Topic: BHO SSN Rejected by E-Verify | |
---|---|
Quick, anyone, name three presidents in your lifetime who didnt tell 'lies' (break or not meet campaign promises)....? now of those remaining, name one whose mother was called a whore, AND whose wife was called a cow? and last, does anyone actually believe this type of personal retort against mothers and wives is merely due to the traditional, broken political promises? Quick, what the hell does that matter anyways? Therein lies a problem of living under the public microscope! Other presidents have been called other things and so have their wives. What you fail to overlook is you are defending a person who potentially is a career criminal as well and the evidence is mounting. If a governemtn verification system cannot confirm his identity as a citizen then don't you think something is fishy? Probably not becasue all of us questioning Obama hate him becasue he is black! And at this very moment it is raining tuna fish and crackers from the sky! OH, and there was a recent sighting of a flying Sphagetti Monster too! ![]() Go you WILD Pastafarians! what it has to do with it is the LEVEL OF HATE (WHich is a very strong and PERSONAL emotion) not disagreement with policy not lack of faith in leadership ability but HATRED,, of a person and NO, i Have personally seen nothing like it in my life even though I have seen other presidents who have done , basically, the same things, made mistakes, and been poor leaders Not everyone who doesnt want OBama for president is a bigot, because certainly not everyone votes for or wants any president but MOST who are feeling some type of personal HATRED toward the man,, have issues that make me wonder,, |
|
|
|
The birthers are at it again, eh? The birth certificate thing didn't work, so they've gotta try something else. I really don't think that is the point here......I think point is if it has been established that BHO is verified by the government as a legal to work in the US and his SSN is coming back as not eligible according to Everify than how many applying for jobs are being rejected based on Everify that are eligible and the system needs to be checked for accuracy. Its not coming back as ineligible,, its coming back as NOT VERIFIED< meaning no decision whatsoever as to eligibility because the INFORMATION is not able to be matched,,, information put in by the person USING the service |
|
|
|
The birthers are at it again, eh? The birth certificate thing didn't work, so they've gotta try something else. I really don't think that is the point here......I think point is if it has been established that BHO is verified by the government as a legal to work in the US and his SSN is coming back as not eligible according to Everify than how many applying for jobs are being rejected based on Everify that are eligible and the system needs to be checked for accuracy. Its not coming back as ineligible,, its coming back as NOT VERIFIED< meaning no decision whatsoever as to eligibility because the INFORMATION is not able to be matched,,, information put in by the person USING the service If it comes back not verified then it needs to be verified through social services |
|
|
|
The S.S.A. is not going to verify or unverify the SSN of the president of the United States to some idiot private eye.
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Seakolony
on
Thu 09/15/11 03:47 PM
|
|
The S.S.A. is not going to verify or unverify the SSN of the president of the United States to some idiot private eye. Yes gotcha I was talking about what I had to do as a Social Worker when a SSN came back not verified. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Fri 09/16/11 04:32 AM
|
|
GOOD LORD , when does it stop. Notice (for the thinkers). It DOESNT check that the number is not valid. It DOESNT check that it is a valid number that does not belong to that name. It DOESNT check that there is no record of his citizenship. what DOES it check? SSA record does not verify (for) OTHER REASON now, I suggest anyone interesting in verifying information instead of repeating misinformation go to the website posted on this particular document and try to do their own 'self' check on the President. It will either not let you complete it because there are probably any number of others trying to do it already.,,,OR,, if you go through the process, you notice that there are QUESTIONS about address and other things meant to be PERSONAL to the inquirer(in this case, OBAMA) and according to the site itself Q : Why did I get an SSA or a DHS mismatch? A mismatch from Self Check does not mean that you are not authorized to work in the United States and may be caused by several different situations. You may have entered information incorrectly. You may have changed your name recently. If you naturalized or changed your immigration status recently, you may need to wait up to a few weeks for Self Check to accurately reflect the change. Im sure the conspiracy theorists will assume that there is some recent immigration change..lol but its far more likely from the OVERWHELMING concurrence of witness documentation, that the man was born in the US of A