Domain Of Man

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Ronald L. Hughes on February 20, 2010, 12:37:43 AM



Title: Modern political history
Post by: Ronald L. Hughes on February 20, 2010, 12:37:43 AM
Hey!   By the way!  Have any of you seen those new billboards with a photo of our last president that says "Do you miss me yet?", or words to that effect!  As much as I disliked Bush (both of them) I tend to look back in awe!  Even as dumb as they were, they still look somewhat good!  Of course all of the Socialists and Marxists within the current administration does not incline me to look favorably upon it!

Hey, I actually like our "Constitution!"  As well as our "Bill of Rights!"

How about you guys?  

I even liked the old slogan; "America, Love it or Leave it!"  Hey, emigration can be had!  Maybe Australia would take some of them?  They are supposedly "well educated?"

But, I am somewhat "Old fashioned!"  chuckle!

Ron

Sorry, but I should have posted this under "New World Order!"  Move it if you please!


Title: Re: Modern political history
Post by: Mork on February 20, 2010, 09:26:41 PM
Ronbo,

OK, so ya want to stir the ol' pot by mentioning politics?

I see the present administration very much the same as the previous except, just a different flavor. It's amazing that critics see specific faults in their foes but overlook them in their friends. From my seat in the bleachers, I see pretty much the same rhetoric in the current administration as the last.

Lemme illustrate.

The campaign rhetoric was "bring back bipartisianship"

Well, just like the Bush administration, it was "bipartisianship" you agree with my way is the only way.

Well, just like the Bush administration, any solution you propose [the opposite party] is silly and does not represent a serious attempt.

Well, just like the Bush administration, endless photo ops and catchphrases to rally supporters and infuriate the opposition while annoying the bulk of the people with minds with the parade of meaningless dribble.

What makes this all different than past presidencies is the use of technology. FDR embraced radio (4 terms) while Kennedy (JFK not, Teddy for you younger readers) used Television. Obama used the Internet for his campaign. It is worth noting that the leaders in new technology use have been Democrats but, it seems to me from recent elections that the Internet has become a well-used tool for all parties including the "fuddy duddy" party.

The latter of it all, the Internet, is proving to be an annoyance to those in power. 50 years ago, the media had only a limited scope to project information. Special interest and activists had to compete with the mainstream media - on their terms. Terms being the available methods of information distribution be they 30 seconds on a single TV new program, an event mentioning for one issue of a daily paper or, magazine. None really allow those folks to project their message or even make it easily accessible until the Internet revolution. The last US presidential election illustrated the growing power the Internet has to inform the masses -  be the information factual, hype or flat out lies. Politicians are scrambling now to figure out how to maximize the Internet to their advantage to maintain their cushy jobs to continue the flow of crapola that they claim is in the best interest of the American people.

In the end, it will be the same as before but of a different "flavor."


Title: Re: Modern political history
Post by: Truth Seeker on February 21, 2010, 07:00:16 PM
It appears that our little "think tank" can demostrate good points as well as any of the pundits on radio and television. I see that our constitution was brilliant for its time, and still is the best of political form out there. Mork points out the different flavors of the current parties, I like to call it, two sides of the same coin. They may see some different ways to control sociaty, but what they have in common is, that they both want to CONTROL.

So a question we might want to discuss is...What are the roots of our modern political history? How have we, as a nation gotten to this point of polarity? I see the current administration heavily influenced from the ideas of F.D.R. or even W. Wilson, and F.D.R.'s uncle Teddy. They were certainly tied to the banking industry, esp. the Federal Reserve. 

Glenn Beck points out these points (Federal Reserve and such) very well, however is in opposition to Alex Jones who was telling us this 7 or 8 years ago. Due to Jones' stance on 9/11 issues, Beck would call him on the "crazy train" The Black Flag concept is stupid to Beck, I'm not so sure about that. Many here in rual Eastern Oregon that like Ron Paul except for his "peace-nik" attitude toward the middle east. They (for the most part) like the Bush/O'Rielly stance, thinking that we are somehow protecting freedoms. I guess we can see how well that has worked. Obama promised to get the U.S. out of the war yet has increased our Afgan troops! These crazy cycles will continue untill the public truly wakes up! I only hope this ends up in a peaceful solution, or we could end up with another Dark Age!


