Q&A approach to opening new understanding

[Osborn F Enready]

Zealot said:
Sorry, it was not said to be insulting, but what I stated was the truth and I offered a suggestion to help you gain insight to a very important fact that has governed even the very Constitution you wish to discuss, right? You can't leave out religion in a discussion of America.

I say:
The point you miss is that you unfairly "pre-judged" me, not knowing what I know about religion.

You have no idea as to the scope with which I have scrutinized every religion I have investigated, and it is a seperate discussion. I understand very well the religious ties to those that created the constitution, and I also understand how even the most devout religious of them all, agreed that religion should not be a part of the legal system, the Constitution, or the rights of man other than guaranteeing a right to FREEDOM OF RELIGION, and the right to practice any or no religion freely.

Speak on what you know, and don't say what you think you know. You have no reason, or ability to judge what I know of religion, simply because I don't aspire to follow one.

[Zealot]

[quote=Zealot]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Zealot said: Sorry, it was not said to be insulting, but what I stated was the truth and I offered a suggestion to help you gain insight to a very important fact that has governed even the very Constitution you wish to discuss, right? You can't leave out religion in a discussion of America. Zealot

BTW OSBORN.....Patrick said he believed you were an extreme Libertarian and suggested without a (?) that poor people were a non-issue. Didn't you find that insulting too?

Zealot

[Critter]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I say: The government can only "dismiss" a valid petition for Redress of Grievance at the valid threat of revolt. Why would a government that you claim is sincerely interested in appeasing the people DENY a petitition for Redress of Grievance? Did you know that part of the procedure for a valid Redress of Grievance is withholding tax money from the system until resolved by all those that sign the petititon? If they refuse to address it, they refuse the tax money from all those who are withholding that money.

I'm just curious about how one would go about withholding taxes from the government in this situation. Do we go to our employer and say, "I've signed a petition for Redress of Grievance, tell payroll to stop taking taxes out of my check"?

I'm not criticizing or belittling, I'm just curious, as I can imagine being laughed out of the office if I did that.

[Osborn F Enready]

Zealot said:
BTW OSBORN.....Patrick said he believed you were an extreme Libertarian and suggested without a (?) that poor people were a non-issue. Didn't you find that insulting too?

I say:
No, because Patrick and I have had in depth discussion of the issue, and I also have answered that question. Patrick knows me better than most on this forum, and for good reason. He and I think alike on many issues, yet disagree on some also. I enjoy Patricks writing style most times, as well as his eloquence when he displays it. I know what Patrick meant, when he said it, as I beleive he knew I would.

If you mean am I insulted by being considered an "extreme libertarian", no I am not, even though I am a member of no party, though they most closely resemble a party I would join, if I were a partisan.

[Zealot]

[quote=Osborn F Enready]Zealot said:
Sorry, it was not said to be insulting, but what I stated was the truth and I offered a suggestion to help you gain insight to a very important fact that has governed even the very Constitution you wish to discuss, right? You can't leave out religion in a discussion of America.

I say:
The point you miss is that you unfairly "pre-judged" me, not knowing what I know about religion.

OSBORN....how can I know if you didn't tell me. I simply read the description of your religious background. If you didn't want religion in your debate, why did you answer the original quesion concerning religion?

Zealot

[Osborn F Enready]

Critter said:
I'm not criticizing or belittling, I'm just curious, as I can imagine being laughed out of the office if I did that.

I say:
I have been fired for it. Be happy if all you get is a laugh.

That is part of the point.

The laws regarding employment have removed your rights as a citizen to be an effective petititoner against government.

[Osborn F Enready]

Zealot said:
OSBORN....how can I know if you didn't tell me. I simply read the description of your religious background. If you didn't want religion in your debate, why did you answer the original quesion concerning religion?

I say:
I answered it because it was a question of curiousity, and not a fundamental part of the debate.

I understood that SoccerfreakAB2 wouldn't spin this thread into a debate about religion, which I have seen you do in several other threads, and I am asking nicely that you don't attempt it here.

