• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stop saying "we"

solletica

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
6,073
Reaction score
926
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I've noticed in many of these threads re: discussion of the US govt's (typically silly, childish) military forays into the ME and other areas of the world, when referring to the US military, many posters still resort to the word "we."

When a person uses the word "we" when discussing the action of the govt., he/she includes himself and all the People as being culpable (or complicit) in those actions.

Now think: to all those who use the word "we", ask yourself a ridiculously simple question: did you have any say in the US govt's/POTUS's actions, meaning are one of the POTUS's or Congressional lobbyists?

If not, then. . .

YOU ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE DECISION!!!

So when you drag yourself in using the word "we", you're disrespecting yourself. You're saying to yourself: "I am responsible or partially responsible for this mess", which is, of course, not true.

Therefore, effective immediately, everyone who is not an active federal lobbyist and/or pol needs to terminate this habit.

You will notice I never say "we" when talking about the military or the US govt., because it shows a lack of self-respect, blaming myself for something I never did, or had any part of.

You shouldn't either. So when the US govt. goes on its stupid adventures overseas, say the government invaded this or the government wants to bomb whoever. Or you can say the lobbyists did this or the lobbyists want to bomb.
 
I've noticed in many of these threads re: discussion of the US govt's (typically silly, childish) military forays into the ME and other areas of the world, when referring to the US military, many posters still resort to the word "we."

When a person uses the word "we" when discussing the action of the govt., he/she includes himself and all the People as being culpable (or complicit) in those actions.

Now think: to all those who use the word "we", ask yourself a ridiculously simple question: did you have any say in the US govt's/POTUS's actions, meaning are one of the POTUS's or Congressional lobbyists?

If not, then. . .

YOU ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE DECISION!!!

So when you drag yourself in using the word "we", you're disrespecting yourself. You're saying to yourself: "I am responsible or partially responsible for this mess", which is, of course, not true.

Therefore, effective immediately, everyone who is not an active federal lobbyist and/or pol needs to terminate this habit.

You will notice I never say "we" when talking about the military or the US govt., because it shows a lack of self-respect, blaming myself for something I never did, or had any part of.

You shouldn't either. So when the US govt. goes on its stupid adventures overseas, say the government invaded this or the government wants to bomb whoever. Or you can say the lobbyists did this or the lobbyists want to bomb.

I completely disagree. We have the government we (yes "we") deserve. We are, the vast majority of us, not doing enough to wrest the government from those you mention. It is our responsibility to do so, and when we don't, we are indeed complicit with what our government does. Saying "we" is an acceptance of responsibility (to a very small extent).
 
I completely disagree. We have the government we (yes "we") deserve. We are, the vast majority of us, not doing enough to wrest the government from those you mention. It is our responsibility to do so, and when we don't, we are indeed complicit with what our government does. Saying "we" is an acceptance of responsibility (to a very small extent).

Unless you're paying any of the pols, they do not work for you. There's no such thing as free labor.
 
I've noticed in many of these threads re: discussion of the US govt's (typically silly, childish) military forays into the ME and other areas of the world, when referring to the US military, many posters still resort to the word "we."

When a person uses the word "we" when discussing the action of the govt., he/she includes himself and all the People as being culpable (or complicit) in those actions.

Now think: to all those who use the word "we", ask yourself a ridiculously simple question: did you have any say in the US govt's/POTUS's actions, meaning are one of the POTUS's or Congressional lobbyists?

If not, then. . .

YOU ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE DECISION!!!

So when you drag yourself in using the word "we", you're disrespecting yourself. You're saying to yourself: "I am responsible or partially responsible for this mess", which is, of course, not true.

Therefore, effective immediately, everyone who is not an active federal lobbyist and/or pol needs to terminate this habit.

You will notice I never say "we" when talking about the military or the US govt., because it shows a lack of self-respect, blaming myself for something I never did, or had any part of.

You shouldn't either. So when the US govt. goes on its stupid adventures overseas, say the government invaded this or the government wants to bomb whoever. Or you can say the lobbyists did this or the lobbyists want to bomb.

Did it occur to you that maybe they are part of the decision? Maybe they voted for Obama, maybe they're military, maybe they supported it (before they were against it).

