It's so funny. Keith Olbermann speaks the truth, yet I have no idea what to do about it. It seems the best thing we can do is simply feed the machine that begs for more power and watch it crumble under its own fascistic weight.
It's a tough balance, liberty and security. We could have absolutely no murders or negligent deaths if we lived under a police state, or we could be accused of being Hitler for allowing people the freedom to make their own decisions. So do we continue to feed the system that robs us of our liberty or do we take it down. I suggest feeding it. Are you suggesting a violent overthrow? My goodness. You could arrested for saying something like that.
I think we all, as a nation, need to become more aware of what is going and what our civil liberties are. We need to become more involved where our government is concerned. You can always write to your Congressman/woman or Senator. Be more aware of the person you're voting for, what are their beliefs and political stands. And always, ALWAYS, remember what our founding fathers fought and died for.
I'm confused by your comment above. Hitler did not allow people the freedom to make their own choices, so how could we be accused in the way you suggest? And it is not supportable to claim that if we lived under a police state that we could have absolutely no murders or negligent deaths. Did you really mean to state these things as you have?
I was essentially going the extra step in saying that if we live more freely, those who vouched for freedom could be held responsible for the "hundreds of thousands [who] would perish in the collapse.
We cannot give up what was so hard fought, because when we do that we've destroyed everything we've stood for. I think Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said "Those that would forsake essential liberties to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Gosh, HU, I am confused again. Who are you accusing of purchasing temporary safety? & why? Are your first 2 or 4 comments here complete tongue-in-cheek sarcasm? You appear to be calling for that purchase or trade-off yourself in them. & I still don't get the Hitler comment or your response.
I am saying that anyone who continues to vote for politicians who simply want power are purchasing temporary safety. Power eventually corrupts. By trying to choose between the lesser of all evils, we are simply delaying the inevitable. I am saying let's not delay the inevitable (collapse of the state) because the outcome, while it may be calamitous in some regard, will be our responsibility and no longer the government's.
Concerning the Hitler remark, I was simply suggesting that if we feed the machine faster until the inevitable comes, the faster we'd be on the road to true freedom and liberty. Someone else said that the amount of people that die from the collapse wouldn't be worth it. I took that to mean that I have genocidal mentalities, and that's where I put words in Bishop's mouth that he was essentially calling me a mass murderer.
I'm not sure Bishop was speaking to you personally, just voicing a well-programmed fear many share. (I still think the Hitler thing is whacked, but I agree with your sentiment.) But what do we feed the machine to bring it down? We've fed it our currency, our liberty, our laws, & our children, & it appears to be gaining ground on us...
Again, I must ask, feed it with what? Human greed is an instatiable appetite that is seldom appeased. Instead, perhps we should starve it--or even better, indict & convict the criminal element that has infested it in all 3 branches under existing laws, & repeal recently-passed legislation that is repugnant to liberty, from the Fed and the IRS to the John Warner Def bill & the Military Commissions Act.
Well then, right on. The behavior of the Dem Congress right now is full on evidence of that truth. Pelosi & her gang of go-alongs have not seriously addressed one issue that floated them into office last November. They've become accessories to a criminal administration, & refuse to defend the people or the Constitution.
I'm not qualified to say, but I think organized resistance seems to be the only viable option for us. That, and I can't say everyone should do this, but I'm just over consumerism; I'll hopefully be able to spend the rest of my life making 90% of my purchases being things that I need.
I agree! But all the newly lawful desecrations of liberty & invasions of privacy belie the need for a new level of organization--one that transcends the need for clandestine meetings and secret armories. Instead, each individual needs to instill a sense of justice & soveriegn responsibility to defy federal & state attempts to corporatize behavior. We all need to Just Say No to those who corrupt America with illegal laws & globalist policies.
I do think the problem is deeper than just beefing up a new constitution to make it REALLY hard to corrupt it. Do we just keep making new constitutions until we find the perfect one that allows the perfect amount of liberty and a perfect amount of safety? Well, what if something changes, and we don't want that anymore. How will we know when our morality and government appear to indistinguishable?
