Is it time for a change?

I have noticed more and more recently that people get ignored when it comes to how the goverment deals with people. More and more often the more vocal minority gets their way while the vast majority sulks in silence. So I was wandering is it time for a change. I have one qoute on this subject, it is the fist paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.
" When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

  • Decleration of Independence, 1776

What I suggest is a seperate party that the middle of the road people can claim as thier own party. Because the liberals have over-run the democratic party and the republicans have been taken ovely conservitive people. So I suggest a place where average Joe can belong. Any opinions.

viva la revolution!

the first to die are the revolutionaries of course…

the middle of the road is a great place to be… run over by traffic coming both ways.

-Imp

Matben88

the average joe… depends if he has power. power does not neccesarily mean money or strength, but passion. Does he really care, is he really passionate about what he believes, if so, does he have the charisma to win people over? I mean, I have the passion and the charisma. if you read ‘mixing the final word’ you’ll see that I am the only person in the thread defending the position of racial integrity, but I did it out of love for humanity, my love of racial diversity, the love of people and their rights have guided my thoughts and actions since the day I joined this forum. I dedicate myself to the preservation of a racial humanity.

it is good to be concerned about political issues. you have take the first step of becoming a patriot.

yeah what about the think about an issue before you vote party. I don’t think it’s right that all the republicans and all the democrats take a side on an issue before they know what it is and the rare occasion that someone does consider and vote according to their intelligence they are ridiculed and run out. I’ll go for a middle of the road vote for what is halfway intelligent party. of course politics didn’t get where it is today by being straight forward and honest.

now by preserving racial humanity do you mean keep it seperate and preserve all culture in tact?

I thought the US had a third party - the libertarians. I know it’s just a variation on the old Republican/Democrat battles
“No, we let people have more freedom”
“No, we let people have more freedom”
“No, we let people have more freedom”
(Libertarians interject) “No, actually we let people have more freedom”

US politics is such a farce, it’s more limited in scope than most monarchies and dictatorships. The two parties are offering different things, but they both label it in the same way. It’s always about either a return to a state like that before we lost American values or a progression toward those American values (which of course equates roughly to some or other notion of individual freedom) which we’ve somehow lost. Both are of course conservative, liberal views (in the sense of the 19th century British Liberal party, before we get into a minefield on that one) of life and politics. That’s why Europe’s so much more interesting, politically speaking. There’s just more variation in the spectrum.

It won’t matter what you define your party as, it’s primary goal will be the subordination of all that don’t agree. It’s framework will be heirarchial, the mob will still run the show.

Until all men recognize the futility of violence as a means, which will end the need for any parties, all groups will be a variation of the same theme.

World Peace!

hah[size=75]ahahahah[/size]a[size=150]ha [/size]
hahaha
ha[size=200]hah [/size]
haha[size=75]hhah[/size]ah[size=150]ahah ha [/size] haha
[size=75]cough [/size] hahahahaha[size=75]hhahah[/size]a s[size=134]putt [/size]er

wipe tear

middle of the road?

Not to thread-hijack or anything, but that’s some crazy talk.

Politics are about opinioins, always have been always will be. Unless you can have a unicameral chamber. But in doing so it looks as if you would have a dicatorship as a group then. Not so good for the people to think of.

But for god’s sake man, MAKE AN OPINION…

Middle of the road is a good start, but everybody needs opinions, and with those 2 “wonderful” parties battling it out over younder, we ensure that no one ideal become the ONLY ideal.

The trouble with average Joe - he’s average, average in expectation, average in drive and passion. Rather than change the Status Quo to his will, he would rather adapt his life and himself to the Status Quo. He will whine about little changes in societies rules that impinge on his comfortable rut, but ultimately adapt his dynamic once more to the adjusted state - until a comfortable equilibrium is reclaimed. This is not a denigration of Joe - his way of being is one that works, one that survives. But it is passive, reactive rather than proactive/causal.

Society could not survive without Joe, and Joe could not survive without a society, the parameters of which are created by something unlike himself. Give Joe Utopia and he would sit, directionless, overwhelmed by freedom.

Any leader will tell you that in a time of crisis, any order or defined plan of action, good or so-so or even bad - is better than nothing at all. Indecision and none-action will get you killed. The middle of the road is fine, until you reach a fork - then you must choose a side rapidly or run smack into the divider. You may say that there is no crisis - but you’d be kidding yourself, no…? Humanity was birthed by crisis, and somehow needs it to exist, and will manufacture crisis, if, by some miracle, none exists.

For better, though usually for worse - leaders are a different breed, they sacrifice their comfortable averageness, their peace of mind and concentrate their energy in one direction, not exactly disregarding the none-wishes of the masses, but attempting by hook or crook to shepherd it in the direction of their choosing. A necessary arrogance developed over time, a belief that they know better.

At its base - leadership must be defined by its contrariness to average Joe - for if average Joe had his way, nothing would ever change, and there would be no need for someone to provoke and guide that change.

The leadership of Average Joes would be no leadership at all, the bridge would remain unmanned, and the ship drift comfortably right off the edge of the world.

That’s the thing about democracy: no-one is really in charge - Yes, Prime Minister

deleted

Sorry - my phrasing was a bit long-winded and fuzzy - Let me restate:

“Average Joe”, being of the majority subset of a society, is therefore defined by this society’s parameters. And as the “defined”, cannot become the definer of these parameters. At best - he or she can uphold the existant statutes of the current society as he/she knows them, should these statutes become threatened, but cannot due to the basic nature of him/herself, move beyond them.

Or something like that anyway… :laughing:

I think I’ve said this somewhere… but I’ll repeat. “Average Joe” really only want’s one thing: to be left the hell alone. The decision to watch Monday Night Football or tune into C Span to listen to political diatribe is a no-brainer. Hey, get me another beer, will ya? and pass those chips over here…

JT

I know you said it before, I was hoping you’d say it with bigger words though…