Title: Re: Modern political history
Post by: Mork on February 21, 2010, 10:18:00 PM
Quote
So a question we might want to discuss is...What are the roots of our modern political history?

OK, TS, ya got my attention :o

I think Thomas Jefferson had it right:

   I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing ...

In a broad way, I see the founding of the USA as a way to wrest the control from a family [royals] to those who have the money and make it. When a current form a rule cannot adapt to changing times, revolution is ripe to happen. I see the formation of the Lutheran church being of the same vain in separating from Rome because of its inability to change itself. Though England and the Catholic church in no way resembles what they were back then, it does show in simplistic terms why change happens. Tsarist Russia to the CCCP to current day Russia could be argued as an additional example. As I see it, when rule reaches a stagnant level, change can happen if rule cannot adapt fast enough.

I'm just whizzing from the brain on this as I manage a cocktail so, I'm sure I'm missing something or being over presumptuous. It doesn't explain why Cuba hasn't changed from its revolution ~50 years ago or maybe we've been indoctrinated by too many of the Anti-Castros from Miami of whom most never lived there to know first hand knowledge.

Are we on the verge of a little "rebellion?" I have my reservations but we are on the verge of a bit of evolution of how the powers that be pacify the masses to have them belive that they're acting in our best interests.

The only reason why anyone in Washington is in favor of gun control is so they feel safe from those who voted for them.


Title: Re: Modern political history
Post by: Ronald L. Hughes on February 22, 2010, 02:02:06 AM
Mork, who is possibly from Ork, wrote;

"The only reason why anyone in Washington is in favor of gun control is so they feel safe from those who voted for them."  I don't know whether or not this line is a quotation from someone other than Mork, or if it is his /her own revelation?  But, what ever, it is a "great slogan" for "gun control!"  You may well expect to see it in some informational program, or news-letter, in the next month or so?

But, possibly, and just possibly, it might well have something to do with the fact that in the last 20 years or so, there have been a couple of incidents, whereby certain "anti-gun" Democrats were surprisingly, found to be the carriers of "handguns!!", and they had supposedly voted to contain gun sales, etc., for many years!

Of course, I would call such acts as the height of hipocracy!  But, who am I to throw stones?

Is the use of guns to scare or kill political opponents more often used by "gun rights" supporters or by "gun control" opponents?  I'm not completely sure, but I would bet that those whose political aims were or are considered as "left wing" or that wing of the pol that is more likely to support "gun control" might well be the very ones that have used said items in the last 50 or so years against politicans, etc.!

Just recently a "left wing" professor in N. Alabama, reportedly used her handgun to shoot fellow professors!  Certainly the young man who shot George Wallace could not be considered as a supporter of the "American Rifle Association!"  Nor could the woman who shot at Gerald Ford, or the person who shot Reagan!  Even the alleged shooter of JFK who, it seems lived for a consideral period in the Soviet UNION!

Speakking of UNIONS, maybe it was a Gun nut" who killed that great UNION leader named Jimmy HOFFA? 
Who knows?

2nd Ammendent for ever!

Ron


Title: Re: Modern political history
Post by: Mork on February 22, 2010, 03:08:45 AM
Quote
The only reason why anyone in Washington is in favor of gun control ...

The quote is mine. It's meant to poke fun at politicians in that they only vote for bills that serve them in some way (or if they are completely exempt from it.) Self preservation is a good motive. If voters weren't interested in shooting them, they wouldn't care but, that's not to say we'd hear lots of rhetoric on the subject to con the masses that they're try to serve us. The movie "Distinquished Gentleman" starring Eddie Murphy comes to mind.

I hadn't really thought of it before but you raise a valid point that is very true. Both sides of an argument using the same example to their benefit. It illustrates the gross manipulation of information to reach the conclusion one wants. Disregard a point here and a point there and presto - you view is fully supported.

I guess the significance of this is when to apply it. In some case, playing silent while your opponent babbles on can serve one quite well. The Viet Nam Tet offensive was a battle that was a severe blow to NV but, the US media at the time called it a victory for NV. Obviously, NV simply kept quiet and let the US hang itself resulting in quitting the war a few years later. How to turn a foe's victory or asset into a liability is on the minds of every political strategist. Sometimes, the foe does it all themselves.



