Fonceai vs Osborn F. Enready - Man, world, society.

[Fonceai]

There's another difference between us... along my same goal / different roads thing.

You come at the problems with our gov't by saying that they are not telling the public the whole truth.

I come at the problems with our gov't by saying that the public is lazy for accepting whatever the gov't gives them.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: You come at the problems with our gov't by saying that they are not telling the public the whole truth.

I say:
Which thanks to history, and the internet, can now be proven.

Fonceai said: I come at the problems with our gov't by saying that the public is lazy for accepting whatever the gov't gives them.

I say:
Isn't it to be expected that you value something less, the more for granted you take it?

We have had this nation for over 200 years now, and multiple generations that have lived WITHOUT LIBERTY have died in the fights to win it for us. Now, as time goes by, the people lose sight of "what is important" meaning the "Common Thread of liberty of the individual, and how it ties to modern laws, because they take certain things for granted and assume since it is law, it will stay as is "unless they hear about it."

How many times have you been "notified" about a Constitutional change?
How many times have you been "notified" about a new tax at any level of government other than local?
How often are you censused for your approval of new law proposals at the federal level?


People take for granted what they feel they already have, and have no threat of losing. If people KNEW the depth to which they have already lost their rights, there would be MUCH MORE PROTEST.

So, if it is the peoples fault for not being informed, how should they get this "trustable" information, if their SWORN REPRESENTATIVES and the LAW won't stand behind them?

Placing quite a burden on the people aren't we, especially when you consider that EXCEPT for newspapers, ALL MEDIA NOW is new to this America, and has been "legislated and governed" by those who have corrupted the system. (all officials since 1930, except a select few, a handful)

The only blame I lay on the people today, is being SUCKERS for believing what the news says, but when you work a full day, have chores and a family, it leaves little time for checking multiple news sources EACH DAY.

That is the way the establishment wants it, which is one reason why the dollar is worth so much less today, than it was when the Fed was created.

[Fonceai]

True.

But when you ask how the public can get information... now, more than ever... through the Internet. It's there and available.

You're right that the responsibilities of life leave little time for civic awareness.

Hence the conundrum.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: But when you ask how the public can get information... now, more than ever... through the Internet. It's there and available

.

I say:
I agree. I think this is why we are seeing so much more activism. (though not enough, of which I am partially guilty also) I know a lot of people think I am too extreme, but once you investigate to a certain point, there are so many blatantly unconstitutional laws, rituals and workarounds that it is hard to place faith, trust or hope in government.

I still do have hope, but really, only because of the internet and the "new awareness" it is bringing to people overall. It makes more apparent the nationalist, or cultural differences and I thinks helps to show the line where the true peoples culture shows through the governments imposed culture.

If we could all simply stop allowing governments to use force in our name except in defense, things could be much simpler, and we could all work toward the common goal of freeing ourselves from false, or man-made agitators in life.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Fonceai There's another difference between us... along my same goal / different roads thing. You come at the problems with our gov't by saying that they are not telling the public the whole truth. I come at the problems with our gov't by saying that the public is lazy for accepting whatever the gov't gives them.

Sorry to be a butt inski, but...


Fonceai, I would ask you this.


Realistically, prior to the internet, how would somebody outside of Washington be a proper watchdog on this rouge government?


How could every citizen possibly go about getting all the pertinent information to adequately perform their civic duty?


You two appear to be in a battle of placing the blame, one blames the government, the other blames the constituency.


Unfortunately, the government was already corrupted when the mass propaganda machines ( radio, television ) were created, and it is through the misuse of these tools that misinform the public on a mass scale that the blame should be placed squarely on the shoulders of those in government. ( Reading about Operation Mockingbird would certainly be beneficial to anybody that wants to grasp what we are really dealing with when it comes to the medias coverage of the government. )


You two also seem to be circling the issue of "empowerment" here?


I was always under the impression that the government needed to be empowered to act in a certain manor before the action was commited for the use of force to be justifiable.


The problem arose ( and persists ) because the people in government have broken the legal process, and acted as if they had been empowered, and imposed dictates on the people before they had the proper authority to act in such a manor. By doing so, they have taken the helm, and steered us off the original path, and away from constitutional government.


Obviously because the government is made up of people, it is the people who are ultimately at fault, but it was the people who were acting as the government without proper authorization that ruined the experiment, and made the test tube explode all over the laboratory.

[Fonceai]

All you've shown is that it's the Chicken and the Egg.

We know the root of the problem, but how to solve it?

[Osborn F Enready]

By removing the government, and letting people again design or re-assign a new system of representation, by whatever means necessary.

Diplomatic- trying it, ain't working.
Protesting- trying it, ain't working.
Revolt.

