Fort Worth Motorcycle Riders

Got this in an email today...interesting. While I don't necessarily subscribe to all of it and there can be argument as to how we got there, some can be eye-openers when thought of in this context.

This is based on Alinsky’s eight steps from democracy to socialist society. Obama quotes him often in his book and Hillary did her thesis on Alinsky. There are 8 levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a socialist/communist State. The first is the most important.

1. Healthcare: "Control Healthcare and you control the People"
DONE !!

2 Poverty: Increase the Poverty level as high as possible." Poor People are easier to control and will not fight back if the government is providing everything for them to live.
DONE!!!

3. Debt: Increase the National Debt to an unsustainable level." That way you are able to increase Taxes, and this will produce more Poverty.
DONE!!!

4. Gun Control: Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a Police State - total local control.
ALMOST THERE!!!

5. Welfare: Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Livestock, Housing, and Income).
DONE!!!

6. Education: Take control of what People read & listen to; take control of what Children learn in School.
ALMOST THERE!!!

7. Religion: Remove faith in God from the Government and Schools.
ALMOST THERE!!!

8. Class Warfare: Divide the People into the Wealthy against the Poor. Racially divide. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to Tax the Wealthy with full support of the voting Poor.
DONE!!!

JUST ONE ELECTION DECIDES OUR FATE...

I fully subscribe to the belief that there are those amongst us who fully wish for a full and true Socialist system and are working diligently toward that goal.

However, I still have faith that the majority of producing Americans will not stand for it. Case in point: Illinois. As a former resident with strong family ties there, I am enjoyed by the sheer volume of jobs and people leaving the state. Several of which have relocated to Texas. As more states and local municipalities begin to fail, the rest of the country will be watching, waiting, and capitalizing on their failure. My in-laws have finally realized that their government and Unions will not keep their promises. That is why so many laws have been passed that have, IMO, overstepped the 10th Amendment and are being challenged as such. Once you remove the States ability to be different, then the other 8 items listed will succeed. However, with the 50 states as they are, so long as Texas stays conservative, that won't happen.

Vote Libertarian!

Yes, it's fairly evident, and we just spend 8 years of having a lot of that crammed down our throats. I cringe at another 4 or 8 years in that direction. I pray you are right (the last part).

My only problem with voting Libertarian is that is dilutes the vote. While my point probably goes without saying, assuming you'd normally vote Conservative, and you decide to vote Libertarian for a candidate who isn't going to get elected in most cases (especially presidential), then it appears to me that for all intents and purposes you really end up casting a vote for Liberals by weakening the Conservative vote. Of course this argument is the same if you're a Liberal and vote in the middle also...it which case I support voting Libertarian 100%.

If everyone who felt the same way as you in that voting 3rd party would cause their adopted party to lose voted 3rd party, the 2 party system would crumble in 1 election.

Frankly, I feel that the GOP is no better when it comes to that list. They just sound different during election season to make you think they are. Theyve had control, look what it's gotten us.

Their time is over. The party is dead. Trump sealed their fate. The only question is will enough Americans stand up and vote for Liberty and Freedom, or roll over and succumb to the decades long onslaught of repression?

I know who I'm voting for, and I know why, and I've seen the record to prove he is what he claims to be. If a voter can't say the same and are basing their opinions based on the news media, they should do everyone a favor and stay home.

Micky Mouse ftw

I'd vote for him!

Besides, all voting is rigged, even local shit.

Just for grins, I wrote myself into a local election for some stupid ass elected job where the person was running un-opposed. When the results were reported as 100%, I knew that shit was rigged. I even looked it up on the website. All 682 or some shit voted for her, but I know that's a lie!

JTChiTown wrote:If everyone who felt the same way as you in that voting 3rd party would cause their adopted party to lose voted 3rd party, the 2 party system would crumble in 1 election.

Frankly, I feel that the GOP is no better when it comes to that list. They just sound different during election season to make you think they are. Theyve had control, look what it's gotten us.

Their time is over. The party is dead. Trump sealed their fate. The only question is will enough Americans stand up and vote for Liberty and Freedom, or roll over and succumb to the decades long onslaught of repression?

I know who I'm voting for, and I know why, and I've seen the record to prove he is what he claims to be. If a voter can't say the same and are basing their opinions based on the news media, they should do everyone a favor and stay home.

So...basically...everyone else is just a pathetic sheep following the herd.

Aha, a conspiracy theorist.

LonestarCBR wrote:

JTChiTown wrote:If everyone who felt the same way as you in that voting 3rd party would cause their adopted party to lose voted 3rd party, the 2 party system would crumble in 1 election.

