PDA

View Full Version : A State with no republicans



jerry
4th January 2015, 21:28
wish I could say I was shocked...

Very interesting...Note this. A US State with zero Republicans in office
-The State of Illinois. Think about this...Some interesting data on the state of Illinois:
-There are more people on welfare in Illinois than there are people working.
-Chicago pays the highest wages to teachers than anywhere else in the U.S. averaging $110,000/year.
Their pensions average 80-90% of their income. Wow! Are Illinois and Chicago great or what?
Be sure to read till the end, never heard it explained better. Perhaps the U.S. should pull out of Chicago?

Body count: In the last six months, 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago. 221killed in Iraq; AND Chicago has one of the strictest gun laws in the entire US.


The Chicago chain of command:
President: Barack Hussein Obama.
Senator: Dick Durbin.
House Representative: Jesse Jackson Jr.
Governor: Pat Quinn.
House leader: Mike Madigan.
Atty. Gen.: Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike).
Mayor: Rohm Emanuel.
The leadership in Illinois- all Democrats.
Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago.


Of course, they are all blaming each other - can't blame Republicans, there aren't any!

Chicago school system rated one of the WORST in the U.S. Can't blame Republicans, there arenít any!

State pension fund $78 Billion in debt, worst in country. Can't blame Republicans, there aren't any!

Cook County (Chicago)sales tax 10.25% highest in country. Can't blame Republicans; there aren't any!

This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois. And he went to fix Washington politics for us?
George Ryan is no longer Governor, he is in prison.
Ryan was replaced by Rob Blajegovitch who is, that's right, also in prison.
And Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. who resigned a few months ago, that's right, is also in prison.
The Land of Lincoln, where our governors make our license plates.
But you know what?
As long as they keep providing entitlements to the population of Chicago, nothing is going to change, except the state will go broke before the country does.

"Anybody who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him, better take a closer look at the American Indian."

And check this last set of statistics!!
The percentage of each past President's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet.....

You know what the private business sector is - a real-life business, not a government job. Here are the percentages: look!!!

T. Roosevelt................ 38%
Taft................................40%
Wilson......................... 52%
Harding......................... 49%
Coolidge....................... 48%
Hoover..........................42%
F. Roosevelt................ 50%
Truman..........................50%
Eisenhower.................. 57%
Kennedy........................30%
Johnson.........................47%
Nixon..............................53%
Ford................................42%
Carter.............................32%
Reagan...........................56%
GH Bush.........................51%
Clinton........................... 39%
GW Bush........................55%
Barry..........................8%


This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration, only 8% of them have ever worked in private business!
That's right! Only eight percent -- the least, by far, of the last 19 presidents!
And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business?

How can the president of a major nation and society, the one with the most
successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business?
He never worked for one? Or about jobs when he has never really had one?


PASS THIS ON BECAUSE WE'LL NEVER SEE THESE FACTS IN THE LIBERALMEDIA.


"One of the penalties of not participating in politics is that you will be governed
by your inferiors." ~ Plato

THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT THIS QUOTE FROM PLATO. WE ARE LIVING[] PROOF HE'S RIGHT!

WhiteLove
4th January 2015, 23:35
I'm going to go super political now, watch out! :attention:

Please note that I am sharing these thoughts purely as philosophical view points based on the knowledge, experience and signals I've gathered so far about what's going on in the US regarding the political system there. (as well as in the world of course)

In a fully functional democratic society, there is no curruption at any levels, there is 100% transparency into all functional components of the democratic system, there are no laws in violation to the democratic principles, change is created through fair public voting, there are equal voting opportunities among the people, and it is the collective as a whole that ensures that each individual is taken great care of within all areas and periods in life. Taxes are used according to the will of the voters. The aim here is to create a well-being collective that is progressing in a balanced way according to what the majority of the state's voters want. The liberty comes from this "fair impact" ideology. At its core there is service to others more so than service to self.