[Protostar]

[quote=Zealot]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Zealot said: Sorry, it was not said to be insulting, but what I stated was the truth and I offered a suggestion to help you gain insight to a very important fact that has governed even the very Constitution you wish to discuss, right? You can't leave out religion in a discussion of America. Zealot

Actually you can. The government (federal, state, local) is a secular institution. Religion has no place in a secular institution.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Sean said: I respect your idealism (this word takes on too many negative connotations lately), but I guess I do not see your proposal as being a rational option. People like divisiveness, polarization, and demagogic politics. Something like ninety-percent of the populace knew exactly who they were voting for in 2004, even before the primaries, simply based on party id. I say: While I don't disagree that the current group of voters, of all ages, knew who they were voting for and also that they partake, and enjoy in some cases demagogic politics, I disagree that this is of their own doing. Most of it is learned reponses from "our" experiences in our life. All people alive today, limited by age, have no concept of revolution since none have existed in this nation since the civil war. Those who lived before us, much more clearly understood the threat of tyranny, the encroachment of power on liberty, and the true importance of being as free as possible to live life as you see fit. They more clearly saw the threat of authoritarianism, and its many veils of disguise. Reading about war, is nothing like being in a war, in the battle. Ask any person who has ever served in a war, and they will 90 to 1 agree. The same is true of education and understanding of the world we live in, and the governments we live under. You have to remember that the media age has occurred within a lifespan, and we are seeing all the ill effects of misuse of that media compacted into a short period of time thanks to technology. The removal of liberty could have never happened this fast in an age of media limited to the written word, and that is THE most critical point of my statement.

I haven't had a chance to get to read this thread for a bit, so please forgive me if I'm covering old ground.
I believe it IS of their own doing, and it has little to do with politics. One, we like a winner so many of us support who we think will win and it is rarely for the good of the country. I've heard the old "why not vote Libertarian" argument too many times to see it any other way. When given the choice of what political approach we should use to run the country a LOT of people agree with the Libertarian ideology (usually when the actual party name isn't given). However, when asked as to who they vote for they pick D or R and the reason all too often is the classic Catch-22, "I'll vote for them when they start winning some elections."
And two, we just like to take sides, mainly because it offers the competitor in us the opportunity to go "nyaa nyaa" at the loser.

In other words, as a society we have a compulsion to pick a side because we like to pick the winning side, and WE like to win. The non-partisan approach IS the best way to go, but it is also the way that will never catch on with our "We're number ONE" society. For proof of that point, just look at the steadily increasing negativity of the ads in the last few elections. We hate to lose, period.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Protostar Actually you can. The government (federal, state, local) is a secular institution. Religion has no place in a secular institution.

Or at the very least, when religion is involved you must have every single citizen adhering to the SAME religion. Impossible, yes, but the only fair way to involve ANY religion in government.

I say that because in many ways religion IS government of a sort, so it's simply a matter of picking a religion and a government compatible with each other. Again, impossible, or at least very difficult to achieve in our individual liberty-styled form of government. I would imagine, though, in certain Middle Eastern countries the inhabitants may say it DOES work.

[Osborn F Enready]

Scribbler said:
In other words, as a society we have a compulsion to pick a side because we like to pick the winning side, and WE like to win. The non-partisan approach IS the best way to go, but it is also the way that will never catch on with our "We're number ONE" society. For proof of that point, just look at the steadily increasing negativity of the ads in the last few elections. We hate to lose, period.

I say:
While I agree with your explanation of the current voter, I have to ask if you think people pick a winner because it is a learned over time, cultivated response. I mean, in the past, throughout history, politics becomes more important to the individual the further you go back in this nation. Our intrest in "picking a winner" really seemed to evolve in my opinion, during and after WWII. For this I blame the media, and public education for a reason.

I blame the media because:
(from site: http://www.media-ecology.org/publica.../Habermas.html )

Radio, film, and television by degrees reduce to a minimum the distance that a reader is forced to maintain toward the printed letter—a distance that required the privacy of appropriation as much as it made possible the publicity of a rational–critical exchange about what had been read. With the arrival of the new media the form of communication as such has changed; they have had an impact … more penetrating … than was ever possible for the press. … In comparison with printed communications the programs sent by the new media curtail the reactions of their recipients in a peculiar way. They draw the eyes and ears of the public under their spell but at the same time, by taking away its distance … deprive it of the opportunity to say something and to disagree. (pp. 170–171)

With commercialization and economic concentration, the private media have become “complexes of societal power” that threaten their critical role (p. 188). Media ecology similarly marks the beginning of electronic culture with the penny press in the 1830s and the introduction of the telegraph in 1844, as McLuhan argues. This electronic media culture only intensifies with the sound and images of film, radio, and television. The effect of electronic media culture is a reversal of the cultural effects of print culture: the loss of rationality, detachment, linearity, nationalism, and individualism. The new values are involvement, simultaneity, globalism, and the collective.

I blame the public education system because: (My own words)

Since the introduction of education into our society, we have been focused on EDUCATION of academics. They taught reading so people could educate themselves once leaving school through the printed word. They taught writing, so people could express themselves in the written word. They taught arithmetic because math is ESSENTIAL to daily life. They also focused on creative pursuits, such as literary classics, creative writing, and exploration of intellectual pursuits. So what is missing here? ..............Sports, being present in an academic setting.

