Maybe it's time for a civil war..

Nobody. I am voting for myself. I am a true independent in this upcoming election. Being so is quite liberating. It allows one to examine all the ins and outs of the candidates, and efficiently criticize them all.

 

I'm not a narcissist like our politicians, so I can admit that I do not know the best path or standard for the economy.

I know that we continue to feed the military industry by declaring wars that have nothing to do with our nation. I know that we waste billions on ridiculous studies and handshakes. I know that we choose who succeeds and who fails.

I don't think all of that is necessary, and I know that none of it is moral.

 

Somehow I knew you were going to say that...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7pX9IHTDn8"]Ace Ventura - When Nature calls - Alrighty Then - YouTube[/ame]

 

you mean like a north and a south, maybe the south can join Mexico and the north can join Canada

dems would like the universal health care and repubs would like the lack of safety nets and that it's 98% Christian already, they could kick the 2% that are not up north and finally have their Christian nation

I do agree with you though, our country is split almost 50\50, which makes it really hard to have any type of real change take place and unless something drastically changes, we will go the way of Russia eventually

 

People in most Western countries are also too distracted by material things, often useless things, to have the right mindset to engage in civil war.

Too decadent. They will get as far as maybe playing 'civil war' on a PC game, or if not that, talk about civil war on the internet, while sitting in their underpants, at home, or if not that, then talk about civil war, with their buddies, after several beers.

Then there is media manipulation.

See how when corporate interests were threatned, and negative attention was brought to their skullduggery and greed, how some media outlets began to portray the OWS movement as like domestic terrorists. And the sheeple take that on, and turn against those they should be standing shoulder to shoulder with, to be honest. You need unity, and you will not have it, because simpleton's are too easily fooled into being divided, and turning on the wrong targets.

 

In my vision for America, everyone gets what they want. Only, it is voluntary.

Liberals are free to create their own voluntary Utopias, while conservatives are free to be individuals.

Problem is that the liberals want to force their crap on me.

 

How voluntary is your vision for America?

 

Peace.

Ha. Funny way to end a post where you suggest civil war as a solution to our problems.

The only real conflict I think we have that we cannot simply "agree to disagree" on is economics. Everything else (morality) can be legislated on the local level and we can just not visit each other's hellholes.

But economics is a tricky issue and we must solve it as a country. Regardless of how you cut it, our economy is national and there's no going back. So why not start a few special economic zones, give them the same access to resources and then completely quarantine them.

We'll have some that go capitalist, some that go "liberal" (whatever that is), and some that go communist. We then take the results of this experiment, and decide national policy according to the outcome.

I think that's a much better idea than splitting the country, and certainly way better than an actual fight. Everyone I know loves America together and whole, and it sounds like a bad idea to me to split it up if there are any other possible alternatives.

 

I'd actually like to see politicians slugging it out on the floor of the Congress. That way I would know they are not all in cahoots with each other. When politicians get together and sing Kumbya, The People will always suffer.

 

Imo, it is often easier to make a nation function better, if it's size is not too large.

It's not an exact science, so please, don't go digging out obscure examples of small nations that went horribly wrong, as I know they exist, but in general terms, a smaller nation is always going to be more manageable.

When you start counting in the hundreds of millions, what you have is too many people, and probably too powerful a Government, along with it. And remember, they will always represent the interests of real money men and corps. Not the electorate. Not any of you, albeit the odd thing may happen to benefit you, or appear to do so. They don't really care if it does or doesn't.

 

Now and again, perhaps ever 50-75 years, a political philosophy had to completely win...In the 1930's it was liberal and the new deal...Now that generation is about gone and the pendulum is shifting...Reagan was only the first step...two steps forward and 1 back...the change is upon us. Either the left wins or the right but the winner will prevail for another generation...I believe the right will take the day because the lefts economic numbers no longer add up.

 

I actually think libertarianism, not conservatism is gradually becoming a dominant political ideology. People are beginning to understand that the left-right political spectrum, while polarizing on the surface is under the surface rather tyrannical. Authoritarianism can now be cited among both political parties.

 

The Blue Model of govt. can't be sustained any longer economically. It's as if the left is trying to fight the force of gravity. They know this in their hearts, and it causes them great sadness. I take pleasure in the sorrow. It's called revenge.

