My Political Position: A Thesis

One wonders, what is the role and function of Government and how can Government best benefit a society? In my mind, Government's responsibility is to create the ideal situation for his country to flourish. Government's responsibility is to ensure the domestic prosperity of his people, and thereby the domestic prosperity of the country.

To settle disagreements through negotiations and when negotiations fail, to take the precautions necessary both to protect the homeland and those brave and courageous enough to fight for the homeland.


Let it be made clear though, that government's responsibility is not "to take care of you", but rather to create a situation where you can take care of yourself.

Hence, we look at Social Security and Medicaid, hundreds of millions of Americans are on these programs and hundreds of millions of Americans cannot take care of themselves or enjoy their own individual prosperity. We look at Food Stamps and other "assistance" programs, rather than assist they handicap our development and eventually force us to decline into dependance.

It's clear that when the State starts to take the position of taking "care" of someone, it devalues it's own citizens and thereby it's own existence. The Soviet Union was bound to collapse one day or another, the people would get tired of being peasants. The Soviet Government wouldn't be able to save face under such cronyism and corruption and hence the Berlin Wall fell.


At the same time, the very topic of face is very important when discussing the role and capabilities of government. A Government can only create a Social State of Productivity when it has proper face. Had the Obama Administration continued to support grassroot politics and ideas in 2009/2010, it's wholly possible that Republican opposition and third party opposition would be neutered and a second term would be easily accomplished.

Obama had the Face, to be able to accomplish significant social changes. The People wanted it from a financial standpoint, he decided to not only go towards the opposite direction with the Health Care Bill, but his legislation effectively said: If you don't comply, you'll be incarcerated. Threatening the lives of your constituents isn't exactly a good way to get re-elected.

These last four years have been a very great example of Face and what one can do with it and what one can do to squander it. Obama squandered a great opportunity, and now he goes along the ranks of Presidents Carter and Bush instead of Lincoln and Jefferson.

Being fair to President Obama and to support my position as well:The position of Neutral Leadership and Universal Freedom is a flawed position.

Neutral Leadership:

What is Neutral Leadership? In America, we have a great example of Neutral Leadership. Where you've got the two parties going against each other. You've got the House and the Senate and the Supreme Courts. All of these powers go against each other, known as the Checks and Balances system.

It's great to have a Checks and Balances system right? It's great to make sure that our elected officials don't go crazy and call the FBI, CIA, etc on us at whim and decide to shoot us at gun point as in Stalin Soviet Union, right?

But here's the problem: While we don't want them to go crazy and kill us and stuff, we also want them to be effective at what they do and simply put: This system is not effective at all. Through lobbyists, even if you have a Democratic Regime it's wholly possible for significant Republican gains and legislation.(IE: Some Democrats supporting Republican Legislation.) Not exactly what you voted for, is it?

Furthermore, through the whole debating process and the deadlocks. As the Liberals have correctly pointed out: Nothing gets done. When Partisan Politics overtakes the ideals of looking after your state, your district and ultimately this country Government has lost Face in all of it's basic functions.

So when there were reports about Government shutdown and that we had to avert this? In my mind, through our political apathy, through political bribes and payoffs and Partisan Politics as it's never before been seen in America: Government has shut down, probably since the end of the Second World War.

Then there's the Veto Process, where the Founding Fathers didn't entrust the President insofar as to make the correct decisions. In another post, I explained about the flawed Veto Process and how if Congress really wanted to pass Hitler's Enabling Act in America, it could face no resistance from Obama. Well, it'd take a little longer but it'd get done.

Congress can Impeach the President, but can you impeach Congress? Congress is a body, not one singular man. Good luck holding the entire Congress siege, especially with the Secret Service, FBI, ETC. Our system is in effect a de-facto dictatorship. Oh to be sure, you can pick out a plum or two but I'm talking about the body, the institution itself when the institution goes against the law. There's no Leadership, at best there are lawmakers. But insofar as they make the law, they don't uphold the law's standards. And therefore it's not law but rather a diktat.

With no Leadership/Neutral Leadership, The American People are a chicken without a head. What made the Republic work back in the late 17th-18th century was that the Founding Fathers knew on what principles America was established on and the American People also knew those principles and had the political balls to hold them to account. The Founders, knowing about Face not only allowed but embraced this as the lynchpin to keep the Country intact.

The People today, neither know about these principles nor do they have the political balls to hold our lawmakers into account. Even insofar as ignoring a return to Constitutional values but trying to create a Liberal Society or a Xenophobic State such as the Neo-'Conservatives' idealize, neither Liberals nor Neo-Con "supporters" hold their lawmakers to account.

This brings us to the second Flawed Position: Universal Freedom

Universal Freedom, Political Apathy and the downfall of America



Universal Freedom is a concept that first erected in the 12th century when the Magna Carta was brought forth to then King George to sign. As well as the Founding Fathers declaring that all men are created universally equal by their creator and they are promised individual Human rights of the right to prosperity, The right to express themselves religiously freely or in any other case as well.

The only binding restriction be, that these freedoms are extended only to the extent where you attempt to rob another person of his well being, his right of expression and his right of life.

Sounds like a very good concept right? Well, there's nothing wrong with the concept itself. Except the Freedom to make a Choice is equated with the Responsibility of the Decision. At the time of the Renaissance, a great political and intellectual time that brought us wonderful thinkers like Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein as well as the Founders they knew this full well and hence a Universal Freedom position could be held.

