Are people fit to govern themselves?

Everything Political

Are people fit to govern themselves?

Postby torbjon » Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:25 pm

The great fundamental issue now before our people can be stated briefly. It is, are the American people fit to govern themselves, to rule themselves, to control themselves? I believe they are. My opponents do not. I believe in the right of the people to rule. I believe that the majority of the plain people of the United States will, day in and day out, make fewer mistakes in governing themselves than any smaller class or body of men, no matter what their training, will make in trying to govern them. I believe, again, that the American people are, as a whole, capable of self-control, and of learning by their mistakes. Our opponents pay lip-loyalty to this doctrine; but they show their real beliefs by the way in which they champion every device to make the nominal rule of the people a sham.

I am not leading this fight as a matter of aesthetic pleasure. I am leading because somebody must lead, or else the fight would not be made at all. I prefer to work with moderate, with rational, conservatives, provided only that they do in good faith strive forward toward the light. But when they halt and turn their backs to the light, and sit with the scorners on the seats of reaction, then I must part company with them. We the people cannot turn back. Our aim must be steady, wise progress.

It would be well if our people would study the history of a sister republic. All the woes of France for a century and a quarter have been due to the folly of her people in splitting into the two camps of unreasonable conservatism and unreasonable radicalism. Had pre-Revolutionary France listened to men like Turgot, and backed them up, all would have gone well. But the beneficiaries of privilege, the Bourbon reactionaries, the shortsighted ultra-conservatives, turned down Turgot; and then found that instead of him they had obtained Robespierre. They gained twenty years' freedom from all restraint and reform, at the cost of the whirlwind of the red terror; and in their turn the unbridled extremists of the terror induced a blind reaction; and so, with convulsion and oscillation from one extreme to another, with alternations of violent radicalism and violent Bourbonism, the French people went through misery toward a shattered goal. May we profit by the experiences of our brother republicans across the water, and go forward steadily, avoiding all wild extremes; and may our ultra-conservatives remember that the rule of the Bourbons brought on the Revolution, and may our would-be revolutionaries remember that no Bourbon was ever such a dangerous enemy of the people and of freedom as the professed friend of both, Robespierre.

There is no danger of a revolution in this country; but there is grave discontent and unrest, and in order to remove them there is need of all the wisdom and probity and deep-seated faith in and purpose to uplift humanity we have at our command. Friends, our task as Americans is to strive for social and industrial justice, achieved through the genuine rule of the people. This is our end, our purpose. The methods for achieving the end are merely expedients, to be finally accepted or rejected according as actual experience shows that they work well or ill. But in our hearts we must have this lofty purpose, and we must strive for it in all earnestness and sincerity, or our work will come to nothing. In order to succeed we need leaders of inspired idealism, leaders to whom are granted great visions, who dream greatly and strive to make their dreams come true; who can kindle the people with the fire from their own burning souls. The leader for the time being, whoever he may be, is but an instrument, to be used until broken and then to be cast aside; and if he is worth his salt he will care no more when he is broken than a soldier cares when he is sent where his life is forfeit in order that the victory may be won. In the long fight for righteousness the watchword for all of us is spend and be spent.

Theodore Roosevelt, 1912
Expendable Guy. The show is no good without them.
User avatar
torbjon
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:08 am
Location: New Jersey


Postby torbjon » Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:27 am

The above, from Mr. Mt. Rushmore himself, stated almost 100 years ago...

good words, great concept... there was a leader who felt that the sheeple were smart enough to take care of themselves...

So What Happened? Why do we have Fewer liberties NOW than we did then?

Was the guy just an idiot? (oh no, wait, Mr. Rushmore guy, he was one of the better ones)

Remember this 'vote for me' quote:

"If I become President, I'll make every piece of information this country has about UFO sightings available to the public and scientists. I am convinced that UFOs exist because I have seen one."

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER
Presidential campaign 1976

That earned some votes. Nice line, no more secrets, Full Disclosure, open and honest...

But what happended?

He was told that that type of information was on a 'need to know basis' and that HE didn't need to know...

Commander and Chief of our combined armed forces, finger on the freekin' button, and yet he wasn't allowed to know 'super secret weather ballon called MOGUL'...

*rolls eyes*

The presidents primary purpose in life is to direct our attention Away from those who have power and the real issues of the past, present and future...

I'm sure whoever 'we' elect will do a Great job.
Expendable Guy. The show is no good without them.
User avatar
torbjon
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:08 am
Location: New Jersey

Postby Shawnna » Sat Apr 12, 2008 11:10 am

torbjon wrote:I'm sure whoever 'we' elect will do a Great job.




