|
11 May 08 - 12:34 PM (#2337710) Subject: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Riginslinger As the American Presidential Election moves into the general election phase, these are the five most important attributes and directives that a presidential candidate would have to espouse in order to appeal to me: 1. Addiction: The new American president must be free from addiction to any ancient superstition, drug, mind altering substance, or religion. Only a clear headed chief executive will be prepared to meet today's tough challenges. 2. Sovereignty: In order to succeed in the pursuit of any of the measures that follow, the new chief executive must actively enforce the immigration laws currently on the books. The president could do more to help working Americans by coming down forcefully on crooked employers who continue to hire illegal aliens. This action would strengthen American society all the way down the line. It would go further to help the environment than any other thing the president could do, by cutting down on runaway population growth. It would also allow for measurable gains in education and boost the average American citizen's standard of living. 3. Education: Once immigration enforcement was under way, and the population of school age children became relatively stabilized, the president should embark on a program to greatly enhance both the curriculum and the energy that goes into public education in America. Maybe Howard Zinn had the best solution when he suggested the country should "double the amount we pay public school teachers in America." This would allow education to compete for the services of many bright and talented people who are now going into occupations that bring resources to them personally, but don't have the effect of doing anything for the public as a whole. Certainly we would be paying some people more than they are worth for a while, but as new applicants apply, these non-productive teachers would gradually become a smaller and smaller portion of the teaching work force. A social structure could be established whereby teachers become a desired role model for young people to look up to, rather than corporate executives, attorneys, and drug dealers. 4. Militarism: American military adventurism must come to a close. This is an issue on which I think Ron Paul is completely correct. The new chief executive must find a way to extract American forces from Iraq as quickly as possible. There might be an argument for continuing to try to stabilize Afghanistan, but there is no reason for the US to continue to support huge armies in Korea, Japan, and Europe. A new president must find diplomatic ways to deal with international problems. The pointless exercise in Iraq has made clear to most observers that the days of military domination of one people over another have been relegated to the past. 5. The Environment: The American president must engage in proactive environmental measures on a world wide basis. The most obvious measure that needs to be dealt with first is global human population growth. Most environmental problems facing the world today are connected in some way to non-stop consumerism and the continued assault on Earth's resources. These activities depend on an ever growing market. Once human population growth is brought under control, these markets can be stabilized and reduced. Instead of invading poor countries with armies, America should be going into the under-developed world with education for women and family planning programs. Countries that resist these techniques for human survival because of addiction to superstition and/or religion should not be forced to participate, but their hordes should not be allowed to emigrate to other parts of the globe either. Their populations should be compelled to stay within the borders of the countries that brought them to the condition in which they find themselves until their collective light bulb comes on. At that point they can do something to remediate their own problem—hopefully by reaching out to the rest of the world for help and guidance. I know there are many informed voters out there who don't agree with me, and I don't hold out much hope for victory. Frankly, few people with the stellar qualities listed above would have much chance of ever making it into the primaries, let alone succeed in getting elected. But I think it pays to strive for excellence, so I'll continue to monitor the debate to see which candidate comes the closest to the above listed ideals. |
|
11 May 08 - 12:44 PM (#2337713) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: GUEST,Ed.T Respect to longer term global interests of the international community and to other nations. An understanding and appriciation that the internal interests of the USA are not always the best interests of the world community. This would include leadership on environmental concerns. |
|
11 May 08 - 12:51 PM (#2337717) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Rapparee Be willing to learn from his/her own mistakes and those of others -- and be willing to apply the lessons history has taught us. |
|
11 May 08 - 01:03 PM (#2337720) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Amos One piece I think is missing is the ability to clearly and truthfully communicate to the wide center of American citizenry in a way that focuses on not only the short term mechanisms of his decisions and projects, but how they clearly align well with our best natures and ideals as a nation, not just as self-interested individuals. Corporations are a poor substitute for national leadership; they work for different reasons and seek different ideals. A |