With the creation of "public schooling"(funded by the public), we saw an introduction of sports into academic settings. It was introduced in a benevolent, well meaning way of kids to socialize, stay fit, keep occupied and out of mischief, and personal betterment through physical sport. At that time, sportsmanship was a very serious thing and "being a good sport" was critical to the system. It was a genuine way to teach "good sportsmanship" through a type of mentoring atmosphere.

Over the last, say, mainly 60 years, we have seen those benevolent intentions, and reasonable foundations turn on themselves, and are literally eroding their own existence. This is happening because the importance of winning has become more important than good sportsmanship, even at the most elementary levels of sports/education. We see kids who excel at sports, PUSHED through the system, to help the school team, at the cost of the childs education. We have watched schools and colleges offer unreasonable incentives to kids to focus on sports, more than academics. We have from the inside out, cultivated a nation of WINNER TAKES ALL mentality, and also the mentality that losing for any reason, is unacceptable. This discourages risk taking, and standing on principles. People who stand on principles for their decision making, RISK losing. Those who bet on the sure winner, are guaranteed to win, but really lose, because they are voting with an intent to win, instead of the reason for voting in the first place, which is to better the situation with which they are in.


Manipulative public education, and manipulative media, have shaped the reality people see. It is unfair to blame the people, for something they have little if any clue, is even happening. They are the gears of the societal machine, and when the leaders of society pervert the messages the people get, they contend they are "fine tuning" the machine, when really, they are de-tuning it to a level of control they can wield with confidence.

As a sidenote, think to yourself when the first time you heard the saying "We're all winners!" Is it because winning is so important that it is "un-pc" to be a loser?

[Scribbler1]

It's not just the media. It's the beer-soaked foam rubber hand that says #1 at the football game where the hand's owner yells how "WE" won as if he had something to do with it. It's the mentality that refuses to believe we lost the Vietnam war. It's what drives Bill Gates to want to be richer than God.

We are a culture of the "highest", the "fastest", the "biggest" and the just plain "best", and there is no room for losers in that culture. In fact, I believe the media is in the same boat because, after all, they are Americans too.

[Osborn F Enready]

Yea Scrib, I do know what you're saying. In fact, I agree. My argument though, is that what we are describing is a LEARNED reaction. It is an INDOCTRINATED disorder, that is indoctrinated THROUGH education.

Please click on the link I provided in the last post, and then ask the hard question about when sports entered public schools, and how sports role in public schools has changed how we treat kids who play them.

It is simply another tool used to divide and conquer the citizens of the United States.

Winner take all mentality, or winning at ALL COSTS, is a taught mentality. Should this be the case?

[swordsman]

Whats going on Osborn

What will it take to get the parties working together again? Or is it possible...

[Osborn F Enready]

I think the only way we can get the PARTIES accountable enough to trust again is to disband them and force them to re-form.

We also need to get rid of all the seated politicians, and reform the laws of accountability of those in the seats, and then re-elect new members in an OPEN ELECTION and DEBATE open to ALL PARTIES WHO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS.

That is the only way short of revolt, that I can see.

We must change the voting system before the next major election nationwide.
We must solidify some ground rules for accountability.
We must have open debates, and open ballots and voting access.
We SHOULD use IRV to help eliminate the "lesser evil" theory.

Most importantly........
I think all aspect of every election should be funded by the public ONLY, and ALL canidates limited to the same amount EQUALLY. No personal monies, no donations, no fund raisers, no NOTHING.
The only legitimate reason to have a tax in this nation, other than for national defense.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I think the only way we can get the PARTIES accountable enough to trust again is to disband them and force them to re-form.

And therein lies the problem. Most people don't like politics unless it is safe and predictable and they DEFINITELY resist/fear change. Like a lot of Republicans nowadays are more than happy to support the current crop of Republicans simply because they ARE Republicans. It makes no difference that this isn't your father's GOP anymore, it has the same name so it's okie dokie. This says to me the sheep are NOT going to support a radical change in the two major parties. Hell, I figure if they just changed the party NAMES people would freak out.
Maybe eliminating parties altogether would be the way to go. Limit the number of candidates for any given office. If a primary works for all parties it should work for ONE party. Also, force them to actually campaign instead of letting TV do all the work, and I don't mean popping up at stadiums once in a while. Get out and let people judge your after shave. Answer some questions without a TV news anchorman moderating.

