the American 2 Party System

Pretty interesting convo in here. I understand and agree with a lot of the points presented but one thing keeps coming to mind…

…the nature of the beast. There is a lot to be said regarding absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Personally, I think Bush had good intensions and a heart to do what he thought was right in light of multiple attacks on US interests and US soil for decades culminating in the heinous and devastating attack on 9-11...

...but yeah....he certainly helped this crazy train chug along...which now seems to be moving along at breakneck speed.

BHO may even truly consider he’s acting in the best interests of the country…I dunno…but sadly for several decades now….it’s seems political leaders are more so in bondage to TPTB who may even consider THEIR agenda is for the greater good.

Globalization is GOOD…yeah….when you want to be the group that rules the world…

Some pretty freaky stuff I’ve read and watched regarding the Builderburger Group and such…I mean George Soros alone is a pretty scary guy...

I think, no matter how informed and educated we may be (or as others may be…I’m not all that bright really)…but I have a suspicion that none of us truly realizes just what goes on and what it takes to sit behind the desk in the Oval Office…or any political office for that matter.

It’s all well and good to have our thoughts and opinions…but how much do we really know and understand?

And I agree with Vam…more division amongst conservatives doesn’t really help and I might add….that while I appreciate the vigor of Libertarians to aptly point out what’s wrong with the Republican Party…well….until Libertarians take the wheel…we can’t really form an opinion or quantify how well they would do steering this loco motive…again…considering the nature of the beast and all.

But the bottom line…I think it’s all moot really…because IMHO…the powers that drive TPTB…aren’t of this world anyway…

…and no matter who sits in the Oval Office….God still sits on His throne…and as we submit to Him….we prayerfully do the best we can to serve Him for His praise and honor and glory as we navigate through this mess.

__________________
Joh 16:33 These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world."











To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
<--I take myself very seriously...

CaDan is right when he says that conservative has becomre more of a brand name than a term with actual substance.

The reason for this is that many self titled conservatives, and republicans have lost sight of what the conservative movement was all about.
The issue for conservatives is, what are we trying to conserve?

For many "conservatives" the reality is they merely want to conserve the status quo. They essentially want to conserve things as they are now, or more likely were 10 years, or 20 years ago.

For many who fall into this group there really is little to no real principle, or ideology behind their position. They are happy with life as they know it and they don't want it to change for the worse, either through increased taxation, or socially upsetting changes regarding homosexuality etc.

For quite a few others, they have some principles and some ideological basis for their position, but their beliefs are too simplistic, and thus have fatal flaws. ( I would put many of the neo-cons and guys like Hannity into this group). They've got some good principles, but they are lacking foundational understanding of even their own beliefs.

One of the key things here is the neo-con dogma of democracy and freedom. Obviously freedom is a good and desirable thing. However, to many in this group, freedom has become synonymous with representative government (which it is not) and freedom has become the chief virtue of both nation and people (which it is not). Freedom does not make people good, it doesn't show people the truth. They've got the cart before the horse... freedom only truly comes based upon goodness and truth, not the other way around.
Many in this camp also don't understand that the foundation, the core of liberty is the ability to live your life without government interference. As a result some in this camp have no problem increasing the size and intrusiveness of government, so long as the people have representation. True liberty is not ultimately synonymous with democracy. It is dependant upon individual rights being sacrosanct, or "inalienable", not the privilage of voting. Democracy can be just as tyrannical as any other form of government, and infact is likely to be, if the inalienable rights of every individual are not protected against the state and the community.

This group of people are trying to conserve an ideal that really can't long exist. The ideal of freedom without its foundation. It can only be propped up for a short time and in the long run is doomed to collapse.

Then there are varying degrees of conservatives who want to conserve our society as it was intended to be. Based on the founding principles carried to their logical extension. Thus preserving the ideals of limited non-intrusive government, individual rights, freedom of religion, rule of law, while at the same time eliminating the injustices and contradictions such as slavery, inequal application of the laws, etc. Also recognizing the inescapable truths that no immoral society can be a free society, and that only a society founded on core truths can be free.

very good insights

CaDan, i frankly think we need to get out of the 2 party system. I just cant see anyone from either party being electable in the not too distant future. The problem with our problems are, they are impossible to fix using current methods, and i frankly have to ask myself how men with all these resources, money committees universities, how is it they an be so consistantly wrong over so long an amount of time?