:shakeshead:
Last edited by Shawnna on Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The only thing we found that makes the emptiness bearable is................... each other."

From the movie "Contact"

Shawnna's Reality
User avatar
Shawnna
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1243
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:30 pm

Postby Access Denied » Sat Apr 12, 2008 4:44 pm

Shawnna wrote::shakeshead:

I'm tempted to leave it at that but...

torbjon wrote:Nice line, no more secrets, Full Disclosure, open and honest...

If you want to make a point here at RU we expect you to do it with solid research backed up by credible sources… I think quoting the National Enquirer fails that test and is a bit hypocritical in light of what I assume you perceive to be a major issue.

"Whatever statement you saw concerning President Carter’s view on UFOs was not exactly what he said. He had seen something that he thought was unexplainable that possibly might have been a UFO and he will certainly disclose and describe any unusual phenomena he might see. He is committed to the fullest possible openness in government and would support full disclosure of material that was not defense sensitive that might relate to UFOs. He did not, however, pledge to "make every piece of information concerning the UFOs available to the public." There might be some aspects of some sightings that would have defense implications that possibly should be safe-guarded against immediate and full disclosure." Walter Wurfel, Carter Deputy Press Secretary February 28, 1977

Now if you want to try and attach some kind of conspiratory angle to that good luck… I guarantee you that position makes perfect sense to most rational folks… especially those in public service. If I have to explain…
Last edited by Access Denied on Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: topic split
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby torbjon » Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:09 am

AD

Actually, the JC quote can be found on wiki,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter_UFO_Incident

which got it from the Timothy Good book (ats, the worldwide ufo coverup -- isbn 0688092020) all of which is about as valuable as the national inquirer, but all of that is after the fact as I was working from memory. JC stated those words on National Television in June of 1976 and they struck a chord with me to the point that whereas I was too young to vote, I was Not too young to canvas and rally support. I was quite active during that election in part due to his 'full disclosure' attitude.

The Wurfel quote, released After JC took office, strikes me as damage control and double speak and I am quite surprised you even bother to bring it up here.

"Whatever statement you SAW concerning la de da"

I saw nothing, I heard him say those words Prior to his election. It was an attempt on his part to Win Votes. His intentions at the time may have been sincere, may have been simply a vote getter, who can tell?

Once in office things changed. He came to realize that the President has very little 'real' power. That "national security" supersedes "Presidential Curiosity"

"Presidential Curiosity" now THERE'S an interesting term...

"Curiosity" could be rephrased as "a desire to be fully informed"

So, "national security" supersedes "a Presidential desire to be fully informed"

Ya Baby! Let's keep our leaders in the dark. Gods forbid they should Ever think for themselves...

No quip about good ol' Teddy boy? He was a Rough and Tumble kind of guy, very popular with the masses, face carved on a rock for all eternity...

There was a dude who stated quite clearly that YOU are better equipped to lead yourself than anyone else anywhere, no matter what their standing or education...

One of the things all of the current candidates have in common:

They Want To Lead You.

I have no idea of knowing for certain but am willing to go out on the limb and make the assumption that they 'feel' they are better equipped at leading You than You are. They certainly have made no statements or shown any indications of allowing me to lead myself.

They are going to 'guide' me. Not only that, they are going to 'guide' my daughter as well. They are going to lead her into a 'brave new world'.

I'm sorry but that is MY job and I take it Very Seriously.

I resent it when someone says They are going to make the world a 'better' place for me and mine.

That's MY job. I will make the world a better place for me and mine as I am the Only one capable of doing that. Passing that responsibility on to someone else is irresponsible.

I agree with uberarcanist: They are all liars. They are marketing themselves in order to win votes. They will say and do Anything to Win Votes.

They are all Desperate for Your vote.

Desperation is a very ugly thing and does not instill trust or confidence with me.

I should probably go back to the latrine now. My brand of politics has Never been very popular with the masses.

sorry I'm such a pinko,
Expendable Guy. The show is no good without them.
User avatar
torbjon
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:08 am
Location: New Jersey

Postby Access Denied » Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:34 am

This site is heavy on the confirmation bias but at least they get this part right...

http://www.presidentialufo.com/jimmy.htm

In June 1976, Jimmy Carter was quoted by the National Enquirer as promising, " If I become President, I’ll make every piece of information this country has about UFO sightings available to the public and scientists. I am convinced that UFOs exist because I have seen one."

This widely quoted statement led to a deluge of UFO mail into the White House. What was not widely disclosed was the fact that Carter never said this to the National Enquirer reporter Jim McCandlish. McCandlish, a free lancer for the National Enquirer, approached Carter on the campaign trial and asked him about his sighting, and plans to deal with UFOs as President. Although Carter was interested in the question, he was "nowhere near as committal as the National Enquirer made it out to be."