A new Constitution? There is nothing wrong with the old one, except that we don't follow it. Since the end of the Civil War, the US has moved away from a constitutional republic in favor of a corporate oligarchy, & since 1933, we have been operating as a bankrupt corporation in receivership at that. If we just held to the checks & balances put into place by the Constitution (w/ its ammendments) so much of the corruption of the last 50 years would have never been permitted.
Who is forcing the government to follow the Constitution? Nobody is holding a gun to the government's head saying "You better not bastardize the Constitution." At least not like the guns that are being held to our heads, saying that we better pay taxes or follow their laws or the men with guns in uniforms are going to take us away or kill us if we resist.
I don't see how we can possibly stand up to the government. That just seems pointless. We should just allow it to fail, and we do this by giving it what it wants. Power will eventually corrupt the system and the system will fail. Either power will corrupt or an insane depression will collapse the government because of all the money we've been borrowing as if it weren't just being magically created by the Federal Reserve. Just go with it.
In all honesty, that is what I have been doing. I have also been learning about the corporate & franchised fed, state, & local gov'ts, how they use our acceptance of worthless FRNs to presume that we are chattel & therefore subject to their UCC-based statute law. But the mechanisms for curbing their abuse are there, unused, but still viable. Shouldn't we use them?
If you feel coercion under the threat of violence is a good basis for keeping society in check, then why do we need the middle man? We should just take anything we want under the threat of force.
But of course this would be immoral, as all people would prefer not to be subject his or herself to such a doctrine. But how moral can we be if our society is held together under the threat violence? We can't extol any morality if we choose to engage in such a society.
Exactly what is happening today: covert, criminal factions of our govt have deposed elected elected leaders for decades while we covered eyes & ears. Now that expertise is used agin us at home as we illegally invade Iraq/n. We cant extol morality if we choose such a society; justice is justice after all.
I want to add that I respect & agree with your views. I just wonder if we aren't drinking the kool-aid in doing as you describe. "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men & women to watch TV..."
Truly we the ppl should be by involving ourselves in local, state, & fed politics. But the seduction of consumerism & infotainment is potent poison, which is why it used in black ops worldwide by global imperialists. They make the guns to our heads unnecessary & largely imagined.
I've never known one business to go to war with another business. The only available defense that unethical businesses have are governments that allow them act in ways that are beneficial to the government and not the people. In a free market, the people could choose whether or not to support an unethical business practices. With governments, we are forced to. If Wal-Mart wants to start pulling guns on people who walk in their stores, I'm just not shopping at Wal-Mart.
All business is war, says Sun Tsu. Our relations w/ China & the Fed Reserve certainly prove that. I do agree w/ your 3rd & 4th sentences. When govt was constitutional, it served us. Now that it's corp, it serves its creditors, & we the ppl are sold as surety on the debt to them. But this WalMart (USA) has no exit, & all its (govt) employees do pull guns on us--but we do have a choice not to shop here!
We have a choice to leave here and enter another country which has it's own method of getting us to follow it's laws?
There was no democracy before there was democracy...
Do you run and hide or do we stay and fight? Fight does not necessarily mean mean violence, nor should it. That is what the problem is in the first place.
But I do question the wisdom of thinking/speaking in these tortured analogies. Are we so brainwashed that the only way we CAN think about this is thru parable or by sarcastically saying the opposite of what we mean? Is the truth so blindingly painful, so ludicrous that it can't be spoken openly?
It's not as if we are able to know all of the laws of the country in which we inhabit. No one person can know all the laws. Therefore, we are guided by fear of breaking unknown laws rather than the laws themselves
I don't know if we're brainwashed so therefore we only speak in parable; I think we're brainwashed to be as copesetic as we are talking about what we're talking about. We're talking about freedom and how much we really don't have. People have died for freedom. I'm not sure I'm willing to do that. Is that brainwashed? I think I've been brainwashed to not know.
