100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Congress, Connecticut legislators with Blood on their Hands | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
killing a president isn't overthrowing a government Tell that to the bankers who had them killed….Oh wait…you're right…killing the bankers would have been overthrowing the government; the murdered presidents were just disobedient employees…at least the last two were…the first two didn't want to work for them. in a culture that is obese, and instantly gratified, and plugged into 'technology' americans arent overthrowing diddly,, let alone the trained and career professional death makers that work in our government,,, Sadly, there is much truth in what you say. It is those very people whose sheeplike, self-serving apathy has allowed the government to deteriorate to the point it has. The whole country had better hope to G-d that at least 5% of the people aren't like that (based on the assumption that an effective revolt only requires 5% of the people) or the country and its people are doomed. the government has only 'deteriorated' as much as the populace it represents they are not remotely disconnected entities,,, By your own words then, your government has become an obese entity out for (self-serving) instant gratification....A very astute observation on your part...I'm in complete agreement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
killing a president isn't overthrowing a government Tell that to the bankers who had them killed….Oh wait…you're right…killing the bankers would have been overthrowing the government; the murdered presidents were just disobedient employees…at least the last two were…the first two didn't want to work for them. in a culture that is obese, and instantly gratified, and plugged into 'technology' americans arent overthrowing diddly,, let alone the trained and career professional death makers that work in our government,,, Sadly, there is much truth in what you say. It is those very people whose sheeplike, self-serving apathy has allowed the government to deteriorate to the point it has. The whole country had better hope to G-d that at least 5% of the people aren't like that (based on the assumption that an effective revolt only requires 5% of the people) or the country and its people are doomed. the government has only 'deteriorated' as much as the populace it represents they are not remotely disconnected entities,,, By your own words then, your government has become an obese entity out for (self-serving) instant gratification....A very astute observation on your part...I'm in complete agreement. so possibly the answer is a change amongst the people, not an overthrow of the government that represents them? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so possibly the answer is a change amongst the people, not an overthrow of the government that represents them? You tell me…should the people change to accommodate the government, or should the government change to accommodate the people? CAN the people or the government change without bloodshed? "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." -- JFK |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so possibly the answer is a change amongst the people, not an overthrow of the government that represents them? You tell me…should the people change to accommodate the government, or should the government change to accommodate the people? CAN the people or the government change without bloodshed? "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." -- JFK I think as the people go the government goes I think the government follows the peoples lead and not vice versa so as the example being represented I personally believe the people should have a better example amongst them which their leaders can then represent and emulate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JustDukkyMkII
on
Tue 12/18/12 12:27 AM
|
|
so possibly the answer is a change amongst the people, not an overthrow of the government that represents them? You tell me…should the people change to accommodate the government, or should the government change to accommodate the people? CAN the people or the government change without bloodshed? "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." -- JFK I think as the people go the government goes I think the government follows the peoples lead and not vice versa so as the example being represented I personally believe the people should have a better example amongst them which their leaders can then represent and emulate I heard there was a guy 2000 years ago that set a wonderful example. He was popular with the people too from what I understand. Unfortunately the government of the day didn't want to follow His example, so they made an example of Him. Maybe if there had been a thousand or two just like Him, the government might have been more amenable to a peaceful revolution. moral: Don't look to a leader...Be one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so possibly the answer is a change amongst the people, not an overthrow of the government that represents them? You tell me…should the people change to accommodate the government, or should the government change to accommodate the people? CAN the people or the government change without bloodshed? "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." -- JFK I think as the people go the government goes I think the government follows the peoples lead and not vice versa so as the example being represented I personally believe the people should have a better example amongst them which their leaders can then represent and emulate I heard there was a guy 2000 years ago that set a wonderful example. He was popular with the people too from what I understand. Unfortunately the government of the day didn't want to follow His example, so they made an example of Him. Maybe if there had been a thousand or two just like Him, the government might have been more amenable to a peaceful revolution. moral: Don't look to a leader...Be one. whats the point of being a 'leader' if the advice is that noone look to one,,, sounds good, but doesnt quite hold up,,,, it wasnt just the government who didnt want to follow Christs example, if I remember correctly the PEOPLE called for him to be crucified when given the choice the point of Jesus is that he was one of a kind and he was crucified, not merely because of a 'government' but because of the people it represented |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
whats the point of being a 'leader' if the advice is that noone look to one,,, sounds good, but doesnt quite hold up,,,, You missed the point. One man as a leader is no good; he can always be brought down (easily), and if he is, the followers are lost and can be scattered to the four winds. A people united could walk shoulder to shoulder into the pits of Hell and conquer it. It's the shoulder to shoulder part you missed…no biggie. |
|
|
|
|