and this BIRTHER has most likely entered some information incorrectly on the portion that asked PERSONAL questions about President Obama. Number one the term BIRTHER (among others) is used to make us seem crazy, and obviously it's worked. That's the whole reason they use the terms cause they can't debate us. Number two, there is evidence suggesting the birth document showing Obama was born here was faked, so the documentation isn't neccessarily true. But nevermind the facts, just believe what you want, you will anyway right? ![]() but based on WHAT is this a fact? where is the irrefutable proof that the source claiming a fake is more FACTUAL than the sources who have signed legal documents and who hold OFFICIAL positions and have stated it is real? Birther is a term used to refer to those who are obsessed with trying to prove Obama's Birth Certificate is nonexistent or facke. ITs a pretty reasonable way to shorten the phrase Yes but it automatically makes them seem to not be credible, which is what the media wants. Same goes for conspiracy theorist, 9-11 truther, etc. They want to find ways to make us look bad so we won't be believed and quite obviously they have succeeded. And just because people hold official positions of anything, doesn't mean they're gonna always tell you the truth. Politicians lie through their teeth all the damn time! Any research into history will show you that. If they came out with definitive proof the boogeyman was real would you suddenly believe that too cause they said it? That's the definition of flawed logic. thats contradictory, if it was definitive proof, flawed logic would be to NOT believe it because you are determined to believe what you believed before I dont think people are crazy because they believe nonsense, I just think they are determined to not listen to reason about their nonsense as to official positions lying, of course they do, but they have much more to LOOSE in lying than some jo or jill smo who posts a blog or creates some official looking duplicate on a computer program to try to discredit the other more 'accountable' sources that are out there,,, Yes but if they can get enough people to support their stories (which they have), they can get away with anything they want, and they do. As for the first part of that, I think those that try and make excuses for the government apply to that more than the opposite. No matter what evidence may be presented they just refuse to believe the government would be that complicit. It's closed minded. seems like the pot calling the kettle black,,, Difference is WE have the facts. We're plenty open minded, but you have to be able to prove we're wrong before we're gonna believe you, and the facts make that impossible to do. Any unbiased look into our own history proves as much. Hell, it came out just last year that they purposefully infected 1,500 people in Guatemala with syphilis and gonorrhea in the 1940's, they outright admitted it! Now if they did that some 70 years ago and it's just only recently come out.......it begs the question, what else have they done over the years or what are they doing now that ISN'T being admitted? Fool me once........ |
|
|
|
GOOD LORD , when does it stop. Notice (for the thinkers). It DOESNT check that the number is not valid. It DOESNT check that it is a valid number that does not belong to that name. It DOESNT check that there is no record of his citizenship. what DOES it check? SSA record does not verify (for) OTHER REASON now, I suggest anyone interesting in verifying information instead of repeating misinformation go to the website posted on this particular document and try to do their own 'self' check on the President. It will either not let you complete it because there are probably any number of others trying to do it already.,,,OR,, if you go through the process, you notice that there are QUESTIONS about address and other things meant to be PERSONAL to the inquirer(in this case, OBAMA) and according to the site itself Q : Why did I get an SSA or a DHS mismatch? A mismatch from Self Check does not mean that you are not authorized to work in the United States and may be caused by several different situations. You may have entered information incorrectly. You may have changed your name recently. If you naturalized or changed your immigration status recently, you may need to wait up to a few weeks for Self Check to accurately reflect the change. Im sure the conspiracy theorists will assume that there is some recent immigration change..lol but its far more likely from the OVERWHELMING concurrence of witness documentation, that the man was born in the US of A and this BIRTHER has most likely entered some information incorrectly on the portion that asked PERSONAL questions about President Obama. Number one the term BIRTHER (among others) is used to make us seem crazy, and obviously it's worked. That's the whole reason they use the terms cause they can't debate us. Number two, there is evidence suggesting the birth document showing Obama was born here was faked, so the documentation isn't neccessarily true. But nevermind the facts, just believe what you want, you will