Recent CNN polls indicate that 70% of Americans believe the country is going in the wrong direction. Is this due to the efforts and promises of Obama to, "--fundamentally change America." and what, precisely does that mean? The foundation of America is the Constitution; is it the ambition of Obama and the Democratic Party to dismantle the Constitution and rebuild America using another political philosophy?
That most believe that America is going in the wrong direction; what direction might that be and is it possible to turn America around?
Political Correctness seems to be a fundamental principle of the Obama administration. At what point does political correctness become a political mandate dictating speech and defining words that can and cannot be used and in the process eliminating free speech? Is political correctness just another phrase for George Orwell's Newspeak?
"The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought -- that is, a thought diverging from the principles of IngSoc -- should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever." The principles of Newspeak
Well doh! We all know Obama wants to replace the United States with an Islamic State. He is a Muslim after all.
Clearly it is Obama's intention to replace the constitution with Sharia Law. What else would you expect of someone who's ideas are so "foreign" to the American people.
Yes, but only if all red blooded, right thinking Americans rise up in armed struggle against the tyranny (this message was sponsored by the NRA).
Definately. Remember the good ol' days when you could just call someone a n****r. It was great. Everyone knew where they stood. It became almost a term of endearment. People would leave their house in the morning and shout across to their neighbour "hey n****r, looks like another fine day today". But not any more. Now you can't say that word unless you are one of those hippety-hoppety artists. You know the fellas that make all that devil music. You can't even shoot dead an unarmed black kid now without everyone fussin and frettin. Yep, really miss the good ol' days before all this political correctness took over. Things were so much simpler then.
This is the most ridiculous bias mess I think I have ever read.
You seem you have a few problems there Don. The next time you reply consult a dictionary, it will help in the spelling of some words that you seem to have difficulty with. You might bring some intelligence, as well.
For the benefit of you and Rhamsom:
"A feature of satire is strong irony or sarcasm—"in satire, irony is militant"—but parody, burlesque, exaggeration, juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing. This "militant" irony or sarcasm often professes to approve of (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to attack."
Well I guess you either got the point across or didn't. I obviously missed your humor and responded to the extreme stereotype that it represented. Thank you for clearing this up.
To cut and paste does not substitute for an intelligent argument.
I do believe you missed the point - Don's cut and past was not intended as an argument, but as an explanation for an earlier post.
No I did not miss the point There are no excuses for such an ignorant rant.
I don't know - what I got from it is the sense that Don thinks that in many ways America is on the right track.
So do I, although I will also say that the current socialist trend of taking care of people from cradle to grave will absolutely destroy the country in time.
Just read your profile. I retired to rural MI from Southern CA several years for many of the same reasons you made your move. My neighbors are mostly trees, deer and a great deal of quiet. As you, I see the same virus creeping into the small towns. I guess the old adage of, "You can run, but you can't hide." is true.
You are a much more tolerant man than I am.
LOL Don't know about the "tolerant" - I absolutely hate what I see happening in the country fiscally. But I do like what I'm seeing socially as we become more tolerant as a nation of others. And I actually got a little giggle out of Don's post - it was so far over the line that I just assumed it was satire and sarcasm. I use that sometimes, too, and it doesn't always come across, but this one did. It just fit with what I find right and good within our society.
Now why can't we find a political party that is conservative both fiscally and socially? A party that accepts people for what and who they are but recognizes the need for fiscal responsibility instead of trying to make a utopia out of someone else's pocketbook?
I think that we should have a Party that embraces something called individual freedom, something in line with The Bill of Rights. What more can one ask for than to be free to achieve, on ones own merits and talents, but than the government cannot control you.
Well I tried the subtle approach, so now let me be direct.
I find the opening comment to be idiotic and devoid any anything that might be described as useful or sensible. I believe your questions about the direction of America, the dismantling of the constitution, and political correctness to be no more than crude dog-whistle accusations posed as questions, intended to imply that there is something un-american about Obama, the Democratic Party or both. I find it amusing that you believe your comments are not completely transparent to anyone with the ability to read and think. I find it even more amusing that you seem to believe making a literary reference will imbibe this nonsensical rubbish with an air of credibility or authority. It doesn't.