|
11 May 08 - 02:22 PM (#2337759) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Peace I hope you don't mind if I simplify this. Look at George Bush. See everything he doesn't have. They are the attributes one might wish for in a president. (All those things he ain't!) |
|
11 May 08 - 02:25 PM (#2337761) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: *Laura* Literacy. |
|
11 May 08 - 02:33 PM (#2337765) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Amos Hear, hear!! |
|
11 May 08 - 02:35 PM (#2337767) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: GUEST,Fantasma The guts and backbone to stand up to the corporate elite, close down our imperial bases around the world, and bring ALL the troops home immediately. Open up the Dept of Peace, close down Dept of Homeland Security and a whole lot of the Pentagon. Have the guts and integrity to close down the empire. It will not happen with any of the current crop, so "none of the above" will be my choice in Nov. |
|
11 May 08 - 02:44 PM (#2337774) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Rapparee Change the Department of Defense back to it's original name and purpose: the War Department. It would keep us focused on that Department's responsibility. |
|
11 May 08 - 02:59 PM (#2337779) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: GUEST,Fantasma I agree, Rapaire. And likely result in far fewer wars--on drugs, terrorists, communism, Al Qaida, WMD, and miliatry adventurism in Panama, Haiti, Colombia, Nicaragua, Guatamala, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Palestine, Afghanistan, the Phillipines, and many other "bases" around the globe we have no business having our imperial bases. First one to figure out this empire is not sustainable, much less worthwhile, and say they will kill the empire--and mean it--will get my vote. |
|
11 May 08 - 03:13 PM (#2337786) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Ron Davies The desire and ability to compromise--to work with various contradictory interests--in order to get actual legislation through. ( No more "my way or the highway".) Obama has shown the desire to do so. Interestingly enough, so has Nancy Pelosi. Hillary--not so much--as indicated in her refusal to take advice while trying to get health care reform in the 1990's--and her current insistence that all citizens would have to buy health insurance--or have their wages garnisheed--which would never fly in Congress. And as has been already indicated earlier in the thread, perhaps the greatest attribute of a president is the power to persuade. The president would obviously have strong principles and great aims. But the power of "mere words"--especially the ability to inspire-- is actually substantial--in fact essential in order to achieve the "deeds" we've heard so much about from Hillary. |
|
11 May 08 - 03:36 PM (#2337801) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: GUEST,Fantasma Um, Ron? You can't stop running against Clinton now. Or maybe you haven't heard yet that she lost? Yeah, she lost. You can end your Mudcat Obamamania campaign now. Please. |
|
11 May 08 - 03:54 PM (#2337807) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Riginslinger All very good points! |
|
11 May 08 - 03:55 PM (#2337808) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Ron Davies Rig-- Your "attributes" is a misnomer--since you actually have specific political demands for your vote. So it is reasonable to counter them. In the real world, as opposed to your theoretical one, if he wants to be elected, Obama should completely ignore your desire about border enforcement as the #1 issue. He can win easily with his supporters and most of Hillary's. And one of the biggest components of her coalition is Hispanics. Both for this reason, and because it is just the right thing to do, he should push--hard---for a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. This will have the added value of pushing McCain into a no-win situation. Either he is also willing to support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, without having the border "secured"--which will never happen anyhow. And if he is, the Tancredo true believers will sit home on election day. Or, if he insists on "securing the border" as a precondition for progress on immigration, he will lose two ways. His share of the Hispanic vote will plunge from the 40% GWB got in 2004--which more than made the difference in a close election. And he will lose some support from the business world. And since it's political strategy to secure votes that you are citing, rather than "attributes" , other issues Obama should push are opposition to any weakening of Roe v Wade--and of course a plan for comprehensive health reform. These will have the effect of drawing clear lines between him and McCain, who is against Roe v Wade and will not offer any health reform -aside from "market-based reforms"--which is code for making the sick pay more. And of course Obama should stick to his strong opposition to the Iraq war--another clear difference. The conventional wisdom is that in a general election, you run to the center. I think that is wrong--and has been recently proven so. Does anybody think Bush ran to the center in 2004? No, the most important factor in any election is turnout--you want your own strongest supporters to believe in your cause, do the grunt work necessary in any election, and show up in huge numbers to vote. The Bush "team" did it in 2004 by propaganda. Obama can do it by inspiration, and actually standing for worthwhile objectives. |