anyway right? ![]() but based on WHAT is this a fact? where is the irrefutable proof that the source claiming a fake is more FACTUAL than the sources who have signed legal documents and who hold OFFICIAL positions and have stated it is real? Birther is a term used to refer to those who are obsessed with trying to prove Obama's Birth Certificate is nonexistent or facke. ITs a pretty reasonable way to shorten the phrase Yes but it automatically makes them seem to not be credible, which is what the media wants. Same goes for conspiracy theorist, 9-11 truther, etc. They want to find ways to make us look bad so we won't be believed and quite obviously they have succeeded. And just because people hold official positions of anything, doesn't mean they're gonna always tell you the truth. Politicians lie through their teeth all the damn time! Any research into history will show you that. If they came out with definitive proof the boogeyman was real would you suddenly believe that too cause they said it? That's the definition of flawed logic. thats contradictory, if it was definitive proof, flawed logic would be to NOT believe it because you are determined to believe what you believed before I dont think people are crazy because they believe nonsense, I just think they are determined to not listen to reason about their nonsense as to official positions lying, of course they do, but they have much more to LOOSE in lying than some jo or jill smo who posts a blog or creates some official looking duplicate on a computer program to try to discredit the other more 'accountable' sources that are out there,,, Yes but if they can get enough people to support their stories (which they have), they can get away with anything they want, and they do. As for the first part of that, I think those that try and make excuses for the government apply to that more than the opposite. No matter what evidence may be presented they just refuse to believe the government would be that complicit. It's closed minded. seems like the pot calling the kettle black,,, Difference is WE have the facts. We're plenty open minded, but you have to be able to prove we're wrong before we're gonna believe you, and the facts make that impossible to do. Any unbiased look into our own history proves as much. Hell, it came out just last year that they purposefully infected 1,500 people in Guatemala with syphilis and gonorrhea in the 1940's, they outright admitted it! Now if they did that some 70 years ago and it's just only recently come out.......it begs the question, what else have they done over the years or what are they doing now that ISN'T being admitted? Fool me once........ NO, you have what you BELIEVE are facts, just like others BELIEVE they have facts. Neither side can indisputably prove their case , they both just choose the sources whose 'facts' agree with what makes sense to them. and the argument that because some people have been caught doing it sometimes, all people are doing it all the time holds little logic for me personally I also tend to put a lot of significance on the 'consequence' involved for those 'sources' some are random people who have nothing to loose because they are just citizens protected under free speech, others hold POSITIONS of power which could be destroyed or stripped from them (their livelihood and income) if caught lying I hold with the idea that the more people have to loose , the more careful and cautious they are in how they act and what they say if others believe that vidoes posted to computers on sites like youtube are more reliable than videos supplied by entities who are held to REGULATIONS and rules,, so be it same with information on blogs as opposed to 'official' documents and contracts |
|
|
|
Quick, anyone, name three presidents in your lifetime who didnt tell 'lies' (break or not meet campaign promises)....? now of those remaining, name one whose mother was called a whore, AND whose wife was called a cow? and last, does anyone actually believe this type of personal retort against mothers and wives is merely due to the traditional, broken political promises? Quick, what the hell does that matter anyways? Therein lies a problem of living under the public microscope! Other presidents have been called other things and so have their wives. What you fail to overlook is you are defending a person who potentially is a career criminal as well and the evidence is mounting. If a governemtn verification system cannot confirm his identity as a citizen then don't you think something is fishy? Probably not becasue all of us questioning Obama hate him becasue he is black! And at this very moment it is raining tuna fish and crackers from the sky! OH, and there was a recent sighting of a flying Sphagetti Monster too! ![]() Go you WILD Pastafarians! what it has to do with it is the LEVEL OF HATE (WHich is a very strong and PERSONAL emotion) not disagreement with policy not lack of faith in leadership ability but HATRED,, of a person and NO, i Have personally seen nothing like it in my life even though I have seen other presidents who have done , basically, the same things, made mistakes, and been poor