Had you taken more than a cursory glance at George Orwell, whose work you seem intent on hijacking for your own ends, you would have known that Orwell was in fact a staunch democratic socialist, and Nineteen Eighty Four was about the betrayal of socialism, not a criticism of socialist ideals. Orwell was anti Soviet Russia/Stalin, i.e. totalitarianism and very much pro democracy and socialism. The fictional language of Newspeak is a criticism of totalitarianism, which is associated with the right of the political spectrum not the left. Obama and the Democratic Party therefore have more ideology in common with Orwell than you appear to. Your apparent ignorance of this is the epitome of irony. I suggest next time you decide to use such a tired old trope, you pause to actually think about it, or at the very least do the smallest amount of research.
I would go on to criticise the annoying lack of paragraphs in your comment (is hitting the return key twice really that difficult?) and the indiscriminate use; of; semi; colons; at the beginning, but that would be pedantic, so I wont. In short I find the opening comment had no redeeming features whatsoever.
I hope that wasn't too subtle, and that this constitutes what you deem to be an "intelligent" argument. If not, then I apologise for my lack of knowledge and education, and bow to your superior wisdom.
(the last sentence was irony again, just to avoid any confusion)
"Orwell was in fact a staunch democratic socialist"
"very much pro democracy and socialism"
Unfortunately, democracy and socialism are a poor fit. Democracy must always be tempered by both needs and desires of the minority of society or it fails. Voters in a good democracy (not ours) must vote for the good of the nation, not their own personal good.
"What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses" Robert Heinlein
Which is what has happened to our own democracy; the large majority votes for "bread and circuses", always at someone else's expense. Ever more government control, ever more government spending and ever more government taxation. Socialism, in other words, where great effort is made to appease the masses regardless of the effect on the country, and all in the name of re-election. Indeed a political ad in my paper today touted a specific politician for "bringing home the bacon", defined as funneling federal funds into state coffers and is an excellent example.
Unfortunately (for you) it is capitalism that calls for even more government spending and taxation.
Spending on an army of unemployed and spending on an army of low paid workers who can not live on what capitalism pays them are all a product of capitalism, not socialism.
Increases in taxation on the workers is needed to allow corporate capitalists to avoid paying their taxes.
Hey Wilderness, long time no speak. Hope all is well with you.
I'm greedy. I want the best of all worlds. I want the freedom a democratic system, the prosperity of a capitalist system, and the social justice of a genuine socialist system (as apposed to Soviet communism). I don't think socialism has to be about appeasing the masses at the expense of the country. I think it can be about ensuring social justice, for the benefit of the country, it's just a question of balance. I think balance is the key.
I agree that the current political landscape is grotesquely misshapen, and that "government" has just become about self-serving groups who seem to be more and more incapable of making decisions that benefit society, and instead make decisions based on what will help them maintain their own positions and agendas. There has to be a better way for society to make group decisions than the current system.
Spot on Don!
You also spoke of "balance being the key," which I think is also spot on. But being the Curmudgeon that I am, I don't see any movement in that direction until we somehow find a way to qualify the right to vote with the need to be informed.
Ahhh! Blasphemy, I know. But when your mark can affect the direction of a government, that mark should represent more than the ability to make an "X," (or the ability to get to a polling place).
Agree, but for the "social justice" thing. When that comes up it seems to invariably mean "give me what I want at your expense", and has nothing to do with justice or reasonable reward for services/products rendered.
For instance, and for discussion sake, which ones are aimed at accomplishing "social justice"?
free/subsidized health care
minimum wage based on politicians idea of a living wage rather than value received
subsidized rent, section 8 housing
I admit I had to Google "Democratic Socialist," I never imagined anyone with real world life experience would put those two words together.
I came across this; What is Democratic Socialism? Q & A
... and I still can't imagine "Democratic Socialist" to be a valid word combination.
You and Heinlein nailed it.
----If my comments were, but a dog whistle then they were successful. It would seem that you did respond. Good boy. Your response as a rabid junk yard dog is now understandable.