From this vantage point its not a leap at all to imagine that all the politics are nothing but an illusion, and the 'stupid mistakes' just neccessary means to brilliantly lead us to another destiny than the one we would have other wise chosen... to lead us by another agenda, one not publicized.

do i have evidence of this? Yes i do and it goes back nearly 50 years


Has anyone ever heard of state department publication #7277?

Because we get the government we want, for the most part. We like venal, greedy men who say pleasing things. And that applies to both liberals and conservatives. The Democrats chose Obama over Kucinich and the Republicans chose McCain over Paul.

I have many things I call "Rules of Life." Some of them aren't really rules, just observations. One of them is, "All those people you went to high school with? They didn't go away. They're still out there." It's corollary is, "Remember those irritating people who ran student government in high school? They're running the real government now."

Sorry--can't go there in this forum. I don't want to eat another "debating" warning.

Oh, with respect to the two party system:

It is entrenched, but I don't think it is eternal. On the left, the Green Party has been working for about thirty years quietly building support at the city council and county board level. It's not big, but it has slow steady growth. What is key is to find candidates who aren't "scary" and get a ground game going. You have to get candidates and eventually elected officials into the system at the lowest levels and build from there. It takes time and it takes work.

I've seen #7277 before.

regarding your question about how can they all be so wrong. Its easier than you think.

First, it requires looking at things in the context of history and some understanding about history at a general level.

History can be loosely organized into eras or time periods that are marked by over-arching trends in terms of art, fashion, philosophy, political movements, technology etc.

Anyone who has sat through a history class has heard these classifications.

ancient, classical, greco-roman, dark ages, medieval, renaissance, modern, and post-modern

These terms are of course all related to western civilization, and they each span hundreds of years (except post-modern). The reason that each of these classifications exists is because those time periods in western civilization were halmarked by dominant cultural features. Further those cultural features tended to influence almost every area of public life to some degree.

Usually within each there are sub-periods, and counter cultural movements, and the different periods generally blend into one another rather than starkly ending and beginning.

The reason that these distinct periods exist is because, for whatever reason(s), societies and indeed whole cultures tend to move towards a common worldview. You could also call it a common philosophy. The whole culture moves towards a common philosophy that then dominates the governments, the schools, the arts, religion, everything right down to military strategy and science.

The point I'm getting at is that when you look around and see people from different countries, different schools, different governments, different companies, etc all coming down in generally the same camp, with the same (often wrong) ideas, it isn't really evidence of a giant conspiracy. Rather it is simply what always happens and has always happened down through history. Those ideas (philosophy) dominate our culture.

Ironically this is even more true in our day than in the past. Why? because the education centers are much more interrelated, and because of the intercommunication between nations. The amazing availability of information and communication has not tended to increase diversity of ideas, rather it has tended to increase conformity, and consensus.

Virtually all of the schools teach the same basic ideas and philosophies. This is not because of conspiracy, but because of the nature of the academic community that we have created.
Since all the schools teach the same basic philosophy, the vast majority of people who are educated in those schools end up having the same basic philosophy. Even when there are diferences they are usually relatively small.

The reality is also that society is generally controlled by the educated. The heads of most of the major companies, almost all the government staffers, as well as the politicians themselves are educated at the schools mentioned above.
The state department for example, by tradition, draws most of its people from Yale. Thus whatever is taught at Yale, will be the dominant philosophy of the state department.

Combined with this there is another lesson of history worth learning. Powerful, wealthy societies always slide from conservative morality to libertine morality. This is not to say that their original morality was always "good" but it was always strongly controlled by tradition (and thus conservative). Invariably all such societies eventually lose their traditional restraints and become morally "liberal".

So what you are seeing is not new, nor exactly evidence of collusion or conspiracy. It is simply the way human society has always worked.

let me just give you the link to my blog

MySpace.com Blogs - Eric Da Wolf MySpace Blog

havent had that account long, but if youll look through the few blogs youll come to "state department publication 7277 and YOU"

"What im about to tell you will be so unbelievable (if youve never heard about this) That i'm going to give you verification from the US Senate. In the following link...

http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Publications_vrd.htm


Scroll down until you see the section "selected documents". Look down that section until you see " Freedom from War, State Department Publication 7277 (1961) " and click. This will take you to
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html .

What is this document? This is Statet Department Publication #7277, written by Then Senator John F. Kennedy. The title is FREEDOM FROM WAR... and it goes on to say that it is a plan to disarm the world. As you read the body of the document we come to see that it calls for disarming nations, each nation sending its army overseas, disarming nations, taking control over discenting nations, and creating an order ruled by the united nations.