Title: Re: Modern political history
Post by: Truth Seeker on February 22, 2010, 04:38:19 PM
I hate to sound like a bumper sticker...."But if guns are illegal, only outlaws will have guns". There have been recent examples of shooters going wild on campuses and such where the security people couldn't carry a gun, therefore allowing many others to be shot before the shooter could be shot stopped. I've also heard the argument pertaining to the second amendment as only relating to a militia, that isn't needed anymore because we now have the National Guard! There are also numberous examples of tyrantical governments taking the citizens guns under some guise of protecting the public. The question might be, how could the the public protect themselves againt the Government?


Title: Re: Modern political history
Post by: Mork on February 22, 2010, 05:05:52 PM
I was making a joke about politicians creating laws to serve their interests and not trying to start a debate about gun control.  My views on the topic are not up for debate on this website or any other for that matter since most of the arguments from either side aren't much more than a collection of sound bites and anedotal justifications that best typifies the emotional intensity of their position. It effectively reduces the debate to who has better command of the English language and emotional will and very little about the issue.


Title: Re: Modern political history
Post by: Truth Seeker on February 23, 2010, 04:13:21 PM
Mork, I certainly wouldn't argue the point(s) of your last post. It was well put. Couldn't all such sensitive subjects be viewed in much the same way? Retoric is just a tool used to persuade a person. I see that gun control is just one of the many subjects within the scope of what the rulers use, to "disarm" the American public.


Title: Re: Modern political history
Post by: Mork on February 23, 2010, 05:12:16 PM
Quote
Couldn't all such sensitive subjects be viewed in much the same way? Retoric is just a tool used to persuade a person.

Yes, I thought about that too after posting. There is significant "truth" in that. To me, the debate seems more filled with emotiontional-based motivation than actual facts than other polarizing topics. Abortion is one that distills down to a few key points - for example, when does "life" begin, when does a child's rights begin, whose life takes precidence and faith beliefs and a couple of more. When one cannot agree on those starting points, the discussion turns into a shouting match. Gun control is also one that more are overly quick to jump in given the decades of good-sounding catch phrases that illustrate a particular view. The debate is also fueled by media ignorance not differentiating between simple things such as a semi-automatic and fully-automatic weapon. To me, it's like hearing about Tiger Woods - unless there is some real news, quit all the news about him. Isn't there something more important happening in the world?

Quote
I see that gun control is just one of the many subjects within the scope of what the rulers use, to "disarm" the American public.


I see it more as a pacification of their supporters to keep them under their fold. It doesn't affect them any since no laws apply to them - and if they are caught, they claim "I didn't know it was illegal." "I didn't know that shooting my wife 39 times was illegal so, let me free with a warning!"

The previous brings me to a new point - Plausible Denial.

It's all the rage. In an age where political secrets are now gone after with a vengence, the excuses for moral regressions seem to excuse those of power from punishment. The public, in general, says OK. If any of the rest of us used such excuses - they would be ignored and we'd be whupped. "I didn't know it was wrong" and "I never heard him say those kinds of racist remarks" are a couple of the lines that let the powerful off scott-free. Unless you can provide a recording of their actions or evidence of knowledge, they are not assumed but, found innocent. The latter (knowledge that something was wrong) is particularily troubling in that the powerful can cite ignorance as an excuse when the rest of us can't. It seems the media rarely emphasisies this unless the person is against the publisher's politics. Plausible Denial - the powers that be can use it but the masses cannot.



Title: Re: Modern political history
Post by: Truth Seeker on February 23, 2010, 08:56:45 PM
Just to stir the pot a little more... Would "Plausible Denial" apply to The 9/11 Comission Report findings, if that some facts contained within it are either wrong, alterd or deleted? Those involved with the comission could just say,"we didn't know," Put a good spin to it,  and hope to get elected to some office, or maybe get a nice fat lobbyist job? I believe that someone might call their involvement treason!

I can accept the fact that I may be alone here on this one (9/11). Its hard to ignore patterns of our past that get the U.S. into full blown war. It resembles the same power struggles thruout all the ages in every country. "Remember the Bismark" for W.W.1, Pearl Harbor for W.W.11 et al.  But look we're all friends with the Germans, and Japan now. Those buildings going down in New York certainly made every American want to (for the moment anyway) go and kill some Arab.