[Fonceai]

But the Protesting isn't strong enough yet.

What if, just maybe, people in gov't are just waiting for the public to wake up and start being intelligent?

Imagine them all sitting around laughing and suddenly one of them gets really quiet and says, "You realize, if they start taking an interest in things, we're screwed!!"

[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: But the Protesting isn't strong enough yet.

I say:
By what measure? What forms, and how many media outlets are being analyzed for signs of protest in this statement?

We have films coming out, national marches, citizen dissent, blatant rights violations by government (emminent domain, property forfeiture laws, prohibition laws, election fraud), we have blatant rigging of elections and debates by the two major parties, and protests across the nation for that also.....the list goes on and on.....

How much is enough?

Here is a chart, which shows a good measure of just how much is enough.....

Conflict Population--- Enrolled--- Ratio--- (millions) (thousands) Revolutionary War 3.5---200.0--- 5.7% War of 1812 7.6--- 286.0--- 3.8% Mexican War 21.1--- 78.7 --- 0.4% Civil War: Union 26.2 --- 2,803.3 --- 10.7% : Confederate 8.1 --- 1,064.2 --- 13.1% : Combined 34.3 --- 3,867.5 --- 11.1% Spanish-American War 74.6 --- 306.8 --- 0.4% World War I 102.8 --- 4,743.8 --- 4.6% World War II 133.5--- 16,353.7 --- 12.2% Korean War 151.7--- 5,764.1 --- 3.8% Vietnam War 204.9 --- 8,744.0 --- 4.3% Gulf War 260.0 --- 2,750.0 --- 1.1%

Those are the participation numbers for our past wars.....

We far surpass what is needed to legally justify a new decleration of independence, and or a forcefully authrorized restructuring of the system.

Even if we only limit the accusations of fraud to blatant, and not "questionable" unconstitutional law, there is sufficient proof to build the platform for the argument of revolt.

[Fonceai]

Why must it be a revolt?

Why so extreme?

Extreme measures will be met with extreme responses, and the reins of power will not be surrendered easily.

But working the system the way it was meant to be worked means that those wanting change can point to the Constitution and smile while the changes occur.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: Why must it be a revolt?

I say:
I would prefer it is not. But, too borrow an old quote....

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
-John F. Kennedy, 1962

Fonceai said: Why so extreme?

I say:
And again, extreme is as extreme must be. I don't want extreme. I simply want a chance to hear open debates, have a verifiable voting system, and a constitutionally limited goverment AS DESIGNED.

Those are all currently forbidden, by government, and the two-party system.

Again, read my first answers quote in this post.

Fonceai said: Extreme measures will be met with extreme responses, and the reins of power will not be surrendered easily.

I say:
Is that not an answer to your own question? If it won't be easy, extreme may indeed be necessary, might it not?

Fonceai said: But working the system the way it was meant to be worked means that those wanting change can point to the Constitution and smile while the changes occur.

I say:
I don't understand your point here?

[Fonceai]

The point is that affecting change through the methods in the Constitution makes those changes unchallengeable. When the majority truly raises a united voice on a common desire on the same issue, if challenged they can refer directly to the Constitution, smile, and say, "Make it so."

Violence is met with greater violence. Imagine the U.S. military being called in to defend D.C. against a revolt. It would be outrageous, and bloody, and end with some very sad soldiers and some very dead people who should have been patient and careful.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: The point is that affecting change through the methods in the Constitution makes those changes unchallengeable. When the majority truly raises a united voice on a common desire on the same issue, if challenged they can refer directly to the Constitution, smile, and say, "Make it so."

I say:
Then why has this not happened? Why have the laws been changed by CIRCUMVENTING constitutional law, instead of USING IT?

How can one limit their repair to the Constitution, limited by Constitutional methods, when those that perverted the law also went around the Constitution?

Revolt, is clearly constitutional. Read your first amendment right. Now read the history of Petition of Redress of Grievance, and explain how our revolt against England wasn't exactly the same as what we are dealing with now?

Fonceai said: Violence is met with greater violence. Imagine the U.S. military being called in to defend D.C. against a revolt. It would be outrageous, and bloody, and end with some very sad soldiers and some very dead people who should have been patient and careful.

I say:
No kidding....

Firstly, nobody can predict what would happen, because the military is closely documented while the public is not. The "ability" of the public in this nation to overthrow its government is easily doable, since we have already achieved the most important aspect of warfare, which is tactical advantage, ground superiority, and overwhelming force comined with the element of suprise.

Secondly, what percentage of the military will raise arms against its famillies, friends and neighbors?