Ironicly just 2 years after becoming State Department policy, Kennedy was killed for bucking the system he himself planned.

Written by Kennedy as a US Senator in 1959, it became state department policy in 1961 after he became president. Maybe THIS explains a few things. The men we elect, with all their committes and resources, are NOT so stupid that theyve 'accidently' led us into disaster for all these many decades. These men are working BRILLIANTLY toward a written objective. I will post the document in its entirety, and you can follow the links to verify the truth.


This has been before us for decades and we close our eyes and sleep

Enjoy,
Eric"


Click in and read the blog from july 1, sdp 7277 and YOU

if youll compare this plan with our history since 1961, including our present wars, youll see this agenda has been followed beautifully

Read it for yourself, its a bit long but wirth the effort to see what really just may be going on around you

for the most part i agree. on the other hand desperate circumstances can sometimes merit desperate measures.


While its true building ground support over years is a proven method, and generally should be the rule, i believe there are times when more revolutionary methods are called for and can be made effective... for instance the population stnading demanging a hand count vote only, no electronic balot boxes, even senate testimony shows they CAN be rigged. Then they could demand 1 man take office by public support... a legitimate vote where members from both parties cross lines to put in the man they deem to be the one to get things done their way.

and then demand that their reps take the neccessary measures to QUICKLY pass presidiential initiatives to remove corporate money from the system, remove pork crap, remove our foreign entanglements, and print our own money.

These are the things we need do to regain our sovereignty and our greatness i think

ok did i throw anyone with the 7277 document? lol

Originally Posted by WolfBitnGodSmittn

Call me a cynic but when it comes right down to it, i dont see a bit of differance between the republican and democratic parties, with the possible exception of abortion

Both head us toward centralization, strengthing the federal reserve, moving us toward a north american union AND a new world order.

I agree with you to some extent, especially on this point with both parties being very similar. If you actually look into "liberal" and "conservative" ideologies, you might actually come to some frustration as I have because there really doesn't appear to be a huge difference between "conservative" vs. "liberal" ideologies with the exception of culture maybe.

Particulalry, neoconservativism which is typically what the Republicans are. Neoconservativism is actually an offshoot of modern liberalism, and the founders of this ideology were actually democrats who became dissatisified with the Democratic party's stance on defence.

It's important to note that use of military isn't a characteristic in paleoconservatism (which is almost exactly like modern libertarianism and is why political ideology frustrates me). But, as I just said, the neoconservative movement is an offshoot of liberal ideology and is the reason why they are so similar.

Only main difference is that liberals are currently favoring diplomacy over military use and the neocons still favor military use. Yet, military force has traditionally been a big part of liberal ideology. Many influential thinkers in the world secular moralilty and justice have legitimized the use of military force with the intent of spreading liberty.

One prominent example is John Rawls who is big in modern secular thinking. In his publication The Laws of Peoples, Rawls actually states that liberal, tolerant people shouldn't tolerate nations violate humanr rights or whose government favors any particular faith and discriminates against minority fiaths. Such nations are not deserving of any kind of mutual respect that liberal nations like ours might show to each other and it is our moral obligation to destory these immoral societies with use of military force.

But, really this line of reasoning just corresponds with old-school liberal/secular ideology. This kind reasoning was popular among liberal, secular intellectuals at the time when we had to fight Nazis and the Communists. But, the trend among liberals today is to favor peace over war. Neoconservative movement came about when these old-school liberals refused to go with the new trend and thus the neocons came about.

Originally Posted by WolfBitnGodSmittn

They both increase the size of the government and its power, they both have militarized our police forces, both have passed legislation trashing our constitution...

I have a theory though... its the same money from corporations and banks that fund both sides... these people are NOT working an agenda fit to benefit Americans, they are working agendas benefitting their corporate benefactors.

We need to get the corporate money back out of the election system

That's pretty hard to do. As nice as traditional secular liberal ideology appears to many people, one of the flaws in democratic government is the inherent greed in the heart's of men. Another secular ideology which is at ends with liberal secualrism is Marxism, which used this flaw within capitalist states to legitimized their own.

But, if you force people to do whatever you might think is right you end up taking their freedom away and ultimately end up make the same mistakes authoritarian governments have made in the past. On the other hand, if you give people the freedom to do what they want then you're guaranteed that things like corruption and immorality will happen and may even get out of hand sometimes.