|
11 May 08 - 04:02 PM (#2337813) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Ron Davies Janet-- In some quarters, people still believe she would have been a better choice than Obama. This is wrong for many reasons--including the reasons I cite. He just has far more presidential attributes--the ostensible subject of the thread. |
|
11 May 08 - 04:47 PM (#2337847) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Little Hawk Good luck, Riginslinger. ;-D |
|
11 May 08 - 05:15 PM (#2337875) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Little Hawk Here are the common presidential attributes that have generally been needed in the past many decades to get elected president: - Shameless pandering to people's paranoia, zenophobia, and aggressive patriotism. - Shameless pandering to the the immense secular god that is America's military forces both at home and abroad ("our brave men and women in uniform"..."Und hail to Der Chief!") - Shameless obedience to one's main sources of funding. - Shamelessly opportunistic character attacks on one's opponent(s). - Shameless pandering to people's shortsighted greed for a fistful of dollars (meaning a so-called "tax break"). - Shameless posturing to prove that one shares mainstream Christian religious values and family values with the American voters. That is, public shows of piety and frequent references of that sort, regardless of whether or not you actually believe in or practice any of it in your real life on your own private time. - Nice looking suits with a flag pin on the lapel. - Membership in a few elite system fraternities such as: Harvard and Yale graduates, lawyers, corporate officers, military personnel, nominal "Christians" (Has any president ever openly claimed to be a non-churchgoer? Or a Muslim? Or a Buddhist? Or a Hindu? Or an atheist or agnostic?). - Official heterosexuality and a wife and family. - A white skin and a penis (But those two may be subject to provisional review at this time...we'll see. Minor changes can be made to the menu when the moment is deemed appropriate.) Did I miss anything important? |
|
11 May 08 - 05:59 PM (#2337905) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: frogprince " Addiction: The new American president must be free from addiction to any ancient superstition, drug, mind altering substance, or religion." Of the mudcat regulars, even some of us who are religious believers might accept that in a candidate. But this country is about as likely to elect an avowedly non-religious candidate as it is an avowedly gay one. Maybe in 2108... |
|
11 May 08 - 08:43 PM (#2338008) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Riginslinger LH - Yes, I agree with everything you say here. I was simply making out a laundry list of what "I" feel to be the most important attributes. And I think frogprince is right as well, but striving for excellence should be a worthwhile pursuit, one would think. But I think Ron is wrong about the number of legitimate Hispanic voters who oppose securing the border. We've been over that so many times, however, there's nothing to be gained by discussing it further. |
|
11 May 08 - 11:19 PM (#2338061) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Ron Davies Rig-- As you note, we've been over the issue before----but you neglected to provide any recent evidence that Hispanics want the border "secured" before providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Though I certainly understand your hesitancy to provide any such evidence--since there isn't any. And there's plenty on the other side. Even in 2006, the Republican share of the Hispanic vote plunged--since they are identified with restrictionists like Tancredo--and your good self? |
|
11 May 08 - 11:20 PM (#2338063) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Amos I would also add: a sense of humor and the ability to be self-effacing. A |
|
11 May 08 - 11:25 PM (#2338066) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Ron Davies And don't worry, Rig, Obama is not "addicted" to religion. Nor, in all probability, is McCain. So on that basis, you could vote for either. McCain, however, is likely to support the idea of no progress on a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants until the border is "secured". While Obama will not insist on "border security" as a precondition. So, will that make you support McCain? |
|
11 May 08 - 11:36 PM (#2338073) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Ron Davies I'd agree with both of your ideas, Amos. But I think both Obama and McCain have them both. McCain sure has a great dry sense of humor. See for instance his observation that Romney was truly a candidate of "change". |
|
12 May 08 - 08:31 AM (#2338272) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Little Hawk As to being "addicted" to religion... ;-) Heh! Well, when does a practice become an addiction? When it gets way out of balance, that's when. When it's taking up more of a person's time and energy than is healthy. If you sometimes drink a coffee, but definitely not every day and maybe only occasionally, you're probably not addicted to it. If you sometimes eat oranges, and you enjoy them, but you don't HAVE to have oranges every single day...then you're probably not addicted to oranges. If you have some religious ideas in your thinking, but you don't talk about religion constantly to everyone you meet and judge everyone on the basis of whether or not they belong to your religion...then you're not addicted to religion. And in any case, virtually everyone is addicted to something...usually a fair number of things....therefore why single out religion, Riginslinger, unless you are addicted to taking issue with religion? And you are. That doesn't mean you're a bad person, it just means you have noticeable emotional addictions just like the rest of us. You're addicted. ;-) |