Thirdly, revolt is the LAST option, but government is making it the ONLY option through action by passing laws removing the rights of individuals, and complying with a global organization that is focused on disarming and enslaving us.(The U.N.) Clinton already signed over U.S. soverignty in case of National Emergency to the U.N. Bush is removing the Constitution with almost every action in office.(signing statements, patriot act, emminent domain, draft recall, backdoor drafting, declaring pre-emptive war..etc.)

Once you examine the reality of both, revolt is almost the only chance left. That is what the government wants, that is what the government gets. (sound familliar)

[Fonceai]

Does a revolt have to be immediate and physically violent?

The best revolts are the ones that creep up slowly, making minor changes here and there, so that suddenly the corrupt civil servants (and let's be honest, it's the politicians, not the government itself that's effed up) find they have nothing to support their corrupt methods.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: Does a revolt have to be immediate and physically violent?

I say:
No, and I never said it did IF that was what you were inferring. I prefer non-violent revolt.

Fonceai said: The best revolts are the ones that creep up slowly, making minor changes here and there, so that suddenly the corrupt civil servants (and let's be honest, it's the politicians, not the government itself that's effed up) find they have nothing to support their corrupt methods.

I say:
I agree that the best revolt is a revolt of will, as opposed to force.

Let us ponder the ways at which a "public" may revolt peaceably against its government?

Is tax protest, not a form of non-violent revolt?
Is dissent, not a form of non-violent revolt?
Is consciencus objector status, not a form of non-violent revolt?
Is peaceable demonstration of protest, not a form of non-violent revolt?

All of these are happening, NOW. It is not affecting much, if anything, except talking points of talking heads and new diversions to draw away from the real problems because information is fully controlled, except the last vestige, the internet, which is monitored.

When force is the only language dealt with, force is usually the only means of usurping the corrupt power.

The system of government we have had since the annexation of Hawaii, has been based on expansionism, by any means, usually via covert force directed at foreign governments to destabilize and weaken foreign economies, national identities, and confuse media. They have been practicing how to take over their own land since Hawaii, so why would they use any different tactic on their own people since they have mastered it to near perfection.

[Fonceai]

Is tax protest, not a form of non-violent revolt? Is dissent, not a form of non-violent revolt? Is consciencus objector status, not a form of non-violent revolt? Is peaceable demonstration of protest, not a form of non-violent revolt?

In the sense of true violence, no.

The last three are exactly right. The first is actually harming the government.

What you haven't touched on is that the initial intention of changing the government needs to be rallying support. Those demonstrations shouldn't be directed at the seat of power, they should be directed at those around you who can join you. With enough people behind you, the gov't will get the hint.

The problem right now, in the U.S. at least, is that there are many dissenting voices but no unified voices. No voting. No speaking to Congressmen. People think that just speaking their dissent is good enough, but it requires action.

The ability to vote is the most supreme authority wielded by a U.S. citizen. That's what I mean when I say that changes need to be done through the system, so the corrupt suddenly find themselves without a leg to stand on.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Fonceai Violence is met with greater violence. Imagine the U.S. military being called in to defend D.C. against a revolt. It would be outrageous, and bloody, and end with some very sad soldiers and some very dead people who should have been patient and careful.

So, basically you are saying that if you were the guy in charge of the unit called in to quell the riots, that you would have issues, but still be able to fire upon your own countrymen?


That is just about the level of compassion that would expect from a Compassionate Conservative.

[Fonceai]

If I were the guy in charge of the unit called in to quell the riots and I was ordered to open fire, I would only give that order if there was a danger to my unit. And I would hate every minute of it.

The recognition of conviction has to go both ways. The rioters think they should be heard and taken seriously if they are willing to face armed and armored men trained for combat. But the rioters also need to understand that the other side is willing to use violence to protect others from the rioters.

Protection against domestic enemies. The toughest thing any combat-trained person has to do.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: The problem right now, in the U.S. at least, is that there are many dissenting voices but no unified voices. No voting. No speaking to Congressmen. People think that just speaking their dissent is good enough, but it requires action.

I say:
Why no unity? Perhaps the cost of reaching the public en-masse?
Why no voting? Perhaps a lack of REAL choice?
There ARE people speaking to congress, and senators. As of late, they are making more of a difference, but it is ONLY since the internet has made information available, and access fairly simple.
Dissent, IS ACTION. To physically dissent is to break the law, and then justify the reason you did in court, using the court to free you by nullification of law. That option has been removed, by not fully informing juries of their rights as jury members.

This is a case of layered, corruption that has accumulated over 100+ years of piecemeal rights violation, and re-definition of words and terms by the court as the corruption reached all levels of government.(bi-partisan control of all seats and appointments)