leaders Not everyone who doesnt want OBama for president is a bigot, because certainly not everyone votes for or wants any president but MOST who are feeling some type of personal HATRED toward the man,, have issues that make me wonder,, Sorry but hating incompetence is acceptable. What part of that don't you seem to get? Obama not only has failed America miserably he potentially (potentially my ARSE!) lied through his teeth to us all for years including his real birth place. This is the cover up of all time and if it comes to pass he is indeed proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to have been a foreign born who lied to get elected what then? You want to do away with hate, come up with a way to change human nature. Until then you are saying to me at least, "all bears are bad becasue they can kill people." Well, it is a bear's nature to kill to eat. And hatred is part of human nature. You act like a human is the only one to express hate. Well, chimpanzees, dolphins, and lions all have been proven to have hate too. Obama is a liar and a cheater and likewise earned a lot of spite the past three years. TRACK RECORD TRACK RECORD TRACK RECORD. So what next, we let some azzhole continue hitting an undetonated bomb on the detonator with a hammer while we all stand around and watch to see if he can make the bomb go off and kill us all or do we peel him from the nose of the bomb and save ourselves? |
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Fri 09/16/11 03:44 PM
|
|
Yes but if they can get enough people to support their stories (which they have), they can get away with anything they want, and they do. As for the first part of that, I think those that try and make excuses for the government apply to that more than the opposite. No matter what evidence may be presented they just refuse to believe the government would be that complicit. It's closed minded. seems like the pot calling the kettle black,,, Difference is WE have the facts. We're plenty open minded, but you have to be able to prove we're wrong before we're gonna believe you, and the facts make that impossible to do. Any unbiased look into our own history proves as much. Hell, it came out just last year that they purposefully infected 1,500 people in Guatemala with syphilis and gonorrhea in the 1940's, they outright admitted it! Now if they did that some 70 years ago and it's just only recently come out.......it begs the question, what else have they done over the years or what are they doing now that ISN'T being admitted? Fool me once........ NO, you have what you BELIEVE are facts, just like others BELIEVE they have facts. Neither side can indisputably prove their case , they both just choose the sources whose 'facts' agree with what makes sense to them. and the argument that because some people have been caught doing it sometimes, all people are doing it all the time holds little logic for me personally I also tend to put a lot of significance on the 'consequence' involved for those 'sources' some are random people who have nothing to loose because they are just citizens protected under free speech, others hold POSITIONS of power which could be destroyed or stripped from them (their livelihood and income) if caught lying I hold with the idea that the more people have to loose , the more careful and cautious they are in how they act and what they say Two things: 1. Some things CAN be proven conclusively with a little bit of research. It doesn't matter whether the person chooses to believe it or not, how they may try and twist what they find or not, the facts of the matter will not change. Not everything is a matter of opinion. How are you supposed to prove anything if there's no facts to back it up? 2. It makes total sense that if the government could do one thing and get away with it, that they'd try and get away with other things too. It's like if I went into a store and stole a loaf of bread and was able to get away with doing it. Knowing that I could do it, what incentive would I have to stop? I wouldn't have any, because I already proved I could do it once. So given that, why wouldn't I do it again? This is much the same. If one can do something and not be caught doing it, why would they suddenly stop? How does that work? It doesn't. You do have one thing right though, they ARE careful and cautious as to what gets out and what doesn't, because if people knew the truth of what they do and have done, they'd lose all their power over the people. They can't have that happen, so they keep much of their dirty deeds secret and hidden away from the public view, and when questioned lie, or make us seem crazy for daring to speak out. They must protect their interests, and will do so at all costs. I will say though they are getting more arrogant now to the point where they almost aren't even hiding some of what they do anymore and are almost rubbing our faces in it about what are doing because they know so many are so asleep that they won't notice. Goes back to my first point, if they can get away with it, they will keep doing it until they are stopped. |
|
|
|
why does barry have a Connecticut SSN anyway?