|
12 May 08 - 08:41 AM (#2338286) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Riginslinger LH - I would submit that when George W. Bush announced that god told him to invade Iraq, he wasn't thinking clearly, and look at the results. Just my opinion, though. I would futher state that of all the addictions out there, religion seems to be the most destructive. |
|
12 May 08 - 08:45 AM (#2338289) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Bobert But, Rigs, ain't God on ***our*** side??? |
|
12 May 08 - 10:40 AM (#2338357) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Riginslinger It's been my experience, through observation, that god seems to be on the side of whoever wants to pull the trigger first. |
|
12 May 08 - 10:40 AM (#2338358) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Riginslinger After that, he/she is on the side of the guy who shoots back. |
|
12 May 08 - 08:33 PM (#2338860) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Don(Wyziwyg)T All of the above, plus a non removable collar which, if 51% of the total population answer no when asked if he is doing what they require of him, will blow his head off, leaving the way clear for the election of a more suitable alternative. This should solve the problems associated with sending other peoples' sons to die in illegal wars. Don T. |
|
12 May 08 - 10:02 PM (#2338900) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Ron Davies I would veto the collar. It's been proven, quite recently, that the US public is rather susceptible to propaganda. And in the past 51% plus of the US electorate has not always been right. |
|
12 May 08 - 10:19 PM (#2338910) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Riginslinger Of course, it depends on who's counting the votes! |
|
13 May 08 - 02:08 AM (#2338973) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Slag I wish I could say this was original with me but I must give credit where credit is due. I just happen to strongly agree with the writer, Max De Pree, businessman and author: "The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. The last is to say 'thank you'. In between the two the leader must become a servant and a debtor. That sums up the progress of an artful leader." There is much wisdom here. We are listening to our potential leaders and not a one of them is really defining reality. They are afraid to define reality. Hillary is claiming to be an old hand at running things and she has zero experience, except for running Bubba. And she was having a hard time keeping tabs on Bubba. Obama is selling "Change" but he hasn't really explained the real changes he would attempt to institute. And "change" for change's sake is not necessarily a good thing. Drilling holes in the bottom of a boat at sea is a change but... And then we have McCain who is checking which ever way the wind is blowing and that's what he truly is and what he has always been. Yes, in this way he DOES look like his two predecessors, #s 41 and 43. Yawn. Addiction? Addiction is being out of control. Better, addiction is allowing something outside of you control you. On the personal level this can be drugs, alcohol, gambling, sex, video games, thrills etc. It is almost an endless list but the common feature is that the person, to his or her detriment, is not in control of their life. On the national level our dependence on foreign oil is to our nation's detriment. Our real wealth goes out and the commodity we buy goes up in smoke, literally; goes up into CO2, NO2, CO, O3 and a host of other noxious gases that do our habitat no good whatsoever. This is defining reality. Makes Ralph Nader sound more like the ideal candidate than any of the other ones. Kinda lends some credence to Ron Paul also. Too bad. The leader must become a servant to the people who put him into the high office. He must also become the servant of those who did not vote for him or her. Anything less is not what the job demands. After defining reality he must deal with the real problems with the resources at hand, develop new resources when needed and enhance the lives of the citizens. An imperious leader, an autocrat seeks to CONTROL peoples' lives. A good leader serves the needs of his people. A debtor because a good leader realizes it is both a privilege and an honor to hold this position. This isn't a place to drive a claim stake and demand the perks and trappings of the position, make money, feather his nest and prepare his "golden parachute". We don't need anyone like that. No business, no government, no club or any other organization needs a self aggrandizing egomaniac as it's leader. We must desire someone who feels they owe something of their talents, rights and privileges to the people whom he serves. And when his time in office is done we don't need someone who trashes the facilities and frees criminals, pays off shady dealers and bribes and insults the people he had sworn to serve and insults whoever steps into the position next. |
|
13 May 08 - 09:04 AM (#2339194) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Riginslinger slag - That's a good piece. I think a leader like Ralph Nader or Ron Paul could go a long ways towards cleaning things up, if only somebody like that could get elected. I think the public could be assured, at least, that neither of of these people would be trying to enrich themselves at the public's expense. It's interesting that he included the segment about addiction. |