We also need to get rid of all the seated politicians, and reform the laws of accountability of those in the seats, and then re-elect new members in an OPEN ELECTION and DEBATE open to ALL PARTIES WHO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS.

The only thing I could add is to get rid of them all at once, in one week.

[nm420]

While I'm generally in agreeance with most of your posts, one question I've been mulling over and over:

At this point in the game, what actions short of armed revolution could reverse the trends that have been eroding our rights for so long now? Is there any hope?

Sorry if this is too negative or cynical, but I'm often questioning what the "right" tactics are in this war and whether or not I've deluded myself into believing it can be won.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: nm420 While I'm generally in agreeance with most of your posts, one question I've been mulling over and over: At this point in the game, what actions short of armed revolution could reverse the trends that have been eroding our rights for so long now? Is there any hope? Sorry if this is too negative or cynical, but I'm often questioning what the "right" tactics are in this war and whether or not I've deluded myself into believing it can be won.

Short of citizen action groups, I doubt much could be done. Help educate yourself on the promise of this phenomenon at http://ethepeople.org


There is a real possibility that the government could be brought into accountability by citizens demanding action, but I don't see that as a real world possibility myself. I would suggest that it will take an armed revolution becasue the criminals at the top have so much to lose in the way of respect, and punishment that they would never likely go willingly.


Sad, but true in my opinion.

[Osborn F Enready]

Scribbler said:
And therein lies the problem. Most people don't like politics unless it is safe and predictable and they DEFINITELY resist/fear change. Like a lot of Republicans nowadays are more than happy to support the current crop of Republicans simply because they ARE Republicans. It makes no difference that this isn't your father's GOP anymore, it has the same name so it's okie dokie. This says to me the sheep are NOT going to support a radical change in the two major parties. Hell, I figure if they just changed the party NAMES people would freak out.
Maybe eliminating parties altogether would be the way to go. Limit the number of candidates for any given office. If a primary works for all parties it should work for ONE party. Also, force them to actually campaign instead of letting TV do all the work, and I don't mean popping up at stadiums once in a while. Get out and let people judge your after shave. Answer some questions without a TV news anchorman moderating.

I say:
I agree with all of that. That is why change is going to be one or the other, long and tedious, with tons of small barriers and large, or it is going to be fast and brutal, with lots of bloodletting.

I see these as THE only two options.

It COULD be changed without revolt. However, I am 33 now, and I would bet it would take AT LEAST all of my lifetime. In that amount of time, I would bet that revolt would already ensue unless the signs of change were VERY strong at the outset, with bursts along the way to quell those being victimized by the system in place now. I also don't think the U.S. can stand another 40 to 70 years as it is going now, in any way.... Economicly, Politicly or culturally. Extremists on all sides are starting to march into special intrest groups more than ever before, and the winds of change are already stirring up. There can only be so much give and take, by extremists, since once sacred lines are crossed, reason goes out the window until those wrongs are righted, which is not likely by a system that claims to try to appease all, but can't while adopting these groups legislation. It is simply a matter of TOO much government involvement in our everyday lives.
-----------------
As an example of that intervention in our everyday lives.....
The other day I was talking to a friend about dogs. He said he was shocked to hear the number of Pit Bulls taken in by the Dog Warden here locally, especially since the county LAW says that you can only own one! I candidly asked him if he thought the law was good? He said yes. I asked why? He said because they are dangerous dogs, and that they shouldn't be owned in quantity, or at all if had his way. I asked him how many dogs he has had in his life? He said 5. I asked how many had puppies? He said 1. I asked if he kept more than one puppy? He said yes. I asked him if a law existed that said he couldn't, would he have still kept the puppies? He admitted yes. I asked him what he would do if a law existed that outlawed his type of puppies? He said break it, since he knows they are good dogs, and he believes them to be a benefit to his life, and his kids life. I pointed out just how silly laws like this are, since enforcement is unrealistic, and biased. I noted that laws like this make police and county agents jobs tougher, because they are often put in the position to ask a person to forfeit their family pet, due to a stupid law that makes no sense, yet they are FORCED to enforce the law.

How would YOU people, reading this, feel about losing YOUR pet because someone called the police on you for having it? I recently had to take our familiy cat to be put down, and it was almost every bit as heart wrenching and painful as watching a loved one die. There is no way, NO way, I would give any authority a pet, because they passed a law that said I had to.
--------------------------

Back on topic, I believe that a peaceful method could work, but the "typical" method we have been known for using in the last 150 years.

I don't think a competent armed revolt would result in many lives being lost. I think it could be done rather quickly, and to a beneficial ends with little bloodshed if executed correctly.