LOL! Good point, HU. I think one thing we can be certain of is that we are all brainwashed. W/that said, the real choice is whether to take control of the programming ourselves, or to contentedly let someone else do it for us. "The greatest triumph 4 propaganda in the US is the idea, thru propaganda, that propaganda doesn't exist here."
So we consent when confronting authority that we are probably wrong. This is the crucial mistake. A govt of the ppl is obliged to make understandable laws, or explain them on demand. Law, esp here, is a contract. Contracts demand full disclosure for validity. Otherwise it is fraud--like we have now...
I can't believe our government isn't 100% transparent--even the military. Maybe it would stop them from planning wars when absolutely none need to take place.
I mean, I honestly can't believe we aren't demanding it. Maybe if foreigners weren't so scared of us they wouldn't attack us. And maybe if we knew what the government was doing, it would stop doing things that it knows would scare people.
What we can know are the foundations of law: that we're soveriegn & the source of the state's power. We have rights that are not granted by the Constitution, but are guaranteed by it. Acts that violate those rights are acts of war & treason. We have the right to resist those actions with all of our being, individually & collectively.
i like this guy. its rare to see smart ppl as anchors or in the news.
weinmarr 4 years ago 2
Ron Paul!!!2008!!!!Freedom!!!!!!
jdurham70 4 years ago
This level of communication is seldomly to be witnessed in a youtube discussion. Nice.
foodope 4 years ago
It's so funny. Keith Olbermann speaks the truth, yet I have no idea what to do about it. It seems the best thing we can do is simply feed the machine that begs for more power and watch it crumble under its own fascistic weight.
HopefullyUnexpected 4 years ago
And thousands if not hundreds of thousands would perish in the collapse.
BishopKelt 4 years ago
It's a tough balance, liberty and security. We could have absolutely no murders or negligent deaths if we lived under a police state, or we could be accused of being Hitler for allowing people the freedom to make their own decisions. So do we continue to feed the system that robs us of our liberty or do we take it down. I suggest feeding it. Are you suggesting a violent overthrow? My goodness. You could arrested for saying something like that.
HopefullyUnexpected 4 years ago
I think we all, as a nation, need to become more aware of what is going and what our civil liberties are. We need to become more involved where our government is concerned. You can always write to your Congressman/woman or Senator. Be more aware of the person you're voting for, what are their beliefs and political stands. And always, ALWAYS, remember what our founding fathers fought and died for.
m4d4p3 4 years ago
I'm confused by your comment above. Hitler did not allow people the freedom to make their own choices, so how could we be accused in the way you suggest? And it is not supportable to claim that if we lived under a police state that we could have absolutely no murders or negligent deaths. Did you really mean to state these things as you have?
MacManiac 4 years ago
I was essentially going the extra step in saying that if we live more freely, those who vouched for freedom could be held responsible for the "hundreds of thousands [who] would perish in the collapse.
HopefullyUnexpected 4 years ago
We cannot give up what was so hard fought, because when we do that we've destroyed everything we've stood for. I think Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said "Those that would forsake essential liberties to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
m4d4p3 4 years ago
I'm am not the one talking about purchasing temporary safety. I was quite accusing you of that fact/
HopefullyUnexpected 4 years ago
Gosh, HU, I am confused again. Who are you accusing of purchasing temporary safety? & why? Are your first 2 or 4 comments here complete tongue-in-cheek sarcasm? You appear to be calling for that purchase or trade-off yourself in them. & I still don't get the Hitler comment or your response.
MacManiac 4 years ago
I am saying that anyone who continues to vote for politicians who simply want power are purchasing temporary safety. Power eventually corrupts. By trying to choose between the lesser of all evils, we are simply delaying the inevitable. I am saying let's not delay the inevitable (collapse of the state) because the outcome, while it may be calamitous in some regard, will be our responsibility and no longer the government's.