|
13 May 08 - 12:07 PM (#2339378) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Little Hawk Rig...do you mind if I call you "Rig"... ;-) ...it's quicker and easier to type... I'm borrowing a habit from Ron here...or is it Don? Well, anyway... I have always assumed that if there IS a God...then he, she or it is on everyone's side. It's not "God" who takes sides. It's people who create and are ON all the opposing sides! ;-) People have a simply tremendous talent for dividing themselves up into mutually competitive sides and fighting over things uselessly with each other. Note, for example, how willing you are to divide the world into the "religious" people and the "non-religious" people, declare the first group to be the world's number one problem, and proceed to fight about it with people. That's silly. In this respect you are behaving just like any religious fanatic who declares atheists to be the world's biggest problem and proceeds to fight about it with people. Equally silly. You're both emotionally f**ked over the issue (and I say that with a smile, okay?). Now to blame any of that on God...or to claim that God is in support of any of it is just plain silly! But people do it, because they want to imagine that great cosmic forces are on their side. This tells you nothing about great cosmic forces, but it tells you much about the human ego. ;-) People are fools. They find all kinds of ludicrous reasons to justify their destructive competitive foolishness, and claiming the support of God is one of their favorites. But there are OTHER claims which are equally pernicious and damaging! One is "this will be very profitable" (for a select few). Another is "it's the patriotic thing to do" (a great justification for killing other people). Another is "it's your sworn duty" (to do something insane for some command structure). Another is "my dad did it this way" (and your dad may have been an idiot). Another is "this will make me popular" (yes, among a peer group composed of morons). Another is "it's the law!" (but the law may be an entirely stupid and very wrongful law that was enacted by idiots for idiotic reasons...like our present marijuana laws, for example). Your singling out of religion as the world's number one problem reveals nothing more than your own personal obsession WITH religion. So what happened to you? Did a bunch of crazy priests and nuns attack you at a tender age and scourge your bare bottom with willow branches or what the heck is behind this particular hangup you've got? Examine yourSELF for a change, man! The buck stops with you. You can't free the world, but you can free Riginslinger. ;-) |
|
13 May 08 - 12:19 PM (#2339388) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Riginslinger LH - The kinds of people you mention above have been tormenting me since I can remember. They simply refuse to deal with the facts in front of their collective faces. And no, I don't mind being called "Rig." But in the piece referenced above, when the writer talks about addiction, he doesn't mention religion, which is probably smart on his part. He talks about sex and video games, and other things. So maybe you have a good point. Instead of lashing out at religion, maybe I should be conducting a war against addiction. Maybe that would make more sense. |
|
13 May 08 - 05:12 PM (#2339621) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Little Hawk Well, yeah, that is my point, that the real problem is addiction itself...whatever the addiction may be to can vary tremendously. A person who is addicted is not in control of his habitual behaviour...it is in control of him. Thus he is not as free a being as he could be. He isn't free to think or act in an original and spontaneous fashion. His freedom is greatly limited by his controling addiction. I'm curious. Which religious people have been tormenting you? And how? Do you mean directly, face to face, or do you mean in a more indirect fashion? I've barely been tormented at all by religous people in this lifetime, but I have been tormented by a good many aggressive people, dominating people, critical people, intolerant people, ambitious people, bullying people, guilt-tripping people, competitive people, cruel people, sadistic people, mean people...plenty of those. Some were no doubt religious, while others were not, but their religion or their lack of it was not the cause of their unpleasant behaviour, in my experience...though it certainly may on certain occasions have accompanied their unpleasant behaviour. |
|
13 May 08 - 06:01 PM (#2339689) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Riginslinger The religious people who have been tormenting me lately are the wigged-out religious wakkos who elected George W. Bush. The religious people who were tormenting me before that were the wigged-out religious wakkos who elected Ronald Reagan. But even when I was a kid there were always nosey mothers who would happily drag an otherwise entertained child off to church, and when you wanted to watch something on television all you could get was Oral Roberts healing phonies. Then if you want to try to find out what is going on in Congress, and you turn on C-Span, you get some buffoon leading the House in prayer. You might even see your own congressman wallowing around on his knees. But it's worse than that. If you try to listen to "A Prairie Home Companion," you get Garrison Keillor talking about Pastor Inkfest, and that's suppose to make sense to you, and... The list is endless... |