It would seem that I am not alone in the notion that this country is going in the wrong direction. Perhaps, I did give the wrong impression, as it was not my intention to imply, but point to what I and many others believe to be true. I believe that there is a great deal, that is un-American about Obama, the Democratic Party and many Republicans, as well. We can take that by the numbers if you like. The man is a consummate and documented liar and he has chosen to function beyond the limits of the Constitution.
Can you clarify, "I find it amusing that you believe your comments are not completely transparent to anyone with the ability to read and think."
As for “1984” and Orwell, I am well acquainted with both and we can fine tune that understanding as well.
"Rabid junkyard dog". Is that the best you can muster? I'm disappointed. If I was paying for this argument, I'd want my money back. You could have called me a pompous, left-leaning, tree-hugging, communist-sympathising, do-gooder with delusions of grandeur. Or an egotistical, trumped up, wannabe social warrior, with a penchant for verbosity and over-dramatisation. Those at least have a bit of creativity and flair don't you think. Although I shouldn't be surprised that your insults have as much imagination as your political argument. Speaking of which . . .
First you whine about the big bad Obama, and the naughty Democrats with their un-american activities, then when someone calls you out for engaging in dog-whistle politics you change the target to include Republicans too. No dice. Unless you can show me where in the original comment you included Republicans (or anyone on the right of the political spectrum) then I'll stick with my original assertion that your comment is no more than a dog-whistle message dressed up as a sensible enquiry.
As for taking it it by the numbers. Lots of people believed slavery was right during the civil war. That Doesn't mean it was. Lots of people think UFOs are alien spaceships. Doesn't mean they are. See how that works? Lots of people may think the country is "going in the wrong direction". Doesn't mean it is. Appealing to popularity is a fallacy, and not the best way to determine public policy.
Thank you for the invitation to clarify my remarks, but I think everything I've said is self explanatory. And I don't feel the need to "fine tune" my understanding of Orwell thank you, mainly because I dislike everything you have said to me up until this point, and I'm really not very optimistic that you will break that trend any time soon.
It would seem that you have told me and you did you a good job. I did invite the process and you obliged.
In reading some of the posts here, your position seems a bit weak and unsustainable, especially your stated positions to Wilderness. I would also disagree that your comments need no further clarification. You can respond in a barrage of insults if you like, but that would not clarify your statements or backup your positions.
Perhaps, if we leave out the rants and insults there may be some positive ground here. It is your choice.
I hope you don't mind if I join the conversation Don.
Interesting exchanges that include opportunities for discussion relative to real-life vs Utopian perspectives, rather than "your facts are wrong - Are not, Are too, etc.etc." are always more enjoyably interesting - for me at least.
So, here are a few points that add up to my twelve cents worth.
Your first satirical response was too "over-the-top" to be taken any more seriously than you claim the OP should be. Your second response was much more understandable and explanatory.
For instance, I would venture that outside the circle of Orwell devotees, (or Socialists), "1984" represents an allusion to a large all-powerful, totalitarian government. Which too many folks equate with Socialism, or at the least, socialistic economic concepts. I doubt very many folks interpreted it as a lament of the "death of socialism." Whether they are mistaken or not, their understanding is informed by their perspective - rightly or wrongly, it is what it is. Too many times perspectives are more real than truth, and I generally find debating an erroneous perspective to point out its problems much more effective than condemning it as idiotic. Which most of us know usually results in a defensive rather than receptive attitude. (sorry for the long paragraph)
So as much as you take the OP to task for his use of the book as an analogy, that analogy may have made sense to more folks than not. (the "more folks" not being as knowledgeable about Orwell as you are)
I don't have to agree with his perspective to understand what he meant. And even if I were an Orwell scholar, I think I could still understand his use of "1984."
On your satirical "replace the United States with an Islamic State. He is a Muslim after all." point, yep, there are some real winners out there shouting that from their corner bar stools, but I again venture to say a more common perception of this OP point, (and the one I credited the OP as intending), related to a perceived change from an "American Dream" type of America to a "welfare state America." Of course I could be wrong - maybe the OP will chime in with some clarification.
(ps. let me apologize aforehand(sp?) for my love of the hyphen and dash. I do try to be moderate with my semi-colons though.)
I am betting we could have quite a go-round on the Political Correctness topic because I think it is a much deeper subject than just euphemisms, ie. African American vs. ..... , and much more damaging. But that topic deserves its own thread.