IT's not like they're a separate entity from the US or something :roll:
 
We don't care what you think.
 
Unless you're paying any of the pols, they do not work for you. There's no such thing as free labor.

It has zero to do with who is paying them. It has to do with power, who holds it, and who has the power to change who has power. The fact is, we do have the power to change who has power, and so we are ultimately responsible for our government's actions.
 
Unless you're paying any of the pols, they do not work for you. There's no such thing as free labor.

Since I pay taxes, they do work for me, at least theoretically :2wave:
 
Did it occur to you that maybe they are part of the decision? Maybe they voted for Obama, maybe they're military, maybe they supported it (before they were against it).

Good point. The voters bear extremely minor responsibility because they're the ones who chose the lobbyists that are currently in power (a vote for a candidate is a vote for his/her lobbyists).

But recall that's typically only a choice between one of two lesser evils. And I'd be hard pressed to equate that w/being responsible or being complicit.

As for those who serve in the military, they are significantly more responsible. So I stand corrected on that: it's OK for members of the military to lump themselves in w/the word "we" because they're the ones carrying out the govt's orders.

So the final list for those who can appropriately use the word we is

1) Lobbyists
2) Federal politicians
3) Members of the US military
4) Offense contractors and their employees

Unless you're among one of the 4, you're not responsible, in any way, for the US govt's actions.
 
Since I pay taxes, they do work for me, at least theoretically :2wave:

Nope, becauses taxes aren't a voluntary transaction. Taxes are theft. It would be like saying you work for some punk that stole your wallet.
 
It has zero to do with who is paying them. It has to do with power, who holds it, and who has the power to change who has power. The fact is, we do have the power to change who has power, and so we are ultimately responsible for our government's actions.

How can you have power when you don't have enough $ to buy it, or have lots of $ but didn't buy any pols/lobbyists?
 
Nope, becauses taxes aren't a voluntary transaction. Taxes are theft. It would be like saying you work for some punk that stole your wallet.

But I don't take each and every deduction available to me, so a portion are voluntary to me :2wave:
 
But I don't take each and every deduction available to me, so a portion are voluntary to me :2wave:

True, but a Senator or Rep's earnings consists primarily of lobbyist doll outs. Their legally authorized salary is only 2-5% of that.
 
The U.S. people are obviously not asked for their input on each action/decision of their gov't., that is why we have a democratic republic. Our elected represetatives are tasked with governing we the sheeple. Simply because you may disagree with our congress critters or POTUS, they none the less, represent us to the world. We elected these folks and that is why they are said to act on our behalf.
 
I've noticed in many of these threads re: discussion of the US govt's (typically silly, childish) military forays into the ME and other areas of the world, when referring to the US military, many posters still resort to the word "we."

When a person uses the word "we" when discussing the action of the govt., he/she includes himself and all the People as being culpable (or complicit) in those actions.

Now think: to all those who use the word "we", ask yourself a ridiculously simple question: did you have any say in the US govt's/POTUS's actions, meaning are one of the POTUS's or Congressional lobbyists?

If not, then. . .

YOU ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE DECISION!!!

So when you drag yourself in using the word "we", you're disrespecting yourself. You're saying to yourself: "I am responsible or partially responsible for this mess", which is, of course, not true.

Therefore, effective immediately, everyone who is not an active federal lobbyist and/or pol needs to terminate this habit.

You will notice I never say "we" when talking about the military or the US govt., because it shows a lack of self-respect, blaming myself for something I never did, or had any part of.

You shouldn't either. So when the US govt. goes on its stupid adventures overseas, say the government invaded this or the government wants to bomb whoever. Or you can say the lobbyists did this or the lobbyists want to bomb.

Solletica, are you speaking directly to me or are you speaking to us?
 
The U.S. people are obviously not asked for their input on each action/decision of their gov't., that is why we have a democratic republic. Our elected represetatives are tasked with governing we the sheeple. Simply because you may disagree with our congress critters or POTUS, they none the less, represent us to the world. We elected these folks and that is why they are said to act on our behalf.

WRONG. An election of a pol is an election of that pol's sponsors, because the sponsors pay the bulk of a pol's earnings, so that's who it works for.