But what about today? Do the People understand that their choices have consequences? Perhaps in the sense that it's an age-old mantra and they've heard it Ad Nauseum but they don't apply it. Take a look at the credit card and housing market crisis's. That certainly doesn't look like a civilization and an era of responsibility.

Today, we'd like to eliminate the responsibility that comes with Universal Freedom and just have the Universal Freedom concept. But that can't be held because without that responsibility, the entire structure falls. Where we've suffered this structure fall can't be anymore evidenced than Political Apathy.

As mentioned above, I hold the position that the people's Political Apathy and consequently their political intellect has put the country in a most grave position. Not only are most Americans pitifully unaware of this nation's origins, the reasons and the whys. But they aren't motivated to learn or find out.

Political Soundbytes would be irrelevant if the American People had the tiniest bit of interest in Politics. If the People themselves ignored CNN, MSNBC for a day and just read up on a political position and see if they themselves could fit that lifestyle.

Politics, is the same as selecting a personal doctor, or going clothes shopping. It affects you, so stop dawdling and picking X candidate because Fox News or CNN told you to damn it!

Their personal opinions are theirs and in most cases it isn't even theirs! Ever heard of a script? We're getting the most political support from X candidate, so let's be sure to feature him the most.

Of course, none of this is new, everyone knows about corruption and this is actually a main point in Political Apathy: Because it's corrupt, people are like: Who cares, our voices don't matter anyway.

You're right, they don't matter: Because you shut your voices up. When you march, and you march in numbers things happen. The problem is, even after a successful political activism campaign. You're like "Yay, we won the battle now let's go back to watching American Idol."

But the battle is never over, it's never won. Politics is constant, politics is leadership. Politics is like your economic management strategy. You're always considering your financial situation. You must also always consider who your leaders are and what they stand for, or if they're leaders at all or just lawmakers.

We have too many lawmakers and very few leaders. We also have a lot of followers in this country. This is a perfect political storm for the kind of cronyism we're seeing in America today and what was experienced in the Soviet Union.

It's not all your fault, you didn't come to this country(and it wasn't the Fathers intent) for you to overly regulate your leaders and for you to constantly consider the government. When you HAVE to constantly consider the government, you're in the state that America is in right now.


We need regulation, and we need political spirit and activity. But we also need leadership, rather than lawmakers. Head of States, rather than Politicians.

Enter in Guided Governance, or Fascism


Let me begin off by saying a True Fascist doesn't believe in dictatorship or cronyism, a dictating state falls on it's own hubris, needing both the productivity and the general satisfaction of the people to keep itself afloat. Most dictatorship, crony systems simply focus on their own end and not on the people. Not even insofar as to appease them.

You'd be a dictator if you wanted unopposed rule for 2-4 years, then go into exile. All Heads of States who manage to be in power for decades and years have either heavily supported their people or politically made the case that they did so. And if I'm to be honest: The ideal form of government is one of this nature.

We go from Democrat, to Republican or Republican to Democrat: Where's the consistency to get anything going? Is there a true nation-wide view that we hold? An image we believe in? Not only is there no consistency, but these parties by their nature cannot invoke political spirit in us.

For the People to exercise their rights, and for the people to take interest in their country they must be invoked to do so. And that's what Fascism can do.

Fascism is the decision that Freedom does indeed have consequences, we should therefore guide the people in using freedom so as to avert as many consequences as possible.

So for example: If our Government(our leaders) are decent, honest people. It encourages us to become decent, honest people. If our government strives for excellence, it encourages us to strive for excellence.

In becoming the symbol of the State, we revive the American State and the American People who for all intents and purposes are dead and dormant.

If our government can make the correct decisions and guide the country and govern it, for what reason would we have to be involved? There would be no reason, except out of the principle that we have to constantly be aware.

But now, we don't have to focus on it as much in a Fascist system, we just have to be aware. There's a difference between Constant Awareness and Daily Awareness.

Right now, there's a political need to be Constantly Aware of the Government. A Fascist Government can take down the political need several fold and return us to being able to mainly focus on our own prosperity.

Our Government right now has no leadership, no symbol, no pride and certainly no honor and integrity. We shouldn't be too surprised at our economic and social state given these truisms, in fact we should expect such decline.

But if we take a Fascist position of Governance, wouldn't I lose rights?

That depends on what you'd call rights. You have the right to work at the place of your choice, you have the right to freedom of speech, you have the right to exercise freedom of religion or spirituality. The basic tenants of Human Rights would not fall by the wayside under a Fascist Position.

What a Fascist says, is this: "You have the freedom to do anything you want, as long as it's productive for the Individual and for the Country".

That's it, that's the only restriction. That whatever you endeavor is productive in some way or shape for you and for your fellow citizens. So, for example when you're working at UPS, UPS is a company that helps people ship items all across the world. You're helping international trade and you're helping the world community as a whole as well as yourself. This is productive.

But when another person works as a Stock Exchange person looking at Nasdaq's numbers(or even the very existence of Nasdaq)that's a selfish, non-productive job.

There's nothing he's producing, there isn't a product that made our way of life better. He's a virtual black hole in the economy. He is the Unaccounted Liability that's not counted among the unaccounted liabilities. And there are hundreds like him making hundreds of millions of dollars!

So that 75 trillion in unaccounted liabilities in my political opinion is actually quite the bit higher. The same goes for his counterpart in Europe, Asia and elsewhere. The trillions they rob of the world economy is a huge part of the problem of the recession/depression.