|
13 May 08 - 06:42 PM (#2339734) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Herga Kitty What puzzles me is why, with so many potential candidates, you don't get better ones to choose from? Kitty |
|
13 May 08 - 06:45 PM (#2339737) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Little Hawk They're only voting for what they feel "safe" with, Rig. They feel safe with militaristic Republicans who remind them of John Wayne and the mythical values presented in Hollywood westerns. Religion is just a small part of the deal, and it's part of the overall cultural package of a mythical "Norman Rockwell" America that may have existed once, but certainly does not anymore. In that mythical world everything was solved by a craggy, tough, heroic white guy father figure totin' a gun and a bible. He would gun down the vicious bad guys, save the town or the stagecoach, rescue the schoolmarm from the lecherous bandits and bloodthirsty savages, then read over the dead bodies of those he'd slain (if they were white) from the Bible, and everything would end happily ever after. The people who voted for Reagan and Bush have those ancient scenes wired in the back of their brains, imprinted there by 10 billion movies and TV shows, and they foolishly imagine that Bush, Reagan, and the Republicans will somehow bring it all back. It's the middle-aged and elderly people in a society who are most likely to vote "conservative", because they are harkening back to a past that is gone. They're dreaming! It's long gone and it will never be seen again. You know it and I know it, but that doesn't help. Now, look, the only reason most politicians make ostentatious public prayers and stuff like that which you are alluding to is because they think it will play well with a traditional-minded audience and get them votes. If this was 1942 and you were in Nazi Germany, you'd be seeing the politicians going through a slightly different act, because they'd be playing to a different audience, but the basic principles would be much the same. Religion ain't the problem. Politics is the problem. Politics and the public's willingness to be fooled again and again by old platitudes and familiarly comforting images from out of a mythical past. |
|
13 May 08 - 06:55 PM (#2339747) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Little Hawk "What puzzles me is why, with so many potential candidates, you don't get better ones to choose from? Kitty " That is because there is a ruling elite behind the scenes, Kitty, an elite which no one gets to vote for or against, and they preordain who the viable candidates will be through the mechanisms of the major political parties...and they make sure by controlling the purse strings that those, and only those candidates get enough funding and media coverage to have any realistic chance of being elected. Thus the end result is preordained. The public gets presented with machine-picked candidates who are merely front men (or women) for the controllers who stand largely unseen behind them. They're figureheads. Whichever candidate wins, the controllers are still in control. The controllers own the banks, the media chains, and the military-industrial complex. By the power of money they rule. (There is often some infighting between various of the controllers, and that can get quite complex, I'm sure, but in their overall objectives they are for the same basic agenda, both nationally and worldwide, and it's all driven by money.) |
|
13 May 08 - 07:38 PM (#2339783) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Riginslinger It looks to me like religion allows the controllers to herd the masses. But it would make sense, I think, for thinking individuals to look into who it really is who owns the banks and the media chains. |
|
13 May 08 - 07:51 PM (#2339802) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Little Hawk "who owns the banks and the media chains?" The richest people, that's who. ;-) It's mass marketing and mass media that controls the masses in North America, Riginslinger. Read the book "1984" and you will see immediately how it is done...with or without the aid of religion...only in our society it's done through the excesses of consumer marketing and media rather than through a dour, Stalinistic type of regime. You simply control the media and the merchandise and the flow of cash. The media provides the flow of information. The public's impression of reality is formed by that flow of information. Meanwhile, you create an indefinable and largely fictional foreign "enemy" whose location is very uncertain and who can never be eliminated, thus creating a war that will never end. This permits continual maintenance of a huge military and a huge surveillance network. The fearful public demands protection from the mythical threats that are waved before them daily by the compliant media. This permits extension of police powers and domestic surveillance, and curtailing of civil rights. Anyone who seriously bucks the system can be labelled a "terrorist", and be held without trial, quite possibly tortured. People are encouraged to report nonconformists and "suspicious" individuals who might be "terrorists". They are encouraged to inform on their neighbours and co-workers. And so it goes. All this can be done with or without using religion as a motivator. If you have a public who are easily affected by religion...as in the rural USA or in Iran...then you will use religion to control them. If you have a public who are not so inclined, as in the UK or Canada, then you don't use religion to control them, you use other common motivators. It doesn't matter about religion, it's just one of a great many similar mind tools used to advance control over a populace. |