There are more valid responses worthy of discussion in your comment, but this should do for a start.
I hope my lack of satirical effort, or grammatical critique didn't leave a fuzzy impression, or that my critique of your satirical effort be viewed as pedantic.
(but just in case - I do not agree with the majority of the OP's points, and I do not think his "1984" references were misused at all)
*That last sentence was also not an attempt at satire or irony.
Nice to see such a well thought out, well expressed response, so thanks for that.
I have no issue with criticism of Obama and the Democratic Party, but I take issue when someone ignores the bigger picture and implies that all the problems with government and politics in general stem from Obama, the Democratic Party and the concept of political correctness. Instead of dividing along ideological lines where those of an individualist political persuasion are pitted against those of a collective political persuasion, it would be better for people of all political persuasions to unite against a political system that has become utterly corrupt. Arguing about 'isms' is all part of the soap-opera that modern day politics has become, and people are mesmerised by it. Such people need a good slap to wake them up.
When Republicans are in the White House those on the left worry this will become a 'privatised', dog-eat-dog, compassionless society where we spend more on bombing people abroad than helping people at home. When Democrats are in the Whitehouse, those on the right worry this will become a socialist, entitled, lazy society where we spend more on subsidising the undeserving poor than investing in those willing to take personal responsibility. And so it goes. Meanwhile no one notices the fact that ACME Corporation is funding both the Democrats and the Republicans because it doesn't matter who is in power, as it has the money to influence either way. None of that is to do with 'political correctness' or Obama (any more than other politicians) or the Democrats (any more than any other political party). This is not a partisan problem.
So I appreciate the sensible reply, but I remain unconvinced. The OP has missed the mark entirely in my view. It's pointless to complain about the fact that it happens to be the Democrats' turn to drive, all the while ignoring the fact that the car itself is falling apart. In other words, I believe that government, which should be an instrument of the people, no longer is, and is therefore fundamentally broken. Not because of who is in the White House, but because the democratic process itself has been undermined by years of abuse by a few at the expense of the many. People need to take back ownership of the democratic process. Once that's done, then a discussion about which direction to go would actually be meaningful. Until then, discussion about going in the wrong direction is just just pi**ing in the wind, in my opinion.
Although your response is one I heartily agree with, it does not address the OP's point - "The direction of America." Instead you speak to the corruption of our democratic and governmental processes. A point which I think even party ideologues would agree with, (albeit from different perspectives).
His intent seems to be to blame Pres. Obama, and by association, to demagogue the entire liberal agenda.
So why not address those points instead of demeaning them because they are only a subset of a larger problem?
With the caveat that polls are only tools, and as such only as valid as the use they are put to, I see this one as an indicator only, and place no confidence in the supposed percentages. And also that the OP's inclination to pose questions is really more of a statement of beliefs than just pondering questions
For instance; Disregarding the specific examples the OP mentioned, I agree that a majority of Americans may feel our country is going the wrong way, but I prefer to look at it on more basic levels - which of course are still, only my opinions. Meaning, I think rather then judgement of specific program examples, I think it is perceptions that paint a more telling picture.
The perception that President, (and candidate), Obama's promise to fundamentally change America means;
- a change towards a nanny and welfare state, vs. a nation of personal responsibility. Looking at the numbers; increased participation in USG, (U.S. Government), support programs, lowered participation thresholds, sometimes as low as 400% of the poverty-level guidelines - specific programs may be debated, but the truth of the perception seems hard to deny.
- a change in world perception of America as a strong world superpower, (even though sometimes arrogant and self-serving), to a more humble "equal footing" participant in world affairs. I think this has backfired. The reality is that strength is respected. Even if the application of that strength is wrong, the position of that strength is still respected. I think Pres. Obama's public leadership policies of America's "new" convictions has weakened the world's respect for our power and convictions as a nation.
The leader of a nation sets the desired direction and it is up to the strength of that leadership to get the legislatures to follow - I see a lot of truth in the OP's point laying on President Obama's doorstep.