Not to say that his right to earn a living is any less than another person's, it's just that his right to earn a living has to actually produce something for others to produce as well.

You can't have a healthy economy otherwise, production begets production. Anything sucked into a black hole never returns and so the same is true for the broker and the hundreds of thousands he takes home that should have better gone to charity or to some other worthy cause, at least then it would've meant something.

Does this mean athletes? Actually, no. While they may not have a global brand per say(Though the NBA/NFL/NHL have tried to and have in many cases successfully marketed their brand on the global market place.) They do have a very local base.

In other words, the city of Los Angeles is enjoying alot of revenue from Lakers/Clippers games. Here, in Philadelphia, with four major sport teams that generates alot of revenue and Philadelphia is the fourth major economic market in the U.S.

Athletes have a very rare skillset and have set the market for themselves. If organizations continue to support athletes and if they have the money to continue paying the rates they do, who am I or anyone to stop them? That creates unrest, it devalues the State and therefore isn't a Fascist Position.

It might not seem fair, but with economic adjustment we can bridge the gap between Middle America and the Rich. In fact, we can accomplish the ultimate goal of Fascism: Making a True America.

Remember, anything that's not productive is not a Fascist Position and certainly wouldn't be upheld by a Fascist Government. Therefore, the current economic model where a CEO earns 500 X that of the Middle Class American would be torn down and rebuilt through economic experts not tied to any one corporation or franchise.

That CEO earning 500 X of the Middle Class is not someone who has made his own market or brand. Nor is he really being "paid" per say that money, so others aren't creating such a glamorous market where he deserves to make what he's being "paid". He's really robbing the economy of America of it's money and stuffing his own pocket.

CEOS of this type are tycoons, and they are the worst of the poisonous cancers that have crept into America. These guys are the ones who will ship their money overseas, move their families to some other country while the country faces hardship and he's not going to weep one little bit about America.

Maybe the corporation has generated a successful brand and a successful market, but why should the CEO get the credit to the extent of making 500 X his own workers!? They're the ones who actually did the work. They're entitled to more than the scrap heap.

In the place of the tycoon, the Government would look for CEO'S who stand as examples of honor, dignity and leadership. Who acknowledge that it wasn't they alone who made the company great but it was the workers who excellently carried out the game-plan for selling and advertising their brand.

So the benefits of a Fascist Government are as followed:

1) No more corruption, stagnation of government: No more hundreds of other politicians with their bribed compromised asses compromising the country with them. No more conflicts of second and third parties, but rather one party, one vision, one dream: An American Dream.

2)With Guided Freedom as a principle, Human Economic Rights are restored in America. With the Tycoon and the Broker eliminated from American life, you're no longer robbed of 85% of the economy. It's now actually possible for you to be making hundreds of thousands a year, and thousands in weekly/bi-weekly checks. And through engaging in the open and free market, many Americans will find themselves in a position where they aren't that far separated from the athlete.

We'll repeal NAFTA, get out of the WTO. Tell China to screw itself and build our economy and our country back. We'll still be very active participants in the global economy and the world, but there's no reason for us to be China's lapdog while China has done nothing for us, let alone it's own citizens.

3)The Divisions of America, are over.

I'm not going to force you into a collective borg hive nor do I believe in one. But rather, there are two types of people: Those who love America and those who want to take advantage of America. Those who want to add in a little spice and those who just want us to eat their cake so they don't feel weird that they're the only ones eating the said cake.

All those who love America, are bound together irregardless of race, and creed and sexual orientation. This love for America, now politically open will be an awakening for an American. The former White Supremacist will see that an African-American is also pledging to the flag with the same devotion and pride that he is, and will come to understand that it's not his ethnicity that makes him an American, it's his nationality that makes him an American.

There are many others however, who do not love America. What about them? It's quite simple and it goes back to what I said about productivity: If you don't love this country, if you don't feel absolute loyalty and support to this country.

And that doesn't mean to the government, the government is NOT the country. YOU, yourselves as citizens are the country! If he who doesn't love this country exists in the homeland, then we kindly ask him: What country would you like to live in? We'll set up your passport and send you on your marry way.

That said, I'm of the political opinion that I think that the African-American wastes a valuable opportunity in not taking what he's learned here in America and passing it unto Africa. The African-American in general(not all, and this is but a political thesis and nothing more.) would rather take the for-sure thing that is America rather than cultivate his own land.

The reason I bring this up is not that I'm some supposed 'White Supremacist closet guy', but rather I'm of the observation that Africa as a whole since the days of slavery has been impoverished and taken advantage of. Because of this, African-Americans don't truly know their own native and it'd be of a cultural development for them as a whole to experience that.

Geographically, I would like to see impoverished nations like Africa thrive in the 21st century and the way we can do that is to promote the domestic growth of those nations. If an African-American feels more bond to America than Africa, understandable and fine. But I'd like to see if we could organize something where an African-American can give back to Africa and connect with Africa.

The ideal world, is one where second and third world countries become all first world countries. This is an ideal that can be reached based on our connections and on our intent on making it happen. I think it'll be iconic if we could start the process in Africa, as the terrible tragedies of slavery have truly cost that land dearly and they've yet to truly recover from that.

One can love his country, be enthusiastic about his country and still yet see the larger picture. I want to be a Political Leader one day, not just for my country but for the free world and the development of the free world.

Is this a discussion or merely a showcase of your writing? If it is the latter, I will be moving it.

I don't see a question or something that can lead to a discussion..

My answer.