|
|
|
|
why does barry have a Connecticut SSN anyway? I was born in Florida and have a Delaware SSN, because when we applied for my SSN when I was twelve we lived in Delaware. It wasn't until the last couple decades when they started making you apply for a SSN right away at birth. |
|
|
|
Quick, anyone, name three presidents in your lifetime who didnt tell 'lies' (break or not meet campaign promises)....? now of those remaining, name one whose mother was called a whore, AND whose wife was called a cow? and last, does anyone actually believe this type of personal retort against mothers and wives is merely due to the traditional, broken political promises? Quick, what the hell does that matter anyways? Therein lies a problem of living under the public microscope! Other presidents have been called other things and so have their wives. What you fail to overlook is you are defending a person who potentially is a career criminal as well and the evidence is mounting. If a governemtn verification system cannot confirm his identity as a citizen then don't you think something is fishy? Probably not becasue all of us questioning Obama hate him becasue he is black! And at this very moment it is raining tuna fish and crackers from the sky! OH, and there was a recent sighting of a flying Sphagetti Monster too! ![]() Go you WILD Pastafarians! what it has to do with it is the LEVEL OF HATE (WHich is a very strong and PERSONAL emotion) not disagreement with policy not lack of faith in leadership ability but HATRED,, of a person and NO, i Have personally seen nothing like it in my life even though I have seen other presidents who have done , basically, the same things, made mistakes, and been poor leaders Not everyone who doesnt want OBama for president is a bigot, because certainly not everyone votes for or wants any president but MOST who are feeling some type of personal HATRED toward the man,, have issues that make me wonder,, Sorry but hating incompetence is acceptable. What part of that don't you seem to get? Obama not only has failed America miserably he potentially (potentially my ARSE!) lied through his teeth to us all for years including his real birth place. This is the cover up of all time and if it comes to pass he is indeed proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to have been a foreign born who lied to get elected what then? You want to do away with hate, come up with a way to change human nature. Until then you are saying to me at least, "all bears are bad becasue they can kill people." Well, it is a bear's nature to kill to eat. And hatred is part of human nature. You act like a human is the only one to express hate. Well, chimpanzees, dolphins, and lions all have been proven to have hate too. Obama is a liar and a cheater and likewise earned a lot of spite the past three years. TRACK RECORD TRACK RECORD TRACK RECORD. So what next, we let some azzhole continue hitting an undetonated bomb on the detonator with a hammer while we all stand around and watch to see if he can make the bomb go off and kill us all or do we peel him from the nose of the bomb and save ourselves? WOW,, nowhere did I imply hate is not human. My concern is for people who actually HATE other people they dont know who have never harmed them,, as in the President. There are consistently hateful people, IM positive, who could name other presidents they personally 'HATED'(the person, not their incompetence or their lies,, the PERSON) , and from them I respect such consistency and dont take the same issue the issue I Take is the INCONSISTENCY of those who have not expressed personal HATRED in the past for the PERSON in the office of president, even if they disliked their broken promises, or lies, or imcompetence. None of these things are unique to THIS president so hatred of this president for those reasons (if those reasons werent equally applied towards hating presidents of the past) gives me cause to wonder what exactly is the REAL issue |