Maybe you heard this?

Carter, however, did say something very similar during a campaign stop in Appleton, Wisconsin on the morning of March 31, 1976. During a news conference at the airport, Thomas Heiman, Associate Director of the UFO Education Center in Appleton Wisconsin, asked Carter a question.

Heiman: As President, would you air what’s "behind-closed-doors" today in regards to UFOs?

Carter: I don’t know what to make of it. However, some of the sightings have been witnessed by 20 to 25 people, law enforcement officers, and everyone in the cockpit of a major airplane, and so forth. But I can’t tell you what to make of it. If I knew, I’d be the only one in the world who does. But, yes, I would make these kinds of data available to the public, as President, to help resolve the mystery about it.

Heiman: On a public basis?

Carter: Yes, on a public basis.

No doubt he soon found out (became informed) there was nothing to “disclose”… at least not in terms of a massive “cover-up” of alleged evidence regarding ET visitation. No power on Earth could keep that secret…

Anyway, no need to go back to the Latrine, I find your point of view interesting… as I'm sure others do as well.

So who do you propose builds and manages the public infrastructure (police, fire, roads, bridges, etc. etc.) and provide national defense?

Last I checked this is still a free country and you’re free to live entirely self sufficient (off the grid) if you want… all you owe the government is some property tax in exchange for keeping anybody you don’t want in out right?
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby torbjon » Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:04 am

Yes, I remember the March 31st quote you posted above, but I also remember Hearing him speak the one attributed to the Enquirer ("public AND scientists") not Reading it. I don't believe I've Ever read the Enquirer *ponders* no, not even in desperation. I do remember the "bat boy" picture on the cover of the thing for what seemed like forever at the supermarket check out stand but that pretty much is my sum total of experience with that, um, magazine.

It's a Memory. I can't and won't argue a memory. All of us are in possession of vast numbers of memories that Cannot be verified via public or private archives. You have located a source which states that the statement I remember hearing was made in print by a less than reputable source *shrugs*

So be it. As far as world opinion is concerned, whom ever wrote that web page is correct, and I am in error. I'm cool with that.

The Walter Wurfel statement you quoted on the previous page would seem to indicate that the, um "nothing to disclose" line you tossed at me above may not be entirely accurate, but rather that "national security" takes precedents over "public disclosure". There may have been a great deal to disclose, but National Security put the nix on it.... that's how I read the Wurfel statement.

As far as the 'who do I propose take care of us' question, I'll save that for another post, perhaps in the latrine where I can be more free and honest with my words...

"Last I checked this is still a free country..." begs two questions: When was the last time you checked and what is your definition of "freedom"?

Just curious

hey, Me, chatting POLITICS! Who woulda thunk it? *laughs* this is fun.

gotta go
twj
Expendable Guy. The show is no good without them.
User avatar
torbjon
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:08 am
Location: New Jersey

Postby lost_shaman » Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:47 am

Well, no-one can argue the fact that Jimmy Carter did actually file a UFO report.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: A More Perfect Union

Postby torbjon » Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:23 pm

AD,

"who will provide for the public infrastructure"

I've tried a reply to that a few times now, they end up being preachy, verbose, or both, and I don't think this is the thread for it anyway.

Also, I'm not very comfortable outside of the Latrine... I Like my colorful metaphors and I Like being emotional and passionate about things I get involved in...

So, if you really want to banter the topic around I'd like to suggest starting a thread in the Latrine for it...

However, the incredibly Short answer to your question is:

You.

Duty is now clubbing me with a barbie doll, so I got go
twj
Expendable Guy. The show is no good without them.
User avatar
torbjon
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:08 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: Are the American people fit to govern themselves?

Postby Access Denied » Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:29 am

torbjon wrote:I don't believe I've Ever read the Enquirer *ponders* no, not even in desperation.

rofl

[you cool with chat shorthand or is that as lame as smileys in your book?]

torbjon wrote:"who will provide for the public infrastructure"

I've tried a reply to that a few times now, they end up being preachy, verbose, or both, and I don't think this is the thread for it anyway.

You say that like preachy and verbose are a bad thing. This is our (your) political forum… what is politics if not about differences of opinion?

[note I moved this into a new thread]

torbjon wrote:Also, I'm not very comfortable outside of the Latrine... I Like my colorful metaphors and I Like being emotional and passionate about things I get involved in...