Go on and move it. = A =;;

I can't believe I'm the only one that is outraged that this fucktard is proselytizing Fascist propaganda! Fascism won't have corruption? Get REAL! Time and time and time again we've seen dictatorships were corrupt to the core...

Why? Because there was no whatsoever accountability to the public and the dictator could remain in power not through fulfilling the needs of the people, but by co-opting everyone else in power. No single person can rule a country on their own, the task needs clerks, policemen, judges etc., etc.

Democracy is the only system that has allowed the Average Joe to genuinely influence the course of his nation and his own welfare. So what if democracies too can be corrupted and co-opted? They are still better than any *other* system in history. Sure you have the occasional Alexander the Great, Pericles or Julius Caesar... but they too were bloody tyrants! They destroyed their opponents for no other reason than the fact they could and it furthered their own power.

A moral man can't condone a system of government that hands out "justice" as it sees fit, for then it's no longer justice but a mockery of what the word stands for.

I also find your stance on "patriotism" shameful:

"What is the most cowardly and shameful thing in human conduct? It's when people with power, and those who flatter them, hide in safe places and extol war — who force patriotism and self-sacrifice on other, sending them to the battlefield to die. For the sake of peace in the universe, before we continue this fruitless war with the Empire, mustn't we first start by exterminating such evil parasites? "

You messed up again, Clover (OP). Lolol.

Your political position is on par with prehistoric periods. Desist your delusional diatribe, you fascist fuckwit.

I second the sentiment expressed by my peers.

It's a shame that this thread has promoted such negative feedback but why am I not surprised? I thought I clearly outlined that what we learned about Fascism in schools and what Fascism actually is, are fundamentally different things. To answer Tegumi's question, this was an attempt to arouse discussion on it, as well as to let people know of my political stance. Hence, I think it's quite serious.

I find it quite laughable that we talk about Democracy, as a system that allows the "Average Joe" to outline the history and future of his country. Let's use our beloved country, America as an example. You have the Democrats and the Republicans, with one side defeating the other. By the nature of this process alone, I'd say half of America has effectively been denied a voice. But what about those who support a Third Party position, like say the Libertarian position? Their silenced outright, in fact the mainstream political thinkers would propagandize you to believe it's a "waste of a vote", or "they're not electable". Between that and the political election laws and is there already not censorship?


I'm not talking about Soviet Russia or Mussolini Italy, I'm talking about your beloved democratic America. Where you think we supposedly control the future of this country. Since the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War, the American People have been politically tamed and controlled. So don't talk to me about Democracy being some free system..lol. Even the Founders would find that position laughable as they HATED Democracy, comparing it to two wolves deciding over having a sheep for dinner.

A Democracy is an Political Aristocracy, if you want proof look no further than Secretary of State, former First Lady and former NY Senator Hillary Clinton

http://www.issues2000.org/Takes_A_Village.htm

To be sure, a child is indeed affected by his social outlook on lives and the actions around him, but you can't reasonably control a person's actions or expect the world community to cater to the whims and needs of every person. That's called Communism. That's America's democracy today.

The only way one can "control" the social outlook of a country is to be the change you want to see. I outlined this in my original post, but since people seemed to have skimmed through it I said only a government with Honor and Face has long term standing and therefore can actually implement change. I outlined Obama's loss of face as the reason he'll be a one-term President.

You said that people can't hold the government to account, I disagree. The people can hold the government to account through Political Revolution. Never did I go against Political Revolution, up to even if it were against me. In fact, I called for it in the post! The best way to hold government to account is to let them know that if you fail your responsibilities, if you fail to uphold the law of the lands that you no longer deserve power and that we as a citizenry will take the responsibilities into our own hands.

Infact, to even quote myself:

Where in my post, I dare anyone to quote one part of my post where I denied basic Human Rights, I not only called for them but I tied Human Rights as a fundamental necessity for the ideal Country. Without Human Rights, we can't co-exist as people. Without the law to guide us and without honor and discipline there isn't a society.

And onto the remark about my Patriotism, to call me a coward is most uncalled for and never once did I call out anyone in my original OP post. I don't intend to send people off to wars while sitting comfortably or while playing golf AKA George W Bush.

This shows you didn't even read the first freaking paragraph! I said that a government's duty is to solve problems first through negotiations, and that when those negotiations fail, it is a government's responsibility to take those actions to defend both the homeland and the men and women who fight for it.

It's a position that defends our right as Human Beings to use the sword when it's necessary. Because a shield is not merely enough. It's honorable to say we'll never fight back, but it's a position that leaves you at a disadvantage. Will Universal Forces dictate that because we didn't draw the sword that we'll be victorious?

That might happen, but betting on it happening is not the way a responsible government or a responsible leader operates. The world is universally free and open and therefore, countries can vie for positions and position themselves to individually and collectively prosper. It is this competitive open system that brings out the best and admittedly sometimes the worst in Human Beings.

But without this competitive open system, humanity would have never advanced so far in medicine and technology. I embrace the competitive open system and I embrace the need for leadership.

I acknowledge the people can't lead themselves, they don't want to. It's too difficult, and the perception of Protectivism and Universal Freedom is much more appealing as compared to Guided Freedom and Discipline.

I thought you might have been going somewhere good with this, but as soon as I read the opening paragraphs of your Fascism segment, I immediately slapped myself for ever having thought so.

The purpose of government is not to "create the ideal situation for his country to flourish". No. The purpose of government and the state is to protect the individual liberties and rights of its people through the legitimate and proper use of force. In order to clarify what constitutes the proper use of this force, we make laws using a legislature, and in order to make sure these laws and the use of force are fair and properly upholding our rights, we create the court systems to offer an objective judgement over everyone.