 I believe that at our core, most rational humanoids wherever we may live, know that we've all just been played again! Or maybe that is part of the problem, that most rational people are still not ready to even look at the game. I'm not supporting any one Conspiracy theory here, just venturing to say...That the official findings and implications of the 9/11 comission are dubious at best. How far do we want transparency to go?


Title: Re: Modern political history
Post by: Ronald L. Hughes on February 23, 2010, 10:35:26 PM
 ???  Dubious!

Not for me! :-X

I still support the Warren Commission! :P

Ron


Title: Re: Modern political history
Post by: Mork on February 23, 2010, 11:55:26 PM
Public reports are more to quell the masses than they are to provide facts. So much is done for image and not for real need or effectiveness. I think of "duck and cover" drills, soldiers on-guard with unloaded guns in US airports and anti-bacterial hand-soap - all totally useless and designed to lull us into a false sense of security or cleanliness. I don't hold much credit to the reports since most are tailored to a pre-disposed conclusion.

But, the masses don't care and never will. They get an answer in a neat little package that is black and white in its conclusions. The general public doesn't think for itself and isn't much different than 100 years ago when it comes to voting psychology. One would think that with all the avenues for information such as the Internet, television, etc. that people would learn about the issues that affect them. They don't. Instead they vote for whomever Rush says is his man or Oprah says is our hope. Somebody else decides for them. What's particularily interesting about the last presidential election is voter turnout. One would think that it would been higher than previous elections but, it wasn't. About the same percentage of eligible voters turned out. Only the demographics of the eligible list was different than past elections. All the easily available sources of information and it isn't used. A 100 years ago, one got the same results with a catchy slogan and the right advertisment in a newspaper. Overly simplistic? Yes, but it does illustrate that ignorance is something that cannot be legislated away.


Title: Re: Modern political history
Post by: Truth Seeker on February 24, 2010, 12:49:01 AM
Touche' Mork....and Ron, the Warren Commission? Really? Maybe I am a conspiricy nut.   ???


Title: Re: Modern political history
Post by: Ronald L. Hughes on March 19, 2010, 01:23:28 AM
Actually, since I am a retired Federal Agent, there is no other way to go!  Either you believe agents who were hired for there abilities to make decisions, and examine and describe crime scenes, and then to testifiy before God, etc., that what they saw, said, and found, is true!  Then you have to follow the answers of the Warren Comission!

No matter how much it hurts those crazy "conspiracy nuts!"  If you follow that trail, you end up with; 1. no man on the Moon!, 2. Remote control pilots flew airplanes into the World Trade Centers, and the Pentagon, and into the ground in PA!, and 3. Aliens live amongst us!

OK, OK, I will conseed that "Aliens" do live amongst us!  But, they are from Mexico, or some other Central or S. American nation, or from China, or Russia, or "pick one choice from column a., and one from column b.. etc.!"

While I have actually seen Federal Agents or personnel lie!  I have never seen an innocent person convicted in Court, due to the lies!  Mostly it was due the ignorance of the agents in question, (and the ignorance of their supervisors) rather than the facts!  And, sometimes, my behavior at these acts, cost me greatly!

But, I was never a "hero!"  I was merely honest!

Regards,


Title: Re: Modern political history
Post by: Truth Seeker on March 19, 2010, 09:54:15 PM
Actually, You strike me as a honest man. You bring up good points and the things that I observe, in no way reflect a point of view suggesting that you or anyone you worked with, would ever knowingly do anything against God and country! I have never had a beef with the men in women in service to our country, I tend to honor them. However I have several complaints against those fat cats in suits that put those trusting people in harms way, for agendas that the working soldier knows nothing about.

I'm sure you are familer with the M.O. "You'll know only what you need to know", and a"good soldier follows orders without question". Indoctrination and brain washing are tools used for good and neferious purposes. Perhaps the concept of the manchurcian canadate is only fictional?


