 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Bring Down The Government
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Bring Down The Government From: GUEST,Billy Date: 17 Mar 06 - 12:37 AM Okay. On another thread related to Bush's approval ratings, I suggested that maybe we folkies were the activists in the 60s and 70s but now we just sit on our duffs and let shit happen. Alright - here is the challenge. How can we legally get rid of the governments of the USA and the UK without replacing them with another bunch of the same-minded pocket-lining assholes? It takes a lot of effort to get a new political movement up and running from grass roots and it is even more difficult when the majority of the US and UK Newspapers are in the pockets of the ruling parties (and assholes like Rupert Murdoch). We have the internet (While we can - Murdoch is nowmaking inroads on the web as well - MySpace is a Murdoch-controlled enterprize) as the only resource to overthrow these self-appointed "Ruling Classes" now that they have waged war to eliminate the "middle class". I realize that it will be difficult to use "legal" means against a government that seems oblivious to the concept of a written constitution. Maybe some legal scholars can pitch in here. Can the Mudcat folks come up with an alternative to all this crap? We were the ones who were singing "Times They Are A-Changin'" Back in the 60s. WE changed things back then. What happened? Are we all getting too old to get off our asses and do it again? Let's start a thread to decide what can be done to overthrow this bunch of money-grabbing jerks before they land us back in another depression. Let's see how long it takes until your friendly government takes the Mudcat site down. Then you would really know the truth.
-Joe Offer, 6 March 2009- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: Strollin' Johnny Date: 17 Mar 06 - 04:04 AM Join first, start these kind of threads second. Otherwise you're just a troll. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: gnu Date: 17 Mar 06 - 04:16 AM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: John MacKenzie Date: 17 Mar 06 - 04:49 AM Well for a start you could bring in PR, you could ban the private funding of political parties, you could abolish the party whipping system, you could make it compulsory for MPs to come from the area they represent, or to have lived in that area for at least 5 years. You could ban them having another job, you could make them do a full working week of 5 eight hour days.They could be banned from taking lucrative directorships of private companies for 5 years after they leave office. In other words we have a goodish system it just needs sorting out, and making into an honest system Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: Paul Burke Date: 17 Mar 06 - 05:10 AM Parties should be funded by the subscriptions of individual members. One subscription per member, one rate only. A basic state election allowance for all parties at a flat rate for all that meet a threshold of paid-up membership. PR on the basis of first and second (and even third) choice votes. An election every year at a set date for a third of MPs (odd years) and Lords (even years) with 3 member constituencies. The abolition of the Official Secrets Act, or at least great restrictions on it. A presumption that all information should be in the open, and that companies trying to get state business can not plead "commercial confidentiality". The opening of archives. Government advisers to have a duty of impartiality, with long jail/ community service sentences for bent MPs/Lords/ civil servants. The return to the progressive income tax system (one for you, nineteen for me)- a top limit on earnings. Prevent the development of the ueberklasse of the immune. I won't go on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: JohnInKansas Date: 17 Mar 06 - 05:29 AM I guess I'll have to start by reading the junk book I got of the sale table a week or two ago: How to Overthrow the Government, Arianna Huffington, ReganBooks (Harper Collins), ca. 2000, $13.95 (US)/$19.95 (Can), sale table for $4.95 at Barnes recently. (Not a recommendation, as I haven't even looked to see which sides she's on. - It was just a cheapie with a cute title.) In the US, I see more need to oppose those who seem to be attempting to bring down the existing principles of government. A good start in defending what's supposed to be US government would be to require churches that lobby politically to conform to the same rules as for all other lobbyists. All others, including non-profits, are subject to a bunch of rules that the fundies are ignoring, with blessings from political opportunists in government - who are also ignoring and/or seeking to destroy the US Constitution. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 17 Mar 06 - 05:33 AM Add to that an independent audit annually, to let us know what exactly they spend our tax money on, with the same penalties for misuse that apply to private business, and a published balance sheet. Then you will be getting somewhere. The problem is that you would be asking the current corrupt mob to drop themselves in the poo. I don't fancy your chances. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: Bunnahabhain Date: 17 Mar 06 - 05:52 AM A very much simplified tax system would be a good start. Try a single tax on income or earnings of any kind above a reasonable threshold, say £10,00 a year. If you recieve money, you pay the same rate of tax on it if it's from your job, the 3.30 at Newmarket at 20/1, goverment benefits, the sale of your house, anything at all. No loopholes of any kind. The inverse also applies. This is the only tax on income you pay. Would make it rather harder to get away with financial tricks, and would allow most people to do their own taxes, and get them right easily! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: John MacKenzie Date: 17 Mar 06 - 06:03 AM John I would be sceptical about any book by Arianna Huffington who we used to suffer from in the UK. She was then known as Arianna Stassinopoulos, and was an airhead with a big mouth who appeared on chat shows and talked rubbish. Fortunately she found herself an extremely rich husband and we got rid of her from these shores. Ms Huffington Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: JohnInKansas Date: 17 Mar 06 - 06:45 AM Giok - Frankly I picked the book up, with a bunch of other sale table stuff, without really looking at it. Had I seen how highly the "fluff reviewers" ranked it, I'd probably have put it back. I generally find that things that make the "most read" lists don't have much content. From it being on the sale block, apparently it's no longer even being read by the Oprah crowd. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: GUEST,rocking chair hippie Date: 17 Mar 06 - 07:07 AM Binge and purge, binge and purge that is the larcenous political pendulum of the US All the evil in the mud has not yet hatched out. When it does you will not need to plead with people to get off their ass. Unless a pandemic creates such disorder that there is no longer a constitutional United States (even if it is now in name only) the two government agencies that will make the best inroads to regaining democracy are the GAO and the FCC. So you kids should seek employment there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: GUEST Date: 17 Mar 06 - 07:10 AM It may be too late. Join the rest of the Labour Party who want most of the stuff above. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: kendall Date: 17 Mar 06 - 07:35 AM We put Bugs Bunny in charge of the carrots. How can we talk him into giving up that job? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: John MacKenzie Date: 17 Mar 06 - 07:45 AM Labour Party!! What Labour Party? Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: Rapparee Date: 17 Mar 06 - 09:04 AM Try some of the suggestions in Heinlein's Take Back Your Government. Of course, it means working at it without let-up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: Les in Chorlton Date: 17 Mar 06 - 12:36 PM Far enough Giok, but it still exists and if you need an engine of change you either choose it or try to invent another. Grass roots politics has never been easy or very popular but if you want democracy then that's where it lies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: Peace Date: 17 Mar 06 - 05:49 PM RE: BS: Bring Down The Government Many suggestions above have merit. Getting rid of the bullshit in Congress, House of Commons, etc., would be nice. So too would be getting politicians OUT of bed with Big Business (oil, drugs companies, etc.) and last, hire Bob Barker to go on National TV and say, "Come on DOWN." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 17 Mar 06 - 06:21 PM Could try an idea from Asimov's "Second Foundation", I suppose. One of the characters brought down a government by persuading people to boycott selected products, causing a series of gluts which destroyed the stability of the financial base on which said government relied. Think what would happen to Bush et al, if even 20% of US citizens withdrew their savings and tucked them up in a safe at home, then boycotted industries which are big taxpayers. A shrub withering on the vine has a nice ring to it. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: John MacKenzie Date: 17 Mar 06 - 06:56 PM Sorry mate but the Labour party old or new wouldn't even consider one of the suggestions I listed. The old Labour party was the child of the trade unions and was financially in their pocket so that would negate more than 50% of my suggestions at a single stroke. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: GUEST,Billy Date: 18 Mar 06 - 02:33 AM Strollin Johnie - get off your high horse and join the discusion. The Mudcat allows thread posts by those who do not care to join. The creators of the mudcat site have obviously decided that it is OK for what you would call an "OUTSIDER" to do so. I am in no way a troll. I certainly respect their objectivity. As an older folkie from the Vietnam years I see the country once more sending our young people into harm's way to support the rich. How else would you describe the attack on two sovereign nations without due cause to benefit the US oil industry? In the process a lot of republicans have made a lot of money. The Defense Industries have made billions of dollars replacing the amunitions, vehicles and other equipment used up in this "War". Our self-proclaimed "War" President is only thus because he STARTED the war in the first place and has subsequently been proved to be a liar on every reason (911, WMD, Poison Gas, Nerve Gas, Atomic Bombs) touted for the war. The 911 attacks were not made by a bunch of towel-heads as this administration claims. Two fuel-loaded aluminum (aluminium to you brits) airplanes were not enough to bring down two steel frame buildings. The heat generated by burning kerosene (parafin) is not hot enough to melt or even weaken steel due to the dispersal of heat by conduction through the steel structure. It is like a big heat sink. Then there was the suspicious demolition of Building 7. All three buildings fell neatly into their own footprint like a controlled demolition. Building 7 was not hit by an aircraft, but mysteriously caught on fire at the same time. And was demolished in the same manner. Several scientists at great risk to their own safety have stated that there is no way that these buildings could fall at the speed they did. A building collapsing one floor on top of another has a delay factor as each floor puts up some resistance and should delay the complete colapse by some time. All buildings reportedly colapsed at approximately gravitational speed. No resistance. The only explanation is controlled demolition. Look it up if you don't believe me. Look at other steel-framed skyscrapers that have gone on fire - Brazil - an 18- hour fire that left the structure standing. Investigate. Don't take my word. Question - everything a politician says. I started this thread to see if there were any radical folkies left who were actually realising what was really going on and it sadly seems that there are but a few of us left. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: Les in Chorlton Date: 18 Mar 06 - 03:11 AM I guess this kind of thing is less trouble than knocking on doors and talking to people? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: Les in Chorlton Date: 18 Mar 06 - 03:15 AM I am not sure about 'in the pocket of' Giok but again fair comment. The Labour Party is the child of the Trade Union Movement, a strength and a weakness but TUs grew out of the life of working people and in turn helped to create the Party, nothing wrong with that. Blair has reduced thr influence of the Unions within the Party - is that better? Some rank and file members think no, I guess you would say it was a good thing? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: GUEST,Chumbawamba Date: 06 Mar 09 - 01:36 PM Mandelson enjoyed some green custard today with his fairy cakes when a protester threw it in his face, no security at all and she walked away. What if it had been acid ? British government security for ministers is a joke. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: artbrooks Date: 06 Mar 09 - 01:55 PM Ah, yes...a "9/11 is a government plot" conspiracy theorist. I believe I shall go do something more useful, like watch grass grow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: Stringsinger Date: 06 Mar 09 - 03:29 PM Careful. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss". What improvements? How 'bout for starters, the Fed is a zombie bank. Nationalize 'em or break 'em up. What about the tax burden of Iraq and Afghanistan (the eight-hundred pound economic gorillas in the room? The CEO's are going strong. Pull up a Madoff and there's one to take his place. Stop supporting Israel. Gaza can't be changed by bombing it. What kind of revolution? Guns? Guillotines? What do you mean "bring down"? When you bring down something, isn't it incumbent to have something worthwhile to take its place? Who do you follow? Which one will lead you lemminglike over a cliff? I think the best change comes through information that's reliable, honest dialogue and strong, flexible support for ideas. I'm in favor of bringing up the government through improvement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: katlaughing Date: 06 Mar 09 - 09:53 PM We already did...we voted in Obama. Now, have some patience, stay involved, and watch the changes coming about. AND, as one of the moderators, I echo what Strollin' Johnny said, join up if you want to start threads in the BS section. Technically guests are not allowed to start threads in the BS section. If I'd seen this one before everyone responded, it probably would have been deleted. Joining is free and painless. ATB, kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 06 Mar 09 - 10:21 PM If I'd seen this one before everyone responded, it probably would have been deleted. The thread was started three years ago, long before the current policy was established. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: Art Thieme Date: 06 Mar 09 - 10:31 PM I remember Utah saying, "If elections could really change anything, they'd be illegal!" Art |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: katlaughing Date: 07 Mar 09 - 01:28 AM Oops, that'll teach me! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: akenaton Date: 07 Mar 09 - 03:27 AM Yes Art, and that's the best piece of advice on this thread!! If we really want change, we've got to start climbing back out of the box that successive governments and administrations have created for us....Kat and others are wrong, Obama will change nothing of any importance....no more than Blair or Brown could....It's all sleight of hand, smoke and mirrors, empty rhetotic. The collapse of the Capitalist system will force change....and it should be hastened, not delayed as our leaders are trying to do. "We live in an age of aggressive state managed capitalism, a system predicated on endless economic growth and the sating of e ideology of consumerist fundamentalism is near inescapable. Like other brands of fundamentalism, the consumerist variant flies in the face of reason, elementary facts about the world we live in and the realities of human psychology. Based as it is on the expectation of constant economic growth consumerist ideology is obliged to pretend that we live on a planet of infinite resources. So despite the fact that it is now clear that we are endangering the possibility of decent life for ourselves on Earth (much less the other forms of life we "share" the planet with) the ideology is incapable of adapting to reality but instead continues to pretend that unbridled consumption can be sustained in the long run. The academic and activist Robert Jensen puts it this way: Imagine that you are riding comfortably on a sleek train. You look out the window and see that not too far ahead the tracks end abruptly and that the train will derail if it continues moving ahead. You suggest that the train stop immediately and that the passengers go forward on foot. This will require a major shift in everyone's way of travelling, of course, but it appears to you to be the only realistic option; to continue barrelling forward is to court catastrophic consequences. But when you propose this course of action, others who have grown comfortable riding on the train say, "Well we like the train and arguing that we should get off is not realistic…" The high priests of consumerist fundamentalism also pretend that the accumulation of consumer products will bring us happiness despite the fact that psychology and simple common sense, (it takes a minutes perusal of the celebrity press to see how miserable, delusional, and quasi psychotic many of the supposed winners of our society are), tell us otherwise. There is by now a substantial body of data showing that once basic survival needs are met extra income and consumer products have minimal effects in terms of long term happiness. Directly comparable to substance addiction – the acquisition of new products provides the consumer with a fleeting feeling of pleasure quickly followed by feelings of deflation