A government that tells its people "be productive or else" is violating the very principles by which it should govern. One can say that government should encourage economic growth, but it's completely wrong to say that it should mandate it's people to all follow in that one goal. It's a complete restriction of individual freedom, and most certainly NOT what the Founding Fathers (which you so often referred to before your little discourse on Fascism) would have wanted.

Except through cronyism and politicism, the courts are no longer unbiased. Instead, a more accurate way of running things would be having those who are not tied by a party or a corporation, or any intimate connections of any sort. Those who simply love this country and want to see it succeed.

Government cannot "protect" people's rights, it cannot care for people. You, yourself as the individual must take care of yourself. You, as the individual makes up the country. Get it? Stop depending on Government to answer your problems, Government is a guidance system(Fascism), little more, little less.

And through guidance and regulation, we come to the understanding that univeralism isn't exactly the great concept we thought it was. That there are some things that we're better off without, but whose temptation is much too strong to resist.

A government that only allows for productive jobs for a productive economy is a government that is ironically enough, ensuring your individual liberties. We're just saying that the Tycoon and the Stock Broker robs the economy and that the money(and his individual participation) are both better suited elsewhere.

A country is an organic existence, it must be regulated as such. We can't use Universality as a means for escaping responsibility. This way of living, since the end of WW2 has degenerated America.

See, you give me the impression that you'd be a great political philosopher, in the way that Marx was.

And just like Marx, you wouldn't realize the true nature of the monstrosity you're creating in your head until it's actually put into practice.

As much as you'd like to be an idealist, you're living in a world that doesn't think the same as you do. It's nice to feel like you have an idea that will impact the way we run our government. But do you honestly believe that the hundreds of thousands of political scientists and polysci professors that have studied the world's governments for the past forty fifty SIXTY years and have taught their ideas to millions of students at respectable institutions have never once asked themselves what the actual pro's and con's of a fascist state are? That they missed something you so clearly have yourself fixated on?

Your idea of freedom, while perhaps being a legitimate one, is fantastically out of line with the ideas that this country was founded on. I don't care what the Founding Fathers said about democracy. Because what they wrote in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are the ideas that this nation were founded on, and they definitely ring like democracy to any sane man.

Now, let's talk about this country and the leadership you so adamantly wish for. A leadership that only takes into consideration the good of the country and the good of the people (so long as they act for the good of the country).

This supreme leadership you're proposing only cares about the country as a whole and its well being. To it, the individual does not matter. It views the individual not as an independent being, but as a small part of the country as a whole. Essentially, it negates any value to the individual as an individual.

If the individual offers nothing productive to the country and the state, then what? Do we exile him? Do we throw him in prison? Do we kill him?



These people are, for the lack of a better term, "undesirables" (see what I did there?). The fact that they cannot contribute anything to the country is more than enough to preclude their right to exist as citizens of the nation-state.

At this point, we'd have to create an official list of the "types" of individuals that wouldn't contribute any value to our country and its economy. These would include homeless people, people with disabilities, terminal diseases and other medical conditions that would not allow them to work, and, oh, the elderly.

These men, the men that run the country, only care about prosperity. Individual be damned because the country is what matters.

To me, it sounds a lot like Hitler's Germany, but with something akin to China's Politburo Standing Committee at the top. Just saying.

But it's you that's proposed exiling citizens and proclaiming them undesirables. This isn't my position and intrepretation of Fascist Economic ideology and maybe I should have made that clearer, in fact I will now.

Citizens in a rough patch

As has been pointed out, there are those who undergo extraordinary circumstances that ends up corrupting and corroding their individual unique perspective as they then become criminals and degenerates. Or there are those who for their own circumstances end up not having a home and yes, the elderly.

These people might not be producing to the Economy at the moment, but that doesn't mean they can't. As long as they are mentally capable, they should be able to recover from their problems.

Inmates

There are certain educational programs in prisons, and yet these educational programs are maybe in 8% of our U.S. Prisons. A way we could positively significantly reduce crime would be to turn that 8% number into 50%(A conservative start) and ideally into the Administration we're talking 80% to 100% of our prisons having a mandate educational program and instilling civil responsibilities and rights to inmates. Additionally, we could get rid of the whole idea of a felony which punishes the former inmate when he is released from prison. Having removed the felony, he can go back into the work force and start anew. Instead of a tag over his head his entire life. I'll repeat here: These educational programs I'm proposing are not political in nature, If I have to "manipulate" people to accomplish my agendas, then my agendas are not good for the country. There's no brainwashing or torture, or any Bush-esque policies. Just a simple: Let's reform you into a positive American Citizen.

And yet I reserve the right for capital murderers and those who have committed most heinous crimes, to suggest that we can rehabilitate some of our countries worst men and (even in some cases) women is truly an idealistic position. I'm an idealist, but I'm also a realist. In reality, perhaps it's only the worst of the criminals who we should incarcerate. Prisons shouldn't be overly crowded but rather, they are there to safeguard the people from those who would harm their lives and liberties.

The Elderly

The Elderly are those who have contributed to our country for many years and have been a part of the ups and downs of the country and has provided us with many great achievements in the prime of their lives. But now, their sun has set. Many fear with my position, that I'm of the opinion that we should just throw them away because they can longer work.