Title: Re: Modern political history
Post by: Mork on March 20, 2010, 02:04:59 AM
Quote
"You'll know only what you need to know"

More accurately, "You'll know what we want you to know." Having been on the other side of information, I've seen purposely leaked information information that was deliberately erroneous. Other times, I've seen conclusions drawn by "outsiders" and accepted as fact be completely wrong but, not corrected since it served a purpose. After seeing this in action many times, it's hard to believe statements from senior officials as being true. It goes to follow that if the truth sounds too far fetched, ignoring it or poking fun at it can be far more effective than covering it up. Add to the mix the selective statement of facts - only those that support your view - in discussions and one can lead the masses around like sheep.


Title: Allowing Token Dissent
Post by: Chuck-Star on March 20, 2010, 05:55:07 PM
... and don't forget, neutralize dissent.  Control of dissent is evidently more effective than suppressing dissent.

Along those lines, if the Tea Party was a genuine grass roots movement (gaining momentum and Internet presence), why in the world would they invite Sarah Palin to be the key note speaker at their convention?  Looks like the Tea Party is either a manufactured protest organization, or has been effectively co-opted.


Title: Re: Modern political history
Post by: Mork on March 20, 2010, 06:12:15 PM
Quote
... and don't forget, neutralize dissent.

Ahhh, yes! Very important!

Quote
... why in the world would they invite Sarah Palin to be the key note speaker at their convention?

Because they couldn't get the Kool-Aid man to bust into the room and belch, "OH YEA!" I think their selection of her was more to draw media attention to the movement than it was that they really cared about her rhetoric.


Title: Token Reformists
Post by: Chuck-Star on March 21, 2010, 03:24:16 PM
That definitely got them major media attention, but it disgusted prospective members (like me).  But, maybe real reform is not what they're after (any more).  They were either lame to begin with or have been neutralized.


Title: Re: Modern political history
Post by: Truth Seeker on March 21, 2010, 10:36:27 PM
I was kinda hopping for a Thomas Paine/Ron Paul/ Thomas jefferson combo pac to show up. This person could be male/female, black /white/yellow/brown or red as far as I'm concerned. Both of the major parties need serious house cleaning. The Tea Party has shown promise. Unfortunately, I see a similar sitution as Ross Perot's independent bid. One that started out strong and ended up in loony land. Intergerty and politics seldom go hand in hand, at least in my lifetime. Real change might be nice, wouldn't it?


Title: Re: Modern political history
Post by: Truth Seeker on April 27, 2010, 06:04:05 PM
I am feeling a little more than pessimistic of our present political situation. The double speak that comes from our present administration and congress seems to me as one of the most deceptive and convoluted presentations in our nations history. It certainly could be argued that simular conditions have pervailed in the past, and that our present day situation isn't so unique. In my opinion the polarization in America today is on par with pre Civil War times. The main difference between then and now is the sophistication of the various media to equally present information and dis-information, making it virtually impossible to decern which "side" or agenda actually serves our country, individual freedom, and the persuit of happiness. I guess those ideals are of little concern to the world powers ruling today.


Title: Re: Modern political history
Post by: Mork on April 27, 2010, 06:56:20 PM
TS, I agree. I look at much of the rhetoric being what people want to hear. It doesn't matter if true or not, just that they want to hear it. For example, "excessive profits of drug companies" being cited when profits by them are less than phone companies, food manufacturers and entertainment (movies). What good are drugs if we can't call for a prescription or afford to buy food? Are we to expect profit regulation in the future? I realise that I'm being excessively simplistic but, the rhetoric is exactly the same - excessively simplistic. On the flip side, Sarah Palin is doing exactly what Obama is doing - telling supporters exactly what they want to hear... but, not the truth. Sure, both have truth in what they say but, it's done with their color of paint. I agree that the B.S. level is essentially unchanged but, the delivery mechnaism is continously changing to ever fool the masses.

Consider this - I used to work for the Federal Government - I knew of a person, a secretary, that was fired for accepting a gift of around $70 in value. Rules stated that none could be accepted for more than $50 per year from a government contractor. The rationale was to eliminate the possibility of influencing selection and preferences given to Government contrators. Members of congress are exempt. So, tell me how a secretary will influence the selection of a contractor for a 50 billion dollar contract whereas the congressman/woman is free of influence?

Yes, the lies are still there as 150 years ago except at a much higher level.