HopefullyUnexpected 4 years ago
Concerning the Hitler remark, I was simply suggesting that if we feed the machine faster until the inevitable comes, the faster we'd be on the road to true freedom and liberty. Someone else said that the amount of people that die from the collapse wouldn't be worth it. I took that to mean that I have genocidal mentalities, and that's where I put words in Bishop's mouth that he was essentially calling me a mass murderer.
HopefullyUnexpected 4 years ago
I'm not sure Bishop was speaking to you personally, just voicing a well-programmed fear many share. (I still think the Hitler thing is whacked, but I agree with your sentiment.) But what do we feed the machine to bring it down? We've fed it our currency, our liberty, our laws, & our children, & it appears to be gaining ground on us...
MacManiac 4 years ago
Again, I must ask, feed it with what? Human greed is an instatiable appetite that is seldom appeased. Instead, perhps we should starve it--or even better, indict & convict the criminal element that has infested it in all 3 branches under existing laws, & repeal recently-passed legislation that is repugnant to liberty, from the Fed and the IRS to the John Warner Def bill & the Military Commissions Act.
MacManiac 4 years ago
Well then, right on. The behavior of the Dem Congress right now is full on evidence of that truth. Pelosi & her gang of go-alongs have not seriously addressed one issue that floated them into office last November. They've become accessories to a criminal administration, & refuse to defend the people or the Constitution.
MacManiac 4 years ago
I'm not qualified to say, but I think organized resistance seems to be the only viable option for us. That, and I can't say everyone should do this, but I'm just over consumerism; I'll hopefully be able to spend the rest of my life making 90% of my purchases being things that I need.
bluenote71 4 years ago
I agree! But all the newly lawful desecrations of liberty & invasions of privacy belie the need for a new level of organization--one that transcends the need for clandestine meetings and secret armories. Instead, each individual needs to instill a sense of justice & soveriegn responsibility to defy federal & state attempts to corporatize behavior. We all need to Just Say No to those who corrupt America with illegal laws & globalist policies.
MacManiac 4 years ago
I do think the problem is deeper than just beefing up a new constitution to make it REALLY hard to corrupt it. Do we just keep making new constitutions until we find the perfect one that allows the perfect amount of liberty and a perfect amount of safety? Well, what if something changes, and we don't want that anymore. How will we know when our morality and government appear to indistinguishable?
HopefullyUnexpected 4 years ago
A new Constitution? There is nothing wrong with the old one, except that we don't follow it. Since the end of the Civil War, the US has moved away from a constitutional republic in favor of a corporate oligarchy, & since 1933, we have been operating as a bankrupt corporation in receivership at that. If we just held to the checks & balances put into place by the Constitution (w/ its ammendments) so much of the corruption of the last 50 years would have never been permitted.
MacManiac 4 years ago
Who is forcing the government to follow the Constitution? Nobody is holding a gun to the government's head saying "You better not bastardize the Constitution." At least not like the guns that are being held to our heads, saying that we better pay taxes or follow their laws or the men with guns in uniforms are going to take us away or kill us if we resist.
HopefullyUnexpected 4 years ago
I don't see how we can possibly stand up to the government. That just seems pointless. We should just allow it to fail, and we do this by giving it what it wants. Power will eventually corrupt the system and the system will fail. Either power will corrupt or an insane depression will collapse the government because of all the money we've been borrowing as if it weren't just being magically created by the Federal Reserve. Just go with it.
HopefullyUnexpected 4 years ago
In all honesty, that is what I have been doing. I have also been learning about the corporate & franchised fed, state, & local gov'ts, how they use our acceptance of worthless FRNs to presume that we are chattel & therefore subject to their UCC-based statute law. But the mechanisms for curbing their abuse are there, unused, but still viable. Shouldn't we use them?
MacManiac 4 years ago
If you feel coercion under the threat of violence is a good basis for keeping society in check, then why do we need the middle man? We should just take anything we want under the threat of force.
But of course this would be immoral, as all people would prefer not to be subject his or herself to such a doctrine. But how moral can we be if our society is held together under the threat violence? We can't extol any morality if we choose to engage in such a society.