But nothing could be farther from the truth, yes they can no longer work but they can impart wisdom and intelligence to the young people who can work. They can tell us what works and what doesn't work, and why. They're the ones who are the most abundantly filled with love. In my opinion, Human Life by it's nature is always productive. Our productivity is the basis for our livelihood.

And in my imagination, with our priorities straightened out and our economy on the road to recovery, there's no reason why we couldn't continue pensions and retirements. I view these programs wholly different from Welfare, in that whereas Welfare weakens a person's moral and ultimately keeps him from being productive, the senior citizen has been productive for decades in the homeland, his loyalty has only been to America and he should be rewarded as such.

Terminal Illnesses and the disabled

As someone born with Cerebral Palsy who made the great efforts and strides to gain the ability to walk and to coordinate my arms and essentially be as productive as anyone else. I know first hand the challenges it can be to be disabled or labeled disabled and I know of the social consequences. And I also saw first hand through a relative's marriage as her significant other died of cancer.

Those who are disabled or facing life-threatening diseases are also among our most weak and most fragile. But that doesn't mean they are any less valuable. There have been hundreds of men and women who've overcome cancer and other numerous life-threatening diseases to live a long or a prolonged life and have been able to contribute to the economy and to themselves and their families.

Who am I, who successfully fought a struggle for my own strength to say that another cannot fight the same battle and win? I'm not a fortune teller, I can't make that prediction and neither can doctors no matter how bleak it might look. Because Fate, will and humanity itself are all unpredictable factors.

I'm all for the life-saving treatments and I'm all for the treatments to help the disabled eventually work again. Even if, for a few years to a decade(or even more), they would have been able to return to the work force and more importantly to engage society as Human Beings. Their value shouldn't be cut short due to knee-jerk decisions on our part.

My only position on this, is in regards to value: Government, the State itself should not be on the hook for those who are disabled or those who are fighting these terminal illnesses. We can certainly have assistance programs to help people continue the fight and struggle , but it isn't a fight or a struggle if we do the fighting for them.

To this end, insurance companies provide a great value to the American Consumer, even if it doesn't feel like that in our prime and when we're healthy. The only thing I'd do in this regard is to recommend to insurance companies to drop their cronyism position in regards to those who are fighting the struggle.

Sure, it might cost you thousands to pay for the man or woman who might very well die. But you'll gain hundreds of thousands more from those who survived, and the families of those who died who were thankful for your support.

You don't give up on people when they're down, but rather you encourage them and you believe in their ability to stand up. Men have recorded many miracles in the past with that little thing called belief. It can surely keep our civilization a earnest and modest one.

The Homeless and those who can't find a job
There are many Job Centers across America and yet, many Americans are unaware of this opportunity. These Job centers need to be more promoted, more heavily funded and more localized. Centers such as these and other ideas I'd heavily consider for assisting those needing work. I'd create such similar centers for those looking for a home, whilst placing a limitation of Day Stays in Homeless Shelters.

Why place a limitation? The Republicans once had the idea that those who were receiving welfare benefits should report their daily activities towards getting a job. Why? Because it promotes them to actually go out and get a job! It gives them courage, opportunity and motivation. Their survival instincts kick in when they know they don't have a safety net over their heads.

And over the long haul, they'll thank me for it. Even if, as you pointed out Es that our universal freedom love-fest keeps us from ushering in an era of responsibility. You'll criticize the motion today, but as our economy recovers the ideal will be admired.

Government cannot protect you, it cannot constantly put a roof over your head, feed you and take care of you. It *could*, but you as an individual citizen are neglected in the worst possible ways and you therefore die. Your corpse might be alive and you might be able to talk. But what spirit of living is left in the core of your bones?

But it can assist you, it can create the ideal circumstances for your individual and collective growth. It can guide you along the way, and it can take the sometimes drastic and decisive actions necessary to keep the State prosperous.

Hopefully, there isn't a need for drastic and decisive actions. Hopefully, we can stay a Neutral country and we can focus on our own growth and prosperity. But the only way we can secure our neutrality and our freedoms is the show that we have the individual and collective strength to survive against any confrontation that's thrown our way. Not just politically and geopolitically but socially.

That strength, that honor and that discipline is what governs me and it's what governs my Fascist Position. That the people must be guided along the path to individual and collective happiness and achievement. That we must socially greet one another and acknowledge each other. And that the country is the symbol of our unity and is our home.

This all probably sounds like beautiful rhetoric to you and anyone else who might read this, but you have to keep this in perspective: specifically, the the fact that the only person's perspective that you're taking into account is your own.

You're assuming you know what the best is for everyone. And that's why I cannot acknowledge your ideas. Freedom only flourishes when people have the right to choose what the the best is for themselves, regardless of whether or not it helps the country.

Having the right to govern without being held accountable by the rest of the country through a system of checks and balances is wrong. I don't care how nice your country sounds.

But what checks and balances? They're not checking and balancing each other out, at best they're canceling each other out and at worst they're vying for position and are politicized from the political parliament itself to the Supreme Court.

The...system...is.....dead! It is no longer serving us, and the Founders knew there'd come such a time where it wouldn't. Freedom only flourishes when people have the right to live happily and securely in their own homes and can focus on their own development. This cannot happen with roadblocks in our way.

The funny thing is, you(or anyone) has yet to argue the value of the stock broker and Wall Street as a whole. Why? Because you can't. It's a cancerous cell and you even KNOW it's a cancerous cell. You just want to keep the cancerous cell in the garden because it'd qualify as "freedom".