|
|
|
1. Some things CAN be proven conclusively with a little bit of research.
Really? Doesnt that research depend upon how CREDIBLE you believe the resources used to be? So it is still a matter of most things not irrefutably provable on an internet forum or through mere internet sources. 2. It's like if I went into a store and stole a loaf of bread and was able to get away with doing it. Knowing that I could do it, what incentive would I have to stop? This is too simplistic an analogy. The consequences for a private citizen stealing a loaf of bread from a private store are much less severe than the consequences of a PUBLIC FIGURE caught doing something illegal or even 'immoral'. In most cases, what you do as a private citizen, (unless you are actually incarcerated long term, which is not likely for a first offense) will remain between you and the law enforcement agency and whomever else YOU choose to tell. A Public figure has whatever they do spread across the media to MILLIONS of people, who will forever see and treat them differently, let alone their employers who may or may not fire them for the 'bad press'. and even more detailed then that. When it comes to merely LYING about something that has happened or not happened, THERE IS NO REAL consequence for a private citizen to create documents on their computers and make up stories about those documents on their own private blog. THere is much more of a consequence for a PUBLIC figure if they are 'exposed' throughout media as dishonest in any way. |
|
|
|
1. Some things CAN be proven conclusively with a little bit of research. Really? Doesnt that research depend upon how CREDIBLE you believe the resources used to be? So it is still a matter of most things not irrefutably provable on an internet forum or through mere internet sources. 2. It's like if I went into a store and stole a loaf of bread and was able to get away with doing it. Knowing that I could do it, what incentive would I have to stop? This is too simplistic an analogy. The consequences for a private citizen stealing a loaf of bread from a private store are much less severe than the consequences of a PUBLIC FIGURE caught doing something illegal or even 'immoral'. In most cases, what you do as a private citizen, (unless you are actually incarcerated long term, which is not likely for a first offense) will remain between you and the law enforcement agency and whomever else YOU choose to tell. A Public figure has whatever they do spread across the media to MILLIONS of people, who will forever see and treat them differently, let alone their employers who may or may not fire them for the 'bad press'. and even more detailed then that. When it comes to merely LYING about something that has happened or not happened, THERE IS NO REAL consequence for a private citizen to create documents on their computers and make up stories about those documents on their own private blog. THere is much more of a consequence for a PUBLIC figure if they are 'exposed' throughout media as dishonest in any way. This is true, but if you got the majority of the people eating out of your hands as the government by and large does, the risk becomes far less. Because even if people TRY to expose them as people have been doing, there are a lot of people who will refuse to believe it no matter how much evidence they may be shown. Let's face it, they got a good amount of the people in their backpockets in this sense. Until that were to change, they have no reason to change anything because not enough people are questioning what they're doing to warrant it. |
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Fri 09/16/11 05:31 PM
|
|
1. Some things CAN be proven conclusively with a little bit of research. Really? Doesnt that research depend upon how CREDIBLE you believe the resources used to be? So it is still a matter of most things not irrefutably provable on an internet forum or through mere internet sources. 2. It's like if I went into a store and stole a loaf of bread and was able to get away with doing it. Knowing that I could do it, what incentive would I have to stop? This is too simplistic an analogy. The consequences for a private citizen stealing a loaf of bread from a private store are much less severe than the consequences of a PUBLIC FIGURE caught doing something illegal or even 'immoral'. In most cases, what you do as a private citizen, (unless you are actually incarcerated long term, which is not likely for a first offense) will remain between you and the law enforcement agency and whomever else YOU choose to tell. A Public figure has whatever they do spread across the media to MILLIONS of people, who will forever see and treat them differently, let alone their employers who may or may not fire them for the 'bad press'. and even more detailed then that. When it comes to merely LYING about something that has happened or not happened, THERE IS NO REAL consequence for a private citizen to create documents on their computers and make up stories about those documents on their own private blog. THere is much more of a consequence for a PUBLIC figure if they are 'exposed' throughout media as dishonest in any way. This is true, but if you got the majority of the people eating out of your hands as the government by and large does, the risk becomes far less. Because even if people TRY to expose them as people have been doing, there are a lot of people who will refuse to believe it no matter how much evidence they may be shown. Let's face it, they got a good amount of the people in their backpockets in this sense. Until that were to change, they have no reason to change anything because not enough people are questioning what they're doing to warrant it. I dont feel people are eating out of their hands. I Think some people will trust others and some people will trust noonw. Whatever form of government there is or is not,, this will always be the case. The government reflects its people, we ELECT them. IT tires me to hear and see citizens stand on the sideline and point at them like they are some entity which came from spontaneous combustion for which we have no responsibility, they are a reflection of the people, like it or not. Im more of an Anne Frank in giving people the benefit of being at least as smart and ethical as I Am until they PERSONALLY prove otherwise (not others in their profession, or race, or gender, or financial status) they are human beings, and just as I dont go around assuming everything anyone else tells me is supsicious or a lie, I dont do that with politicians either. SUre, if they have an INDIVIDUAL recored of being intentionally deceitful,,,,but because they arent able to complete some 'promises' or because they are imperfect in some other area of their life , or somewhere in their distant personal history,,,no that standard would be one none of us could live up to,,, but to each their own |