HopefullyUnexpected 4 years ago
Exactly what is happening today: covert, criminal factions of our govt have deposed elected elected leaders for decades while we covered eyes & ears. Now that expertise is used agin us at home as we illegally invade Iraq/n. We cant extol morality if we choose such a society; justice is justice after all.
MacManiac 4 years ago
I want to add that I respect & agree with your views. I just wonder if we aren't drinking the kool-aid in doing as you describe. "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men & women to watch TV..."
MacManiac 4 years ago
Truly we the ppl should be by involving ourselves in local, state, & fed politics. But the seduction of consumerism & infotainment is potent poison, which is why it used in black ops worldwide by global imperialists. They make the guns to our heads unnecessary & largely imagined.
MacManiac 4 years ago
I've never known one business to go to war with another business. The only available defense that unethical businesses have are governments that allow them act in ways that are beneficial to the government and not the people. In a free market, the people could choose whether or not to support an unethical business practices. With governments, we are forced to. If Wal-Mart wants to start pulling guns on people who walk in their stores, I'm just not shopping at Wal-Mart.
HopefullyUnexpected 4 years ago
All business is war, says Sun Tsu. Our relations w/ China & the Fed Reserve certainly prove that. I do agree w/ your 3rd & 4th sentences. When govt was constitutional, it served us. Now that it's corp, it serves its creditors, & we the ppl are sold as surety on the debt to them. But this WalMart (USA) has no exit, & all its (govt) employees do pull guns on us--but we do have a choice not to shop here!
MacManiac 4 years ago
We have a choice to leave here and enter another country which has it's own method of getting us to follow it's laws?
There was no democracy before there was democracy...
Do you run and hide or do we stay and fight? Fight does not necessarily mean mean violence, nor should it. That is what the problem is in the first place.
HopefullyUnexpected 4 years ago
But I do question the wisdom of thinking/speaking in these tortured analogies. Are we so brainwashed that the only way we CAN think about this is thru parable or by sarcastically saying the opposite of what we mean? Is the truth so blindingly painful, so ludicrous that it can't be spoken openly?
MacManiac 4 years ago
It's not as if we are able to know all of the laws of the country in which we inhabit. No one person can know all the laws. Therefore, we are guided by fear of breaking unknown laws rather than the laws themselves
HopefullyUnexpected 4 years ago
I don't know if we're brainwashed so therefore we only speak in parable; I think we're brainwashed to be as copesetic as we are talking about what we're talking about. We're talking about freedom and how much we really don't have. People have died for freedom. I'm not sure I'm willing to do that. Is that brainwashed? I think I've been brainwashed to not know.
HopefullyUnexpected 4 years ago
LOL! Good point, HU. I think one thing we can be certain of is that we are all brainwashed. W/that said, the real choice is whether to take control of the programming ourselves, or to contentedly let someone else do it for us. "The greatest triumph 4 propaganda in the US is the idea, thru propaganda, that propaganda doesn't exist here."
MacManiac 4 years ago
So we consent when confronting authority that we are probably wrong. This is the crucial mistake. A govt of the ppl is obliged to make understandable laws, or explain them on demand. Law, esp here, is a contract. Contracts demand full disclosure for validity. Otherwise it is fraud--like we have now...
MacManiac 4 years ago
I can't believe our government isn't 100% transparent--even the military. Maybe it would stop them from planning wars when absolutely none need to take place.
I mean, I honestly can't believe we aren't demanding it. Maybe if foreigners weren't so scared of us they wouldn't attack us. And maybe if we knew what the government was doing, it would stop doing things that it knows would scare people.
HopefullyUnexpected 4 years ago
What we can know are the foundations of law: that we're soveriegn & the source of the state's power. We have rights that are not granted by the Constitution, but are guaranteed by it. Acts that violate those rights are acts of war & treason. We have the right to resist those actions with all of our being, individually & collectively.
MacManiac 4 years ago