Political Corruption and Cronyism are also cancerous cells, you haven't argued the point and really who would? All i've argued is that Political Corruption, Cronyism and Wall Street. These cancers of our societies SHOULD be removed.

And through rehabilitating those who've shown that they are willing and ready to become a part of society again, we're treating cancer cells so that they disappear.

So what exactly is anti-freedom about this position? That whatever you do shouldn't negatively impact yourself and your fellow countrymen? Are you serious?

I've outlined very clearly that all human rights and dignities are protected and should be protected. Do you want me to write out that the second amendment would be protected(even though I made my support for it very clear in calling for a politicial revolution)? Then so be it, I support the second amendment.

I support the people's right to overthrow a government when it goes against the tenants of human nature. That, however by your indication will never happen. Our Republican and Democratic "servants" can continue to spew bullcrap, wrap their bodies around the flag during election day and you will still somehow follow them.

And for what reason, at this point I don't know. For some god unknown reason half of registered republicans would vote for Newt Ginrich or Mitt Rommney.

Yes, because the Bush Years were so prosperous! They were a guide for freedom! And the majority of the people, rather than vote a third party call a dictator-want-to-be in Obama as the "lesser of two evils".

The American People are cynically hopeless.

I'm not trying to make an argument that those things are good. I'm not trying to say that the current system is perfect and that we should leave it be. I'd love to get into a discussion about how we could go about fixing these problems, but that's not what THIS discussion is about.

What I'm trying to say is that despite all the problems we have in this country right now, despite the corruption and cronyism you mentioned, I'd rather have this country as it is than your theoretical super-happy fun-land utopia. And I'm not saying this because I love the "stock broker and Wall Street" as you call them or because I'm trying to defend them. I'm saying this because it's completely foolish of you to assume that your system can't degenerate to the same level that this country is at.

If you were truly a realist as you've said, you would have considered the possibility that your fascist nation could easily be lead astray by the very issues you're trying to overcome. In a system where one man decides what is right and what is wrong, all it takes is one corrupt individual to run the country aground. A realist would never hold his fellow man in such lofty regards, and the notion that you seem to be doing just this illustrates the naivety with which you created this system.

At which point you'd realize that if someone who simply wanted power and wealth ever managed to come into power within your fascist government, well... yea. I think it's suffice to say that your theory has a lot more room for things to go wrong than you think it does.

That's the problem with fascism, no matter what you say to the contrary. It's a system that's too exploitable. Far more than our current government is.

EDIT: Forget all of that. I'm not going to entertain a political debate with someone lousy enough to spit in the faces of the entire fucking nation and call them "hopeless". You have no right to say you're any better than Obama, your "dictator-want-to-be", when you believe that you're the fucking Pope of good government and that anyone that disagrees with you is automatically below your level of false enlightenment.

You're deluded. You can't have an honest discussion because you can't handle the possibility that you might be wrong.

fuck this thread, i'mma go fap.

I'd say that most Americans, not myself are the ones with a false sense of entitlement. This whole saga began when FDR violated the terms of office, going for a third and fourth one. Was there a huge emphasis then on change? Not necessarily.(Though the terms were then officially written into law.) There were student protests against the Vietnam war, but how about the elderly of the country at that time? Who were old enough to not only experience WW2 but in some cases WW1 as well. Had they stood up as well, a majority of the country would have presented itself before the government.

Well, the Vietnam war inevitably ended, but not before being one of our longest conflicts in history. Then you had NAFTA, if anything spelled treason this was it.

The Patriot Act, the NDAA. Can I go on with numerous government violations in this system? Point being: The American People never really went against these decisions or even at that, decided at one point in their lives to change the country.

At best in 1996 Rick Perot got maybe 15-20% of the vote. Then our Political Aristocracy decided that the American People don't deserve to hear a third voice and restructured the political laws to make a third party attempt obsolete.(Oh, right, we have 'freedom'.) Ralph Nader in 2000 was next up, and the American People were actually outraged that, due to Nader they believed he cost them a democratic victory.

You don't owe the Democrats anything, and if an election process is truly "free", then what is it Nader's fault for running? If anything, it's the party's fault and their voters fault for not being enthusiastic enough to get enough party votes.

It's not that I believe myself to be the pope of politics. I'm sure there are people who are much better suited to the task than myself. It's that I wholly believe that the American People will sooner suffer political and economic collaspe, then ever think of the possibility of change. Or that, it's this "system" in of itself that is causing the American People this great demise.

The Republic system worked because of a cohesive society, there isn't a cohesive society today. At best, we're all forced into a borg hive and forced to "tolerate" each other(one of Hillary's favorite words). Tolerate however, isn't the same as actually getting along. It's "I hate your guts and I want to beat the crap out of you but for the good of society, I won't."

It also worked because the Founders generally WANTED leadership. A political delusion that we 'learn' in class that we must forget is that the righteous leader is the leader that doesn't want power. One who doesn't want power, is one that never considered the responsibilities or the possibility of power. He is by far, the one most capable of corruption.

The Founders wanted power, they wanted the power to change their livelihoods which were abused by King George. They wanted the power to make a difference, and they went out and made it happen. All great leaders assumed power, it wasn't handed to them without their consideration. Stalin and the Soviets? Not politically supported by the Russians. Mao Mao? Not supported by the Chinese.

The Shah wasn't supported by the Iranians, even if he hadn't tried to dictate and control them he still would've suffered the fate of being overthrown. Because he didn't assume power for the Iranians, he assumed power as a U.S. Puppet.