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Fri 09/16/11 05:55 PM
|
|
1. Some things CAN be proven conclusively with a little bit of research. Really? Doesnt that research depend upon how CREDIBLE you believe the resources used to be? So it is still a matter of most things not irrefutably provable on an internet forum or through mere internet sources. 2. It's like if I went into a store and stole a loaf of bread and was able to get away with doing it. Knowing that I could do it, what incentive would I have to stop? This is too simplistic an analogy. The consequences for a private citizen stealing a loaf of bread from a private store are much less severe than the consequences of a PUBLIC FIGURE caught doing something illegal or even 'immoral'. In most cases, what you do as a private citizen, (unless you are actually incarcerated long term, which is not likely for a first offense) will remain between you and the law enforcement agency and whomever else YOU choose to tell. A Public figure has whatever they do spread across the media to MILLIONS of people, who will forever see and treat them differently, let alone their employers who may or may not fire them for the 'bad press'. and even more detailed then that. When it comes to merely LYING about something that has happened or not happened, THERE IS NO REAL consequence for a private citizen to create documents on their computers and make up stories about those documents on their own private blog. THere is much more of a consequence for a PUBLIC figure if they are 'exposed' throughout media as dishonest in any way. This is true, but if you got the majority of the people eating out of your hands as the government by and large does, the risk becomes far less. Because even if people TRY to expose them as people have been doing, there are a lot of people who will refuse to believe it no matter how much evidence they may be shown. Let's face it, they got a good amount of the people in their backpockets in this sense. Until that were to change, they have no reason to change anything because not enough people are questioning what they're doing to warrant it. I dont feel people are eating out of their hands. I Think some people will trust others and some people will trust noonw. Whatever form of government there is or is not,, this will always be the case. The government reflects its people, we ELECT them. IT tires me to hear and see citizens stand on the sideline and point at them like they are some entity which came from spontaneous combustion for which we have no responsibility, they are a reflection of the people, like it or not. We do have some responsibility that much is true. The reason we have the problems we have is largely because we keep repeating the same mistakes again and again. That is to say, we keep voting in the same rich people who could care less about the people. Whether they are Republican or Democrat really doesn't matter. So long as we continue to do that, nothing will ever change. We have not learned from our history, and as such keep repeating it. So in that vein we are responsible for a lot of the things happening, as we have done nothing to change it. We cannot expect a different result if we are doing the same thing over and over again, it's the definition of insanity. HOWEVER, that being said, those in power also have some responsibility for all of this too, because they have manipulated a good portion of the people into believing the system as it stands works. They have manipulated us into believing we have a voice in who is being chosen under the current system when we really are being fed two sides of the same coin, with them being the winner no matter who gets in. This is what I mean when I say they have us eating out of their hands, because they have suckered a good portion of the people into believing this is how it is supposed to be, when it's not. So are we responsible for a lot of the problems? Yes, but are we entirely? No, because the root of it starts with those controlling the system itself. |
|
|
|
one of the few things we can agree on
we and our government are responsible for the state ouf our lives and our country,,, neither one can stand to really 'just' sit back pointing the finger of blame at the other as if its exclusive,,, |
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Fri 09/16/11 06:29 PM
|
|
one of the few things we can agree on we and our government are responsible for the state ouf our lives and our country,,, neither one can stand to really 'just' sit back pointing the finger of blame at the other as if its exclusive,,, Right, but what are we gonna do about it is the question. If we keep following the same pattern that we've been following for years and years, we shouldn't be surprised if we keep getting the same BS, lies and manipulation that we've been getting. We have got to educate ourselves first to what has gone on before, what is going on now, and why it's been happening, and then STOP playing their games. It's the only way things will ever be different. Until we reach a point where we can collectively do that and take our power back as human beings from them, nothing will change. |
|
|