 

Yes. Both parties are Leftist Imperialists.

Satanism and Woman Worship are also functioning ideologies in amerika at this time.

Complete population enslavement to the Utopian super-state is the primary goal of the shadowy hand of the anonymous benevolence that controls most of western consciousness.

 

funny, to me it seems the right is the ones wanting to force their "crap" on everyone

I am pro-choice, pro-freedom, pro-equality for all Americans, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all

 

Leftist imperialists, no. Authoritarians spanning the left-right political spectrum, yes. Remember, leftism and rightism are not on the same spectrum as authoritarianism and libertarianism. These ideologies are on the up-down political spectrum.

I use a few terms to describe our government. These are corporatism, progressivism, and authoritarianism. Imperialism is not the right term because the concept encompasses mercantilist approaches, as well as expansionist (as in the acquisition of territory) approaches. I do not see the United States employing mercantilism nor expansionism.

 

yet we can afford two ten year wars, almost a trillion dollar tax cut for the rich, not sure how many billions in faith based "initiatives", ect...

 

I doubt you will find people posting on this thread that believe we can afford such efforts. Most of us understand that Bush's efforts were part of a fixed game.

 

well at least something we can all agree on then

 

Take the koolaid tinted glasses off. It's coming from both sides.

 

Mercantilism and expansionism are the very root of amerika's campaign to bring the middle east under its shadowy umbrella of influence.
The guise is clever. They want these nations they invade to "adopt their own" democratic authoritarian consumerist mind-satiating governments and way of life. It is the spread of Materialism and dependance.

 

Mercantilism involves the creation of a positive balance of trade in favor of the mother country at the expense of colonies. It does not encompass the exchange of ideologies, which are not goods nor services.

Expansionism involves the acquisition of actual territory in the form of land. It can also simply be the spreading of economic influence around the globe, which China is doing, and the United States has been doing for decades. It does not have to be negative expansion. Once again, while ideologies may come with expansion, it is not an inclusive elements of such.

It is highly opinionated to conclude that the influence of United States ideologies is even bad, or to even buy into the neoconservative rhetoric that our influence through the wars we have fought in the Middle East was to impose our ideologies on them. For example, the western/American ideal of democratic government led to the Arab Spring, a protest movement against what you perceive to be a detriment to our nation, authoritarianism.

To be honest, we are simply arguing over semantics. We both agree that the United States has become more authoritarian.

 

Brilliantly stated. You are clearly one of the most intelligent people on this forum IMO.

However, you've said yourself in the past that both "sides" of all politics, be they Conservitivism or Leftism are authoritarian by default. The blatant Social Engineering campaigns that amerika inflicts on the middle eastern people are claimed to be "beneficial" to those economies. However, they are anything but beneficial. Amerika and its murky allies intend to entrap the middle east in the same snare of FedReserve imaginary money we in the "civilized world" are enslaved to. This looks to me like the export of ideologies.

 

To an extent, you are correct. I do not know if you have read James Rickards' Currency Wars, but he theorized that Federal Reserve quantitative easing may have led to the complaints that fueled the Arab Spring. Quantitative easing is also known as what Timothy Geithner called rebalancing. This means that it changes the trade balance of the United States in relation to other nations so that we export inflation, yet we import consumer goods and services. This leads to an increase in domestic consumption, which in turn leads to an increase domestic investment.

In many Middle East nations, while the Federal Reserve was engaging in quantitative easing, citizens were suffering from high inflation, and repercussions of government trying to controlling it in the form of high unemployment due to contractionary fiscal policies, as well as other non-economic related actions. All that was needed to kindle the flame was public outrage. That is where Tunisian street vendor Muhammad Bouazizi came into play. He set himself on fire in protest of government actions that confiscated his produce.

 

As Pierre Teilhard de Chardin said "America is too broke to afford anything. It can't beg, borrow, tax or print enough money to get out of this situation. None of your protests matter because the country has already passed the financial tipping point."

As Albert Di Salvo said "The American left is represented by corruption. Jon Corzine is Exhibit A."

America is at the end of the road. None of this crap matters any more. The country, if not partitioned, will remain paralyzed politically, economically, and socially.

The Dream is dead. And hard cold reality is going to force all leftists to accept this. I like hard cold reality.