Now, why does this not work? Since the democracy is so general and elastic in its application, it means that what comes out of it is not a direct effect of the system itself, but an effect of how that system in reality is implemented. A whole democratic people could for instance vote for world dominion through war, this democratic society would hence quickly suffer collapse, when the surrounding world protects itself from this threat. Another example is that democracy is in place, but a vulnerability such as corruption on a single spot such as voting, will make it all collapse. These are just two examples of why democracy in itself is not solving anything, how fragile it is and how slowly a society progresses as soon as you don't have a 100% functioning democracy with 100% optimal values. So, great in theory, but how great it is in practice depends totally on other factors.

The republican ideology on the other hand works on the principle that the society as a whole becomes strong and liberty is provided from the constitution/conservative governance, personal independence and private business, with minimum external impact placed on each individual. This ideology is based on forming your own ideal world by having the society reward great personal decision making, the republic should not be in the way of that, but rather defend the individual and give the individual great freedom - such as being able to protect yourself with a hand gun. In this ideology the individual comes first, then the collective. So for instance it does not matter if the collective is weak as long as some individuals are strong, so when an elite of say 5% earns more than 95% and pay less in tax than those 95% and no matter whether that is a result of limiting the collective (e.g. gaining influence through intelligence gathering in the non-public domain such as secret societies) or not, it should just be like that. The issue with this ideology - and of course it does not work - is that it is how well you play the game that determines how free you actually become. If you play the game poorly, nobody are going to care, because around you you have other republicans focusing on their individual successes and how to gain from your poorly played game. And when the masses are out on the streets when all the banker republicans have taken all of their homes, there is nothing in the system that is going to protect this issue from getting worse while fewer and fewer individuals get greater and greater wealth the more pain the collective is suffering. This kind of idealogy is like saying that life should be a game of whatever kind that you should play to win and when you lose, well that's your problem. This does not create a thriving society either because although a few grow incredibly wealthy, you have a people divided into a set of classes, some classes are doing just fine, some are suffering enormously. In practice this kind of society and in particular when combined with a partially democratic system that does not work, creates what is in the movie Elysium, it also creates a society liberal enough to allow secret societies to feed people in power at the cost of the society as a whole and a police/NSA/homeland security/elite driven society where most suffer over the long term. At its core there is service to self more so than service to others.

Now, what would then be a better kind of system and how would that successfully form and operate? A better system would be one that does not exist because the people of the world has collectively decided that reaching world peace and unconditional love is the most important thing and with a system in the way of that, then that system needs to be removed. Per definition, a system creates limitation. You could in practice try to apply a system that boosts the rate at which unconditional love and peace is reached, but then it's not unconditional and natural anymore is it. By trusting that nature works the best when its beings are in their natural state of being in peace guided by higher intelligence/allowing God to manifest the miracles of unconditional love, then unconditional love and peace is born, balance is achieved and the needs to have any systems fade away because they just bring limitation.

A civilization harmonizes, synchronizes and blooms when its beings are in unconditional love, peace - true freedom. The left over: Life! Then they start functioning properly as a collective and achieve things beyond their wildest dreams together. It has become a world with living beings that live incredibly rich lives - the way nature/source/God desires those lives to be lived.

A Voice from the Mountains
5th January 2015, 00:02
A collective consisting of a bunch of weak individuals (in any respect -- in terms of lack of freedom, or weak financially) cannot itself be strong. It's like a body cannot be healthy when it is made of cancer cells.

There is good reason that personal responsibility and individual liberty are emphasized in a republican government. "Collective" is an abstraction of the sum of all the individuals taken together. The emphasis should be on improving the freedoms and responsibilities of each individual, since "the collective," outside of these same individuals, doesn't exist!

Republicans today are not really republicans, as in they do not really stand for a republic. But having said that, if I venture into politics at all, it's to point people back to the founding fathers, who were a lot of very strong individuals who took a lot of responsibility unto themselves, and expected others to strive to do the same. This is how a strong nation is developed.


Also the economic model is separate from the political model. You can stand for a republic and still bust monopolies as Teddy Roosevelt did. Corporations, after all, are not people, and should not have the same rights.

WhiteLove
5th January 2015, 00:37
A collective consisting of a bunch of weak individuals (in any respect -- in terms of lack of freedom, or weak financially) cannot itself be strong. It's like a body cannot be healthy when it is made of cancer cells.