On the contention he/they want to "shred" our Constitution - I see complete poppycock. Anytime someone's ox is getting gored the screams of Constitutional Rights start. , Legitimate gun control - if there is such a thing, is not shredding the Constitution, the Obamacare mandate, (as wrong as I think it is), when properly viewed as a tax and not a fee, is not shredding the Constitution, etc. etc.
I think the ideals of Pres. Obama and his party have presented challenges to our Constitution, but I think it has held fast as our national foundation.
Finally, to the Political Correctness point - I think this is much more a tool and agenda of the Left than of the Right, and I think it is harmful to our nation. Because I do not equate it to the euphemisms of Native American vs, Indian, or mentally challenged vs. retarded, or our progress in overcoming inbred racism, or our progress in women's rights, etc. etc.
I see Political Correctness just as the OP does when he equates it to Orwell's Newspeak. An attempt to make a lie into a truth, to rationalize an absurdity into an acceptable reality. Again, Poppycock!
So I suppose that even though I don't consider myself an "Obama Basher," and I don't see all our currently perceived ills as his fault, it appears I do agree with the essence of the OP. Oh well, maybe tomorrow will be better.
Damn! On preview this response seems much too reasonable - even for me. So how about a little hot sauce for the gumbo;
If Pres. Obama is such a socialistic Muslim, why hasn't he tried harder to curb the power of Wall Street? Why has he invested, (given/granted and insured), so much public money into private industry enterprises - without government-control strings attached?
If he is such a "dove" why has he condoned a more aggressive and lethal Drone program than Bush? Why hasn't he closed Gitmo?
If Pres. Obama is so intent on circumventing Congress via Executive orders, why is he averaging less of them then Bush? (Bush: 36 p/yr. Obama 32 p/yr.)
And if he is such a pawn of Political Correctness, why hasn't he succeeded in getting Americans to accept that illegal immigrants are really just undocumented workers, or that those high-profile terrorism attacks, (think Major Nidal Hasan or the recent Oklahoma "lone wolf" beheader Alton Nolam), are really just workplace violance?
Just as the opening poster has chosen to express the points he has, and you have chosen to address those points, I choose to express the opinion that engaging in such discussion (regardless of what side you come down on) while the entire democratic process itself continues to be undermined and dismantled, is senseless. In my view these left vs right, my-ideology-is-better-than-your-ideology discussions (that I think this thread would ultimately descend into if addressed seriously) are the equivalent of playing the violin while Rome burns. So you are correct that I have not addressed the OP's comments, but that is entirely deliberate. I fully intend for the OP to take my lack of direct serious engagement with his opening comment as a measure of my disdain for it.
Even if I did not think such discussion to be pointless, in this particular case it's also because those points seem to be nothing more than a reflection of the OP's bias and shortsightedness. He purports to want a serious discussion about going in the "wrong direction", but apparently that only applies to those on the left of the political spectrum. What's more he doesn't simply state his opinions in the opening comment, along with his reasons for holding those opinions. From subsequent posts he clearly believes that much about Obama and the Democrats is un-american. Instead of stating that opinion openly in the opening comment, he asks a series of questions, intended to give the impression he is engaging in an objective discussion; a facade that is as deceitful as it is crude and transparent.
This type of nonsense does not deserve to be taken seriously. If the OP wants serious discussion about how the country may be going in the wrong direction, then he should post an unbiased, nonpartisan view that gives examples of the problems from both sides of the political fence. Unless of course he genuinely wishes us to believe that nothing from the right of the political spectrum is taking the country in the wrong direction, in which case he must take us all for fools. As it stands, the OP has written something that amounts to no more than propaganda (ironic given the references to Newspeak). I have no interest in propaganda. I hold such biased, partisan rubbish in complete contempt, and I won't legitimise it with a serious response (as can be seen from my initial reply).
So again, while I appreciate your well expressed, careful consideration of the points raised by the OP, and respect your choice to address them, I will not be following suite. Instead I choose to again point out the fact that such discussion is like being in a car and complaining about the direction the driver is taking, all the while completely ignoring the fact that the car itself is being slowly dismantled piece by piece. If people must engage in such pointless discussions, at the very least they should make them objective. In my view the OP has failed on both counts.