I think for it to be organized and have legitimacy, it should be picked up and banded together by groups such as the ACLU, Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists and the myriad of other pro-rights, pro-constitutional organizations.

We have already been reduced from effectively petitioning, by removing our option to withold tax dollars and still maintain employment.

The establishment, and their laws, have removed the option of truly successful peaceful resolution. They have forced the oppressed into bearing arms to meet any real success.

Scribbler said:
The only thing I could add is to get rid of them all at once, in one week.

I say:
I agree, and that is the only purpose for the armed revolt, in my opinion. To FORCE them to resign, and then FORCE them to be held accountable for their actions, under a fair constitutional process.
I only seek revolt, if I must, as a means to RE-apply the Constitution, not to effect ANY other changes other than removing unconstitutional laws, foreign policy, and taxation.

I agree 100%.

NM420 says:
At this point in the game, what actions short of armed revolution could reverse the trends that have been eroding our rights for so long now? Is there any hope?

I say:
I feel there could be a peaceful end, but it requires an educated public about their rights, the role of government, and the processes in the Constitution that limit it.

Many groups have taken this to task with television programs, books and teaching kits that help people understand their rights, and their history. This is a grassroots start-up though, and these things take LOTS of time, and LOTS of public spreading of information. Added together, I see them effective but being very very long term solutions to PREVENT IT AGAIN, more than to effect the changes necessary in the time we have to do it.

Bush alone, has driven this country to an economic toilet. Our trade imbalance, our national debt to foriegn banks, the whole package has been bad leadership, bad decisions, and financial run for years to come except for those at the top of the economic food chain.

Workers of this nation need to wise up, actually take control of their unions again, and start organizing and recruiting like never before. At the same time, these people need to not only be active, but encourage their friends and famillies to be active by writing and calling your representatives and DEMANDING change.

The time for nicety is over, and DEMANDS must be made. Our rights are far too eroded to be slow in this process, because everyday they remove more.

So yes......
It is possible, likely no, but possible.
All we can do is try to work together to reign this government back in, keeping in mind that sometimes the threat of force, or use of it, is all that some people understand. Should it be any suprise that those who draft war plans and committ the nation to war, only understand force?

As far as hope, there is ALWAYS hope! Even if , I bury my last friend, burn my last bridge, I expend my last round, eat my last food, break my last knife, burn my last wood, and soak my last parka, I will still have hope until they put me in the ground. 9 to 90, blind crippled or crazy, they will still have to physically kill me before I submit!

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain -- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”
-Lysander Spooner, 1870, in No Treason #6

“As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.”
-Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

“It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts ... For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.”
-Patrick Henry

“Liberty has never come from Government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of Liberty is a history of resistance. The history of Liberty is a history of limitations of Governmental power, not the increase of it.”
-Woodrow Wilson

“Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.”
-George Santayana

“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.”
-C.S. Lewis

“One of the shrewdest ways for human predators to conquer their stronger victims is to steadily convince them with propaganda that they're still free...”
-Dr. N.A. Scott

“Evil requires the sanction of the victim.”
-Ayn Rand

“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.”
-Voltaire

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?”
-Patrick Henry

“The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves.”
-Dresden James

“Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no Constitution, no Law, no Court can save it...Where do you stand Citizen?”
-Judge Learned Hand (1961)

[Osborn F Enready]

quoting myself: Many groups have taken this to task with television programs, books and teaching kits that help people understand their rights, and their history. This is a grassroots start-up though, and these things take LOTS of time, and LOTS of public spreading of information.

Here is a great example of one of those little grass-roots tactics.

This is a simple, short animation about the Common Thread that bound our nation before the Constitution was molested by politicians.
http://www.free-market.com/resources/introduction.html


Here is a link to "War is a Racket" by General Smedley D. Butler: 1935:
http://www.scuttlebuttsmallchow.com/racket.html

Smedley Darlington Butler

Major General - United States Marine Corps [Retired]
Born West Chester, Pa., July 30, 1881
Educated Haverford School
Married Ethel C. Peters, of Philadelphia, June 30, 1905
Awarded two congressional medals of honor, for capture of Vera Cruz, Mexico, 1914,
and for capture of Ft. Riviere, Haiti, 1917
Distinguished service medal, 1919
Retired Oct. 1, 1931
On leave of absence to act as director of Department of Safety, Philadelphia, 1932
Lecturer - 1930's
Republican Candidate for Senate, 1932
Died at Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, June 21, 1940
For more information about Major General Smedley Butler, contact the United States Marine Corps.


Two excellent examples of grass roots activism through grass roots methods and "common sense".