Furthermore, a "choice" between 2 pols of only the 2 major parties is not a choice. And it needn't be said that if anyone attempted to use non-lobbying means (i. e. the illusory democratic process) to get a candidate he/she really wants up to a general election w/significant support, and that candidate represented a sincere (as opposed to illusory) threat to the lobbyists already in power, that person would be arrested, declared an "enemy combatant"/member of al Kida (along w/the pols supported) by the govt. and never heard from again.

All those who acquire power will always impede those who attempt to seize it from him, using any means (legal or illegal). The people who buy pols are no exception.
 
I'm not disrespecting myself when I say "we". I know that I did everything in my power to make sure we didn't have Obama (or Romney for that matter) in the White House. They are warhawks, both major parties, so when I say "we" I am acknowledging the fact that I didn't do enough to make a change. At the same time I am acknowledging these people around me that are furious with the government for various reasons and are not ballsy enough to make an actual change. This is where I take notes and get ready for 2016.
 
I'm not disrespecting myself when I say "we". I know that I did everything in my power to make sure we didn't have Obama (or Romney for that matter) in the White House. They are warhawks, both major parties, so when I say "we" I am acknowledging the fact that I didn't do enough to make a change.

That would only be a valid excuse if you have lots of $, which gives you the power to make change. Without $, or without compromising information on any pol/lobbyist, there's no power, and no ability to affect change.
 
Unless you're paying any of the pols, they do not work for you. There's no such thing as free labor.

Unless you are paying attention to the pols and voting accordingly then you are correct. Our only action, as citizens, to effect those that govern us is our vote. You can write letters or send emails until you work yourself into a lather, but once they are in office then they will do as they are instructed, by lobbyists mostly, to get that all important campaign cash for their next election.

Perhaps you noticed, in the 2012 elections, that 92% of our congress critters and the POTUS got reelected - that is what we did. Now we must accept what they do, on our behalf, until granted an opportunity to vote again. Sadly, by then, we will likely forget our anger and believe their moronic promises to improve "next time".
 
That would only be a valid excuse if you have lots of $, which gives you the power to make change. Without $, or without compromising information on any pol/lobbyist, there's no power, and no ability to affect change.

Money is what a catalyst especially in political campaigns. A 3rd party president though would singlehandedly be enough for a real change. A some 3rd parties have some serious backers.
 
I've noticed in many of these threads re: discussion of the US govt's (typically silly, childish) military forays into the ME and other areas of the world, when referring to the US military, many posters still resort to the word "we."

When a person uses the word "we" when discussing the action of the govt., he/she includes himself and all the People as being culpable (or complicit) in those actions.

Now think: to all those who use the word "we", ask yourself a ridiculously simple question: did you have any say in the US govt's/POTUS's actions, meaning are one of the POTUS's or Congressional lobbyists?

If not, then. . .

YOU ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE DECISION!!!

So when you drag yourself in using the word "we", you're disrespecting yourself. You're saying to yourself: "I am responsible or partially responsible for this mess", which is, of course, not true.

Therefore, effective immediately, everyone who is not an active federal lobbyist and/or pol needs to terminate this habit.

You will notice I never say "we" when talking about the military or the US govt., because it shows a lack of self-respect, blaming myself for something I never did, or had any part of.

You shouldn't either. So when the US govt. goes on its stupid adventures overseas, say the government invaded this or the government wants to bomb whoever. Or you can say the lobbyists did this or the lobbyists want to bomb.

l have always wondered who is " we " too

because one's criticizing a government'S foreign politics shouldnt be taken personally l think
 
Money is what a catalyst especially in political campaigns. A 3rd party president though would singlehandedly be enough for a real change. A some 3rd parties have some serious backers.

You mean serious $--that's what I was talking about.
 
Living in a representative republic, we are involved in the decision making process by voting for representatives who most closely represent our views. At the rate we're going though, I think we need to chuck most of the incumbents and start over.
 
Living in a representative republic, we are involved in the decision making process by voting for representatives who most closely represent our views.

The US is as much a representative republic as Iran is.

Being able to vote for someone (i. e. Rouhani/Obama) doesn't automatically imply a true democracy/republic, esp. when ultimate power belongs to someone else.
 
Back
Top Bottom