There is good reason that personal responsibility and individual liberty are emphasized in a republican government. "Collective" is an abstraction of the sum of all the individuals taken together. The emphasis should be on improving the freedoms and responsibilities of each individual, since "the collective," outside of these same individuals, doesn't exist!

Republicans today are not really republicans, as in they do not really stand for a republic. But having said that, if I venture into politics at all, it's to point people back to the founding fathers, who were a lot of very strong individuals who took a lot of responsibility unto themselves, and expected others to strive to do the same. This is how a strong nation is developed.


Also the economic model is separate from the political model. You can stand for a republic and still bust monopolies as Teddy Roosevelt did. Corporations, after all, are not people, and should not have the same rights.

Even a republic creates limitation and separation in my view, hence should be considered to be dissolved. What the founding fathers created I find heavily overrated. All "victories" were achieved by winning a war and that's not where peace is born, no matter if the victory came from defending the nation or attacking some other nation. Peace is peace. The founding fathers built on and formed a foundation that was not strong enough. Had they built a foundation on peace, then we would not have this discussion right now. (and that comes of course from the view that this is true for all nations in the world, not just the US)

A Voice from the Mountains
5th January 2015, 02:01
In the real world this is not so simple. There are many societies who were historically very peaceful on their own, until invaded by another nation (often an empirical European power bent on making other nations their colonies). The truth is that there are two fundamentally opposed forces at work in the world. Whether you want to call them yin and yang or good and evil, nothing can sit still for long without something else coming along and giving it a sharp shove where it wasn't expected. We can judge the relative ability of various forms of government to withstand these things, but no form of government in itself is going to be immune from (1) aggression from external powers, or (2) internal corruption. This is one of the reasons why, despite the US Constitution providing freedom of religion, the founders also stated that morality and even religion would be necessary to keep the government "good," since if there is no sense of morality then this type of government is doomed to fail.

I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who thought that the US would have to have a new revolution every 20 years or so just to keep all the individual liberties that had been granted by the new government (whether the Articles of Confederation or Constitution I don't know). It's only in recent years (since Clinton or Bush Jr. probably) that the Bill of Rights has finally become significantly, regularly, and openly eroded. It took over 120 years just for foreign banks to finally install themselves as the Federal Reserve, which is another subject that the founding fathers were very knowledgeable about. Given the circumstances I'd say the Constitution has served its purpose very well.

When this country was founded, Europeans thought a republican government would never work on such a scale, since only the Dutch were able to make themselves a European power without a monarchy and this was considered to have worked only because the Netherlands was a very small country. Until about the time of Teddy Roosevelt it was also the Europeans who kept trying to establish economic and thereby political control over the US system. I guess when you have a monarchy or even a communist system, it's not so noticeable when there is more or less corruption because the people never had inherent rights to begin with; their governments are only gracious enough to allow the people to do certain things.

DeDukshyn
5th January 2015, 02:32
Pfft! I won't even comment -- ok I will ... The "libs vs repubs" argument again? the puppeteers don't care for the labels of their minions ... in order to see the full picture, nor should anyone else -- democracy in the USA is a false perception, put in place so we all play the "libs vs repubs" game and be too distracted in that to find out who really killed JFK ...

Have two parties, representing approximately opposites in terms of political direction. When one fails or the masses get too upset with one, they will vote the other, then when the other lets you down, switch back and feel better like "things will change this time" ... keep doing this until you have spiralled the country into complete chaos and control, all the while the masses are believing it is their choices that are destroying their country ... one of the more ultimate cons in history --- "democracy" ...

Play on ...

A Voice from the Mountains
5th January 2015, 02:42
Agreed, DD. There is very little real difference between either party today and both of them suck, to put it frankly.

Even though political debates in America are totally pointless, it's still obvious that the US government, and many/most state governments, are doing something very wrong. As in, there are better ways to govern things.

When people grow up, whether it's in the US or Europe, and they're interested in politics, they're going to have lots of pre-conceived ideas ready for them to choose from. I think it's best to forget all the names of parties and ideologies and just look at things from a human perspective. Everyone is a human and we all live in communities and we have to find ways to make these communities work for the benefit of as many people as possible. This is something in everyone's interest.