Your first satirical response certainly seems to address the OP's points. As does your second explanatory response. If you feel his ideological position is not relevant, or worthy of comment, unless it also speaks to the general dysfunction of our political system, then why bother ridiculing his statements?
Do you think discussions like the OP's are pointless because there are bigger issues to discuss, or because you think any ideologically influenced discussion is pointless?
Isn't that a little like riding in a car and ignoring the fact that the front-end alignment is pulling you off the road - because the rest of the car is messed-up too?
First response was not intended to address the OP's comments seriously, and didn't. It was a satire. Second response explained what satire is. Third, criticises the disingenuous nature of the the OP's comments and the (mis)use of a literary reference to "imbibe this nonsensical rubbish with an air of credibility or authority". None of those responses directly address the OP's main point about whether America is going in the wrong direction.
Because, like the OP, I choose to express my opinion, even if that is a criticism of someone else's.
Both. People seem so mesmerised by the soap-opera of politics they can't see the bigger picture.
It is debatable whether the alignment is messed up. Some think it is, some think it isn't and that is the discussion the OP wants to have. But if the car is being dismantled piece by piece, that is a threat to everyone in the car. Whether we turn left or right is irrelevant at that point. What matters is that we stop the car from being dismantled. I think we've stretched the car analogy to breaking point here, but I hope the point is clear.
In my opinion: the key here is to observe how and how long, 'Americans' can keep their 'racial' purity. The word 'race' is intended here to mean a 'unified consciousness'.
There existed a 'sophisticated culture' in India a while ago. Now it's dead. The reason? ~well, there also existed in that culture a phenomenon called 'caste system'. It wasn't much different from the (unwritten) caste system that now exists in America (how many marriages come about between members of different communities in present-day America?).
The fall of that classic Indian culture began when the 'higher castes' started to marry from the members of the 'lower castes'. And that processes is complete now. It's all a hypothesis. But I would like to observe it on the American context as the years go by.
Thank you. Are you saying that mixed socio/racial marriages here, will have a similar effect or is having a similar effect?
I too, am fond of ancient Indian history. So much of what we are, to include our language was born there.
Exactly. If I know correctly: all the slums in America doesn't contain any 'white' population?
That might be one of the many illustrations of what this process is capable of.
Mixing, or eliminating the caste system in the country, will be difficult. Not impossible, but very difficult.
To intermarry, contact is required and there is very little contact between the castes in this country. They live in different areas, go to different schools and attend different functions (one to the opera and one to the neighborhood bar). They even speak a different language although it is still classified as "English".
That makes intermarriage very difficult. It would be interesting to look down the road a couple of hundred years and see if the system has been exacerbated or relieved. And if relieved, has the "upper crust" descended to the slums or pulled the people out of the slums? If the latter, what does our current propensity of supporting people while they do nothing to improve society or themselves say about the chances of that happening?
(Perhaps) Americans made the biggest mistake by bringing them here, in the first place. Americans are in advantage because they are more 'conscious' about it than the 'upper-caste' Indian were and still are.
But still ~ the issue is still there in America ~ and it will call for some serious consideration and action ~ within the next few centuries. It's all a hypothesis.
This are scenes from present-day Mumbai (India), 2010 .
Here is an interesting fact: All the Isaac Newtons and Thomas Edisons of India belong the to 'upper castes' (including ' Siddhartha Gautama' and many others):
America has been going in the wrong direction for over a century. While some good things have happened in all that time, the core of America has become progressively more and more corrupt.
In many ways, this was unavoidable, because most everyone has an Ego -- the source of selfishness, separation and self-concern.
Corporations are built on the principle of "self" first. In fact, corporate officers have a fiduciary duty to increase the bottom line.
Take pharmaceutical companies, for instance. Cures would be a fiscal tragedy for a pharmaceutical company. Corporate officers would be remiss in their duties if they didn't do everything in their power to gain leverage over the government in order to outlaw cures. The best thing for the bottom line would be something that would maximize profits. The best way to achieve this would be to prolong disease. Thus, pharmaceutical companies are naturally not in the curing business, but in the disease maintenance business.