Err… I think we may have gotten off on the wrong foot here. My only issue was with a quote you used as a debating point I felt needed to be substantiated in accordance with our board rules. I hope we’re past that now?

Take a look at some of the threads in this (the political) forum… see any emotion and passion? As long as you're cool with the board rules and don’t threaten to kill anyone lol you should be fine. We’re all adults here right?

torbjon wrote:However, the incredibly Short answer to your question is:

You.

I suspect we may agree more than you think. Correct me if I’m wrong but it sounds like you support some more radical form of libertarianism? I tend to support a more conservative form of libertarianism.

Oh, and the incredibly Short answer to your question is:

1. Today.
2. Whatever flips your switch as long as it doesn’t infringe upon anyone else’s freedom.

From there I’d argue the devil’s in the details…

Cool beans?
Last edited by Access Denied on Wed Apr 16, 2008 6:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: correct typos
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Are the American people fit to govern themselves?

Postby ryguy » Tue Apr 15, 2008 5:23 pm

The short of it, for me anyway, is that there are two important sides to the disclosure debate.

How much should be secret from the American public, and how many funds should be sunk into that black hole? Is there enough appropriate oversight put in place to protect the very people who fund those black projects (us)?

On the one side - the military side - we can say, damn straight we need secrecy for the sake of National Security, and to protect our intelligence and military secrets that give us a strategic and military advantage from the probing and spying efforts of foreign intelligence agents. These are critical and important advantages, and AD makes an excellent point that "full" disclosure would be catastrophic for our country.

On the other side - the public side - we must remain cautious regarding too much secrecy. Human nature tends to not behave very well when actions are hidden by the cloak of darkness and sactioned secrecy. Yes - secrets are necessary for the maintenance of a country's financial and military position in the world. However, too many secrets from the people themselves can lead to a core that becomes rotten - a country that appears ok on the outside but is seedy and disgusting on the inside. That's the fear that I think Torbjon is probably expressing, and it's a legitimate and important concern that all of us should be extremely congizant of.

...IMHO

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Are the American people fit to govern themselves?

Postby Zep Tepi » Tue Apr 15, 2008 5:56 pm

I think disclosure in this context is referring to the disclosure of UFO/ET knowledge held by the USG. This always make me chuckle, because it is pretty apparent the likliehood of the USG having any information pertaining to the existence or reality of ET/Alien life is as close to NIL as you can get.

The disclosure movement are campaigning for something they can't have because quite simply it doesn't exist. I wish it did, but I'm not going to delude myself based on the rampant imaginations of a few core scammers or the resulting use of that "information" in various CI operations down the years.

Cheers,
Steve
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Are the American people fit to govern themselves?

Postby uberarcanist » Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:36 pm

Well, Zep, I've always personally despised the disclosure movement because I think it's basically people just sitting around waiting for the government to spoon feed them information, which they will probably never do, when there's already lots of good, juicy stuff in the public domain.

I do want to know, however, why you don't think the government has anything.
867-5309
User avatar
uberarcanist
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:03 pm

Re: Are the American people fit to govern themselves?

Postby Zep Tepi » Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:36 am

The main reason I believe they don't have anything is because I haven't seen anything that would convince me to the contrary. The majority of stories involving the concept that the USG do have something to disclose revolve around the Roswell story. I believe there is more than enough evidence that shows Roswell to be nothing more than a fanciful attempt by some to convince others that an alien spaceship crashed in the New Mexico desert, and not something of a more earthly origin. Take away Roswell and what else is there? If there was something else I am pretty sure we would have heard about it by now. Contrary to popular ufological belief, there are other countries out there besides the USA that have the capability to see into space and monitor what is actually "out there". It's very convenient to suggest it is the USA holding back disclosure, but what possible motive would countries like Russia or China have in suppressing that information? There are enough countries in Europe with the same capability yet no one has come forward and said "ooh look at this!" I can't see France keeping quiet about something like that.

Sure, many people have seen something in the skies at some time or other - me included. If even a small percentage of those objects were ET-related, where is the evidence? There are enough civilian observatories around the world and millions of cameras yet we are never presented with anything even remotely resembling an alien craft - when we do they always turn out to be misidentifications or hoaxed.

Also, *IF* the USG had something to disclose in that regard, the fact they have been able to keep the tens of thousands of people required to keep such a secret SILENT would be more earth shattering than the actual disclosure itself. Our world just doesn't work like that!

Cheers,
Steve
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Are the American people fit to govern themselves?

Postby uberarcanist » Wed Apr 16, 2008 3:30 am

What do you think is going on with the Ramey Memo, Steve?
867-5309
User avatar
uberarcanist
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:03 pm

Next

Google

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

cron