60's as they were just short of full-blown communists. This is what forced the moderate liberals to take over the Republican party to use it's voting base to fight off the more radical liberals. This has forced ultra-liberal Democrats to slide back towards the center to stand a chance of getting support for their Marxist ideals. Just because the "right wing" has been in the White House for 26 of the last 38 years doesn't mean they have been remotely conservative. Neo-conservative is liberalism, so the "Red vs. Blue" battle has become "More Liberal vs. Status-Quo."

    You might want to check out the book "Fighting Words: A Tale of how Liberals Created Neo-Conservatism" by Ben Wattenberg. The name pretty much says it all... and this ain't the ramblings of a paranoid libertarian; this is a first-hand account from a man who made it happen.

    You've got it figured out that both McCain and Obama are figureheads propped up by the same machine... but you've made the exact mistake "they" want you to make by blaming the Republicans... as if more government from the Democrats is going to save us. They've got half the country begging for more liberalism because the Republicans are engineered to an exact specification of retardation.

    Regarding the OP, is this some kind of news that the government will use anything within it's political power to manipulate public opinion and ideology? They print the money, they own the media, and they are in cahoots with the Churches and Universities.
  9. Sam_Spade,

    I wasn't saying I advocate violence, or that a non-violent revolution is impossible. I'm not referring to a bloodbath taking place either. In many cases, violence is inevitable if a revolution or rebellion is taking place. But, I digress...

    If any of my fellow countrymen with half a brain can see what is going, they should feel like a revolution is in order. Our constitutional rights are being stripped, and the executive is branch quietly doing things that would make our founding fathers spin in their graves. There is no better time for the population to put their collective foot down, and scream "ENOUGH".



Share This Page