So do I want power? Yes. Do I want the prestige that comes with it? Yes. Do I understand the responsibility that comes with it? Yes, if I betray my people I could very well die and I'll accept that death.

The 'leaders' today don't accept that responsibility, but then Americans don't take responsibility for themselves so what's to uphold the politicians?
Absolutely, positively nothing.

You look at what could go wrong, I'll look at it for a moment too: Even if a tyrant should get power inside the country, all tyrants fade from world history. The people will fight, they will be victorious as long as they band together. And a new just leader will arise from the struggle.

In this system, virtue and valor rule over paychecks and bribes. Now, which one would you rather govern our politics? I know I'd value virtue and valor to rule over not only the political life but my personal life.

If someone more virtuous and with more valor than me steps up to the plate to govern, I will be more than happy to concede and be a very happy citizen in such a civilization where leadership took hold.

If I knew and felt that a great man like Ron Paul had political support, I would have never turned to Fascism. But the fact that the American People are wholly clueless about the same position their Founders held(You STILL call this country a 'democracy', when a democracy is an aristocracy. It is an aristocracy in the modern day but it wasn't originally supposed to be one.)

But in my mind, Fascism is the correct mode of governance moving forward. A Government that is a live organic being taking pride in itself and it's country and it's people. And willing to make the decisions necessary where the people wholly are incapable of doing so.

It's not I, myself that judged the American People's incapability of politically governing themselves or even understanding to the slightest extent of political knowledge. It's American History that was the judge, I merely just read it's verdict.

Of course you have the right for an election, to go to the courts, to hold a referendum and all of these wonderful things. Where did I epouse anything to the contrary? I just complain politically that 1) throughout America's history, since our votes tend to go to Corporate Party #2, that these votes aren't really of resistance or change or if I were to be really critical they are of absolutely zero political importance.

We can go to the courts, but the problem being that courts are governed by men long since corrupted. George Washington warned against the Party Concept, today's America is the result of failing to heed Washington's warnings.

My second complaint, is that in my viewpoint that the constant change of policies within one administration to the next leave for no consistency and no stature of government. The 'consistency' would ideally be the principles set out in the constitution but not many Americans believe in the constitution, understand it or even it's history. And our Corporate brought and paid for politicians would like to forget it exists.

It would be noble indeed if the people were elected from the general citizenry, the problem being that those people who are elected from the general citzenry are at the base of our government, with which diseases and worms(I'm referring to those lobbyists) spread. Those, who originally were of good intention fall by the wayside.

So either have the general citizenry populate our government administration, or eliminate the lobbyists OR do both. But due to the economic factor of our "campaigns"(which I find absurd on a number of levels, why must it cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to elect a leader? Why must the hundreds of thousands come from American Citizens? Why can't the Government pay for the election and campaigns if it's so important for money to fund it?) The lower-level, the common leaders of our citizenry couldn't possibly maintain a political run for anything higher than a house seat or a governor's seat until they become career politicians.

We're already in this "benefic" dictatorship, though I don't see anything beneficial about it other than the fact that it could be worse. But I don't think that's a good political existence.

Then there's the fact that I think we can all agree that we neglected this country from the 60's onwards. So, do you expect me to reasonably trust a citizenry that has neglected this country for 52 years to make ANY decision, let alone the right one?

No, let's not joke around anymore: A vote for a Democrat or a Republican isn't a decision, it's the path of least resistance and the least care for this country and it's political process.

On the other hand, guided by principle and by Guided Freedom. The American People may actually politically wake up and take charge of their own destiny. But then I'm of the political viewpoint that politics may truly end up being for very few people. So I think it's better if we had a system where the citizens could give their opinions or ideas but that in the end, political leaders should be appointed by already existing leaders who have judged these people to be of the most virtuous and most obedient to their country and to their people.

Because the staff has to be paid, because the staff needs something to eat, rent to pay, family to feed.
Because commercial space on TV and radio is not for free.
Because billboard, badges and printed marketing what-so-ever costs money.
Because halls have to be rented, sound systems have to be rented, tour cars and buses have to be bought/rented and they usually run on gas, that also costs money.

Maybe in that happy shiny world of yours people get suddenly everything for free and money is no longer needed, therefore the elections wouldn't cost any money either.



Where does the government money come from, you genius, if not from tax paying citizens?

I DO live in a country, where the government pays for the elections. It costs the country every time a large amount of money, which is taken from the same budget that is used to run all the other important things in the very same country. So after every election we end up with an even larger deficit, which results usually in higher taxes and higher inflation, so the prices for everything grow too.

Yeah, far superior system ... totally ... (and yes, this IS sarcasm)

I think your entire POST was sarcastic(and rude at that). I'm just saying that it's incredibly self-serving for these aspiring candidates to take hundreds of thousands in the form of taxes and at the same time through funding.

The difference between your country and mine is a fairly simple yet a huge one: I live in the United States. Our gross domestic product is probably two or THREE times yours.

A reversal of irresponsible policies, the unfunded liabilities. A productive economy in which Black Hole Jobs have been either outright eliminated or reduced. Where the CEO 500 X rule becomes a thing of the past(Because while the CEO does deserve his economic freedom, as does every other citizen a CEO can never convince me HE alone was so necessary for his company so as to earn 500 times more than everyone else.)

If we can run trillions of dollars in debt, it might just take a trillion dollars as a WHOLE to run a single election(and at this, an election is from a 2-4 year window process.) So yes, I think America's government could take this responsibility without missing a beat.