InvestIdeas

The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war.

Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists.

– Ernest Hemingway

Forget Free Speech Zones: “Take Him to That Pen Over There” by Mac Slavo

Make no mistake. We are living in an authoritarian police state.

Consider how local law enforcement agencies around the country respond when a group of individuals assembles to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Whether they’re protesting the abdication of individual rights at a Tea Party gathering or the corruption of Wall Street elites at Occupy Protests, the right of the people to assemble is no longer viewed as a Constitutional protection, but rather, a nuisance akin to a swine stampede.

Whether you agree with those who protest one abuse or another, the fact is that if they have the authority to do it to those with ideologies opposed to yours, they can (and will) also do it to you.

Forget free speech zones authorized under the government’s recently passed Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act.

We’re entering a new level of tyranny, where not only is your right to assemble a criminal act, but the very thought of organizing assemblies has become an offense for which you can be detained without charge or trial.

Under the Patriot Act, and now the National Defense Authorization Act, any activity that threatens or is perceived to threaten the legitimacy and/or stability of our government can and will be deemed an act of domestic terrorism.

This is real. It’s happening now. And it’s only going to get worse as the dark cloud of the police state descends on America.

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/f ... e_09242012

“What kind of a country would my country be, if everyone in it was just like me?”

- Brian Tracy

Don't try to change the world, for that is an impossible task, change yourself and the world will change for you

- Mitchell Brooke

Your government is the by-product of the vibration of the masses.

A war is the by-product of the vibration of the masses.

In other words, this is not a war that your government has waged against your will.

This is a war that has grown vibrationally from the vibration of the masses.

--- Abraham

Excerpted from the workshop in Tarrytown, NY on Saturday, May 8th, 2004 # 585


Source: www.abraham-hicks.com

Man has responsibility, not power.

- Native American Proverb

How to Talk Politics Without Committing Murder by Alexander Green

A buddy of mine recently confided that his wife and he are at daggers drawn. He openly questions whether their marriage will last.

The problem isn't money, infidelity, drugs, alcohol, or anything like that. Their issue is that he is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal - as they both were when they got married - but she has since become much more conservative.

"Now, whenever we talk politics," he said, "our voices rise, my blood pressure spikes, and the Yorkshire hides under the couch. God only knows what the neighbors think."

He's hardly alone. Who among us hasn't seen a dinner party or a social occasion degenerate into an intellectual food fight when politics rears its head? As a result, many hosts have an ironclad rule: No religion or politics at the table.

You can hardly blame them. Yet it's a shame in some ways, since few subjects provoke more animated discussions.

"That's the problem," my wife Karen insists. "You prefer a provocative discussion. Why don't you just ask about other people's kids like everyone else?"

She has a point. Too many of us are unable to talk politics without getting to the point where we're coughing up black bile. As I see it, there are two reasons these "discussions" generate such supercharged emotions:

continue ...


1. Political views represent core values. When someone disagrees with your politics, it's easy to construe it as an attack on what you hold most dear. That might be freedom, fairness, equality or personal responsibility.

Foundational principles like these are tough to compromise. And when uncompromising attitudes collide, sparks will fly.


2. Politics is often about self-interest. You might be unaware how close to home your "theoretical" discussion is hitting.

More than a century ago, Ambrose Bierce defined politics as "a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles."

You can spend years studying and debating whether a particular policy is good for the nation. But most voters know immediately and reflexively whether it will benefit them personally.

No one wants to appear selfish or ignoble, however, so we tend to characterize policies that counter our interests as unjust, unworkable or just plain wrongheaded.

Given these high hurdles, how do you have a civil exchange with someone holding opposing views?

coninue ...


As a lifelong political junkie, I've pondered this for years and eventually came up with Seven Ground Rules for Political Discussion.

Feel free to try them out. Here are the terms of engagement:


1. You and your partner (or opponent, if you prefer) agree not to use the words Republican, Democrat, conservative or liberal, or to mention the name of any living politician.

This prevents the conversation from devolving into a rant against a particular party or candidate.


2. The two of you agree to use a level voice and normal tone, the kind you'd use to talk about last week's weather.


3. You agree that your mutual goal is to hear and understand your partner's point of view, not to change it. (A tough condition for proselytizers.)


4. To begin, your partner takes approximately five minutes to say why he favors a particular policy and why. (It could be raising taxes, privatizing social security, withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan or whatever.)

Sticking to a single topic keeps the discussion from becoming unfocused.


5. When your partner's five minutes are up, you make no statement that confirms or contradicts his point of view. Instead, you take a few minutes to ask nonjudgmental questions that allow him to clarify his position and his reasoning.


6. Your partner then repeats steps 4 and 5 so you can voice your point of view on the same subject.


7. Afterwards, you take a few minutes to summarize what you do and don't agree on and why. Assuming a first-aid kit wasn't necessary, you can then move on to another policy position.

continue ...

Do this and you'll quickly learn that those with opposing views aren't necessarily as "idiotic" or "ridiculous" as you may have assumed. The objective here is modest.

It's not to defeat your partner with verbal jujitsu, point out the error of his ways or change his worldview.

(Trust me. It's a big enough victory just to hear "I see your point.") The idea is to have a forthright exchange of views, increase your understanding of him (or her) and vice versa.

Of course, this all presumes that you want to talk politics and are willing to keep your side of the bargain. Even then, a couple of disclaimers:

1. Many of your fellow citizens - including some with the most ardent views - are not particularly well-informed. Polls show most Americans can't name the Vice President, don't really recall what the Constitution is all about and have only the foggiest notion of the size of the federal deficit.

As Winston Churchill noted, the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.


2. Don't waste your time arguing with anyone whose opinion you don't respect. You have better things to do than bang your head against the wall. This is doubly true when the person you're dealing with is a zealot.

Ideally, you want to converse with someone who knows more than you on a particular subject and can enlighten and inform your own point of view.


You might reasonably ask how much success I've had using my Seven Ground Rules. Some, I'd say. Things can still get passionate, but a civil exchange is possible.

On the other hand, it really is a lot easier just ask other people's kids.


Source: Spiritual Wealth