Monsanto -- a chief GMO producer -- had the good fortune to have one of their former executives go to work for a scientific journal which had published articles condemning their GMOs as carcinogenic. That former Monsanto exec gained an editorial position that unpublished and condemned the offending articles. The chief editor admitted that there had been no scientific or ethical reason for the reversal of publication.
Monsanto also has former execs work for the FDA and FDA officers go to work as Monsanto execs. This type of revolving door tends to make the government a branch of Corporate life, rather than an instrument of public will.
When war means "peacekeeping" action, then you have to realize that Orwellian Newspeak is already being implemented. Of course, only American (or allied) wars have this label attached to them.
When the Constitution and Bill of Rights are progressively eroded, piece by little piece over several presidencies, then America is definitely headed in the wrong direction. As Franklin said, if you give up liberty for a little security, then you deserve neither.
But Americans -- and perhaps most humans -- have become so knee-jerk reactive that a little term like "conspiracy theory" closes their minds as if conspiracies never happen. Who would benefit from this characterization? One group would be the conspirators themselves. And if those conspirators also own the news media, entertainment media and the military industrial complex, then marginalizing the idea of "conspiracies" would be relatively easy and potentially profitable.
The Federal Reserve System is a private banking cartel with private owners. Most Americans think it's a government agency. In 1913, the creature from Jekyll Island was born and has trashed the American economy ever since. The Fed could have ameliorated the effects of the Great Depression, but its policies only deepened the suffering. And instead of arresting the criminals who ruined the economy in the 2008 housing bubble, the Fed recommended bailing them out. Bankers rewarding fellow bankers (thieves).
And 9/11 is perhaps the worst offense of our Corporate Party and its puppet government.
The fact that WTC7 fell at perfect free fall for the first 8 floors of collapse is a dead giveaway that 9/11 was an inside job. Solid steel never, ever offers zero resistance, except in cartoons and government reports. Many Americans, including some hubbers, turn a blind eye. Normalcy bias? Lack of intelligence? Too much Ego? Perhaps a bit of each of these and more.
You don't have to look very far or deep to find signs of cover-up, too. The crime scene was scrubbed starting almost immediately, with WTC steel being shipped to China before it could be analyzed. Top military officers responsible for the massive security failures on 9/11 all received promotions instead of courts martial. And NIST scientists and 9/11 Commission investigators studiously avoided all evidence that went against the official conspiracy theory.
When Obama says that the prisoners at Gitmo should stay there indefinitely, even if found innocent, then you know we're headed in the wrong direction. When the President has a Kill List with American citizens on it, then we all need to wake up to the loss of liberty and the rule of law.
Tyranny is fun only for the tyrants. "Truth is treason in the empire of lies" (Dr. Ron Paul, "The Revolution: A Manifesto").
To be honest with you, I normally do not read your posts, as not all things can be answered with ego which is invariably your answer to everything. I would agree here with many of your claims, especially the Fed.
Lets assume that your are right and ego is the cause of all of Mans trouble. Should we legislate against ego. Should we simply ban any perceived outcome that would reflect an ego. Would you say invention and the achievement of a patent is ego-concentric? For that matter any achievement brought on by ones intellectual or physical prowess is to be considered ego and the use of a banned substance?
How would you go about removing an ego?
The tyrant is the most unhappy of men… why?
because everyone hates him.
by GA Anderson3 years ago
We are not equal, life is not fair, there are winners and losers - Deal with it.Forums of polite discussions. Threads of polemic rhetoric. Well, we can still be polite, but it is time to not be afraid to call a spade a...
by Nick Lucas6 years ago
Do you think political correctness has gone to far and caused many problems?
by lostgirlscat7 years ago
If you'd been a prosyletizing Catholic, Mormon, Jew or any other"orthodox" religion, the military would have evicted you from their ranks, but be a radical muslim, such as Major Nidal Malik Hasan and instead...
by Flightkeeper6 years ago
Juan Williams who forks for NPR as a political analyst was fired for expressing a fear on the Bill O'Reilly show. "Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in...
by qwark7 years ago
Why are we "Americans" so damned sensitive about the way something is verbally expressed?Why not tell it like it is!?
by ahorseback17 months ago
While places like , Brussels Belgium burns , In America we are worried about the relationship between a potential Trump presidency and BLM , about how women think he's a pig , we are...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.