Frankly, I feel that the GOP is no better when it comes to that list. They just sound different during election season to make you think they are. Theyve had control, look what it's gotten us.

Their time is over. The party is dead. Trump sealed their fate. The only question is will enough Americans stand up and vote for Liberty and Freedom, or roll over and succumb to the decades long onslaught of repression?

I know who I'm voting for, and I know why, and I've seen the record to prove he is what he claims to be. If a voter can't say the same and are basing their opinions based on the news media, they should do everyone a favor and stay home.

So...basically...everyone else is just a pathetic sheep following the herd.

Aha, a conspiracy theorist.

Nope. I respect that people really want Hilary, Bernie, Trump, etc. I just expect them to know more than the 4 second sound byte on at 9pm. If they cant, then they are sheeple.

It's your civic duty to vote, I just want people to think before they do. That's all I ask.

I voted... based on who I thought could beat the person I don't want to win.

None of the people I really like ever stand a chance.

Seems appropriate, even 20 years later.

Ha, lol.

I tend to agree with Fixxer on this. My vote usually is a vote against a person instead of for a person.

DemonDuck wrote:I tend to agree with Fixxer on this. My vote usually is a vote against a person instead of for a person.

And this is why we are where we are today.

I agree with you on that as well JT. A 2 party system is not great at all and even worse as both parties are harder and harder to tell apart. The real issue is that if you vote for someone that you like and say that person gets 20% of the votes. Then the person you really didn't want to see in office wins with 45% of the votes while the other person had 35% of the votes. If that 20% had voted then the person you didn't want to see win would have likely lost with a 48% to 52% or something like that. I don't know how all the numbers play out in politics but im just trying to give the idea. Thing is in a case like that you actually helped the person you wanted least in the spot by voting for someone that wasn't going to beat the one you really didn't want.

Now there have been elections that I have voted for someone that had no chance and wasn't a dem or repub. But in those cases it was elections where I didn't feel strongly against either person over the other. Its when I feel very strongly against one person that I vote against that person instead of for who I personally like.

Other countries have something that helps with the "vote for the least evil" vs. "vote for the one you want, even if they are a long shot" issue.

"Instant-runoff voting (IRV), also known as the alternative vote (AV), transferable vote, (single-seat) ranked choice voting (RCV), or preferential voting, is a voting system used to elect a single candidate from a field of more than two candidates. It is a preferential voting system in which voters rank candidates in an order of preference, rather than voting for a single candidate. Ballots are initially distributed based on each elector's first preference. If a candidate secures more than half of the votes cast, that candidate wins. Otherwise, the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated, and that candidate's ballots are added to the totals of the remaining candidates in accordance with the preference order. The ballots are then recounted to see if a candidate has now received a majority. This process continues until one candidate wins by obtaining more than half the votes."

I like that idea.

I do also. That would be a great system to put in place. Problem is that it makes sense and that is a big no no in the Feds.

Saul Alinsky was a liberal Jewish community organizer who sought to empower lower socioeconomic classes to keep them from being oppressed. He wrote a book about organizing radicals in 1971. If Hillary and Obama quote him then the email must mean Republicans are doing these things. But what is the email saying? Is the current administration doing these supposed things?

We could go through what all is wrong with those 8 statements, but I don't have 10 years to burn up. I can only say educate yourself, knowledge is power, believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see, caveat emptor.

WickerMan ... you should have quoted the first post. Without that your post makes no sense but after careful looking back at the conversation I see what your talking about.

On an interesting note to the OP. Executive Order 13603 looks to take control of well everything and it seems to be written that it doesn't even take us being in a war for it to happen. Of course I have yet to read all billion pages of it but thought it was kinda funny that it falls in line with what the first post was saying.

Of course I do not think it would be even close to possible for the order to be used ever because the people wouldn't allow it.

FIFY

DemonDuck wrote:On an interesting note to the OP. Executive Order 13603 looks to take control of well everything and it seems to be written that it doesn't even take us being in a war for it to happen. Of course I have yet to read all billion pages of it but thought it was kinda funny that it falls in line with what the first post was saying.

Of course I do not think it would be even close to possible for the order to be used ever because *some of *the people wouldn't allow it.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/alinsky.asp

Just providing research. (If Snopes is leftist or rightist, I wasn't/am not aware of it. I'm sure someone here will set me straight.)

Not taking issue with either side, although some of the voting ideas expressed earlier sound very interesting. (IRV -AV)
I wonder how those voting rules would change campaign strategies.