|
13 May 08 - 07:52 PM (#2339803) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Slag The Molly McGuires, the Black Hand, The Free Masons, the cults of taboo from a thousand islands, cross my heart and hope to die, stick a needle in my eye, the Mormons, the Hezbollah, the Jesuits, the Mafia. Anybody fighting for survival who form a group or joins a group. The Crypts and the Bloods, M13, on and on. Someone wants to be taken seriously so what better way to demonstrate their seriousness than killing someone!? THERE! THAT OUGHT TO CONVINCE THEM! Sometimes you can understand the motive, maybe even sympathize with them. For others you scratch your head and wonder what the Hell were they thinking. If you kill someone, you're called a murderer and perhaps, rightly so. If you kill several people you are a serial killer. If you kill a large group of people you are a mass murderer. If you kill thousands and thousands, they call you Glorious Leader! Hmmm? How large and effective is your gang? Your tribe? Your Party? Are you a lone wolf? In Winter, the lone wolf dies. What are we? Who are we? If we conquer, we get to answer those questions. If we are conquered, someone else will answer those questions. The form of government of the United States of America has the potential to be the most inclusive with the broadest scope to enhance its citizens lives and rights, to provide the most in the way of freedom. It takes an educated populace who agree that this is so and to work for the betterment of ALL its citizens. The enemies within this country can be likened to termites or the people boring holes in the bottom of the boat. The fools think they'll be letting the water OUT and the anarchist who are directing the hole boring are their leaders who know exactly what they are doing. They are sinking the ship of state. Remember the rather stupid movie "Up Madison Avenue"? Putney Swope is the black janitor who somehow gets elected to be the CEO of a Wall St. company? I remember one line in particular. All the board members are terrified of what Putney might do. Putney says (I paraphrase)"Nobody ever got anywhere by rocking the boat." to which all the board members breathe a sigh of relief and then Putney goes on to say "You SINK it!" And the remainder of the movie is just about that! Well, that's fine fodder for the movies but in real life you ought to remember that our nation is a nation of people, the vast majority of whom want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Are you going to sink them? Just because they may not think like you? Because the have some beliefs with which you don't agree? Because some of them have a different skin color? You don't sink the ship on which your life depends. You work to enhance it, to take care of the problems, to define reality, to serve the needs of the people, all the people of the nation. If you see a real wrong, don't just carp about it, fix it. Draw attention to it. Approach it in a positive way that extols the virtues of our nation rather than bad-mouthing and tearing it down. The positive attitudes toward our country is whats needed regardless of who is elected. Freedom means the chance to do the right thing. License is what the selfish, self aggrandizing folks believe freedom is. It isn't. |
|
13 May 08 - 07:59 PM (#2339811) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Little Hawk Agreed, Slag. There's no sense dividing off into competing groups in a society. We are one people, and we ought to find ways to act as one people. That requires consensus...through discussion. Not dictatorship by either a majority over various minorities...or a minority over the majority. I recommend an end to the political party system and a return to what was envisaged by your founding fathers...a party-less system of government. |
|
13 May 08 - 10:28 PM (#2339919) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Riginslinger "All this can be done with or without using religion as a motivator." LH - The way we see this differently is, I don't see religion as a motivator, I see religion as a way of grouping people. Race isn't going to work much longer, I don't think. Look at the growing number of people who consider themselves to be "mixed-race." And ethnicity has the same kinds of problems. It only seems to propel itself a few generations into the culture, and people cease to see themselves as Italians, Kenyan's, or Poles. But religion is forever. As long as the controllers can group people into camps, they can divide and keep them at each other's throats, and control them. All you have to do is outgrow religion, and you're well on your way to recovery. |
|
13 May 08 - 10:42 PM (#2339926) Subject: RE: BS: Attributes of a President: From: Ron Davies "ruling elite" who "pre-ordain" the presidential candidates. Sorry, that's drivel. 2 examples. 1) Jimmy Carter 2) Obama. It's especially unlikely that any "ruling elite" pre-ordained Obama. Her Royal Clintonness, perhaps--but as you see, it ain't even gonna even get her the nomination, much less the presidency. Oh yes, one more example: Lincoln. He never would have won in 1860 were it not for the parties which split his opposition. Up to that point, Douglas had a far better chance. And no "elite" arranged his opposition to be split. |