and unhappiness – and like the addict the consumer feels compelled to to return to the source again and again in the hope of finally finding lasting happiness. Psychologists and writers such as Oliver James, James Hillman, Erich Fromm, Clive Hamilton and many others have told us what does contribute to human well-being: community, meaningful non-alienated work, relative economic equality, shared goals and values, and an altruistic other-centred orientation. These are all of course values and attitudes that the dominant institutions of our time at best fail to provide, and at worst actually destroy. Alex Docherty DV |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: GUEST,Boz Date: 14 Dec 09 - 07:59 AM Looks like they are bring themselves down ! A year after the Government vowed to crack down on housing benefits, a single mother of eight is still living in a £2.6million mansion funded by taxpayers. Francesca Walker receives more than £90,000 a year in housing allowance to meet the rent on the five-bedroom villa, plus other payouts of £15,000. A defiant Miss Walker, 34, insists that she and her children aged from six to 16 are completely justified in living there as the council could not find them a big enough home. And, bizarrely, she claims that 'living in this house is holding me back'. Francesca Walker with Mohammed, daughter Rashida and son Moustapha in her £2.6million mansion Miss Walker, whose near neighbours include David Cameron, Elle Macpherson and Hugh Grant, said: 'I've started my own business making organic soaps and bath products but any money I make I have to pay straight back to the council so there's no incentive for me to work hard to grow my business. The four-storey villa in Notting Hill, West London, which costs taxpayers £7,600 a month, has five bedrooms, three bathrooms, a double living room, study and roof terrace. 'This house is lovely and spacious, and with three bathrooms we don't have to queue in the mornings,' added Miss Walker. Miss Walker was given the house last September on a three-year lease because a rule introduced in April 2008 forces local authorities to place tenants in private properties if suitable council homes are unavailable. This was intended to promote fairness but has caused, in some cases, huge cost to the taxpayer. Last month, it was revealed that a Somali family of nine are living in a £1.8million central London house costing £1,600 a week. And a family of eight Afghan immigrants have been housed for the last 14 months in a £ 1.2million house in Ealing, West London, at a cost so far of £168,000. While then Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell said he would crack down on the failing system last year, little seems to have been done although a Government source said yesterday that a crackdown on high rates of housing allowance would be announced this week. Miss Walker said: 'It's great living here, obviously, but it's ridiculous that the Government have housed me here as it's a complete waste of money. 'The benefits system in this country is a joke' 'There are a lot of people who defraud the system and abuse it - it's not difficult to take advantage of it.' Miss Walker, a Muslim convert, was brought up by her Jamaican-born mother after they were abandoned by her father, a musician. She was taken into care at 14 when her mother had a nervous breakdown. She said: 'I lived in three foster homes and moved school five times. By 17, I was living in a children's home with some disreputable characters. 'I was afraid of being abused and becoming a junkie. I began to explore Islam.' She converted to the religion and had five children with her first husband before divorcing five years later. She had three more children from a second marriage, which also lasted five years. Miss Walker insisted: 'I'm the product of a failed society. My family failed me, the council failed me and I failed myself. I should not have married and got pregnant at 17. 'On the other hand, I've never been in trouble with the law, my kids are healthy and well-looked-after, we're moderate Muslims, not extremists, and I'm taking a psychology degree with the Open University so I can be a support worker for families who are socially excluded.' The property owner Mr Armstrong, who lived there with his wife and three children before moving to a nearby borough, declined to comment. Kensington and Chelsea Council originally said it had to house Miss Walker in the borough as her children were all at local schools, but now she has removed them all for home education. Despite this the council claims there is still nothing it can do and it is just 'following Government rules'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 14 Dec 09 - 10:00 AM ""From: Don(Wyziwyg)T - PM Date: 17 Mar 06 - 05:33 AM Add to that an independent audit annually, to let us know what exactly they spend our tax money on, with the same penalties for misuse that apply to private business, and a published balance sheet. Then you will be getting somewhere. The problem is that you would be asking the current corrupt mob to drop themselves in the poo. I don't fancy your chances. Don T."" How's about that for being ahead of events? Two years before the expenses scandal, and the only thing I would need to change is the final sentence, in view of their having dropped themselves right in it. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: SINSULL Date: 14 Dec 09 - 02:07 PM "Let's start a thread to decide what can be done to overthrow this bunch of money-grabbing jerks before they land us back in another depression." Very impressive prediction. But I thought this thread was an invitation to DC for Texa bar-b-que. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bring Down The Government From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Dec 09 - 05:53 PM Miss Walker, whose near neighbours include David Cameron, Elle Macpherson and Hugh Grant I'd say Francesca Walker has probably raised the tone of the neighbourhood. That money she is paid for rent goes to the landlord. If anyone is living off the State, that's who it is. A nice little earner. |
