Who here is ready to go insane with this election?

[oly884]

I know I sure am!

Obama - socialist

Biden - ahole

McCain - a bit less of an a-hole who annoys me

Palin - hot, and she hunts

Media - Haha, they would do certain 'favors' for obama if they had the chance...

The back and forth, the bickering, how about we focus on the issues at hand?

If I hear any more talk about sexism or racism, I will go insane. How many people do you know that are voting for a candidate because of race or sex? Yup, that's what I though, ZERO.

I'm voting for McCain/Palin because, frankly, I dispise Obama. He is a socialist and I worry about what he'll do to the constitution when he gets in. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of McCain and Palin is pretty fresh, but this election is the difference between getting kicked in the nuts with loafers, and getting kicked in the nuts with steel toed boots. Both hurt, just one a bit less. (at least in my opinion)

Oh, and I thought this was a funny quote I heard:

“I was in Munich last April and the headline proclaimed that Germans overwhelmingly would vote for Obama...my response....Does anyone remember some of the other people they have elected?"

[gilby4runner]

Got my new HERO / HOTTIE bumper sticker (same design as the McCain / Palin sticker) and my H(Y)PE sticker has already pissed off some people and i dont even have it on my truck yet

Oly- you put it very nicely! I could not have said it better.

[oly884]

Thanks Gilby.

It's just becoming more and more frustrating as the days go on. The actual issues are being left in the dust and the attacks and whining are coming out more and more.

Boo hoo for what Obama said yesterday (the pig/lipstick reference). Poor choice of words? Yes. Does it need to be taken out of context and made into a huge deal? Nope. The McCain camp needs to stop with the 'victim' attitude with Palin. That will hurt them big time if they keep trying to play that. I want a leader that can take all the crap from all sides and keep doing their job. Not whine and complain everytime someone 'hurts their feelings' :roll:

The problem I see with Obama is that his policies/ideology is hurting him, he's been dancing around the issues, and people are starting to pick up on them. Furthermore, his choice of friends isn't flattering and it does raise concerns about his judgment. For those of you who disagree, that's fine, but you can't honestly tell me that his choice of friends has *no* implications of his ideology or his judgment. What if McCain had a friend/spiritual guide/mentor/etc for many, many years who was a klan member? Would that not make the slightest difference?

As I said, I really REALLY don't like Obama, but it's for the reasons that actually matter, not race, not insignificant comments, but his policies (or lack of them), and his ideology.

Also, as to the BBC poll stating that the 'world' wants Obama for pres.

Well, news flash, the USA does not operate the same as the rest of the world. Those in the world who have grown up under a more socialistic society will naturally tend to favor leaders that resemble that ideology. This is the same reason that we (generally, as a nation) tend to favor more democratic leaders of nations.

What it comes down to is: what works for you doesn't always mean it will work for us.

[mYnAmEiSmUdD]

It seems to me that the decision lies in who i believe is the lesser of two "evils." Both party runners scare the shit out of me for reasons i will keep to myself.

This gigantic game of dehragatory ping-pong between candidates seems to be doing nothing but making the networks/media ratings go through the roof. Since when did a presidential race seem to be scripted by the writers of General Hospital or All of My Children?

I do not know, this is the first race that i am actually following. Boy politics are agravating. Now i understand why my father could sit (and drink cases of beer) while hurling obsinities at politicians through his cathode ray tube.

After venting with my girlfriend about this same bull last night, her and i sarcastically came to the conclusion that we need to move to BC.

Jon Stewart 09' (lol jk)

It is rather relieving that I am not the only one confused to extent of rage.

[fustercluck]

Because Obama's ideology is a gathering threat to individual freedom and accountability, I am forced to vote for McCain, but sometimes he looks a bit lecherous when he goes to hug Palin, and she looks like she's seconds away from beating him down if he tries to grab her butt.

I wonder how long it will take our "impartial" media to discover the uncomfortable sexual tension that will surely surface. As a man, I understand that there is no way to have interaction with a hot chick and ignore that fact. We are hardwired for conquest. Imagine if Pres. Clinton had chosen her....

[oly884]

Imagine if Pres. Clinton had chosen her....


The cigar business would be booming...

[Seanz0rz]

i hate the entire thing and im sick of it, and have been for MONTHS now. i hate both candidates, the vp's, and the entire election system.

i always wondered when i was younger why so many 20-somethings were apathetic towards voting. now i know.

go ahead and flame me, but im voting for nader. at least every thing in his professional career has been to help the people, never himself or any specific party(political or otherwise) or person. hes the only person i dont want to set on fire.

oh and the media, well they can all go jump off a bridge, nose dive into the pavement. i miss real reporting on real news, not whether palin's pig wears lipstick or not. give me a fricken break...

oh, "Palin - hot, and she hunts" how the hell does that qualify her to be runner up to commander and chief??!?!?! the old dood is about to kick the bucket, really could at any moment have a stroke or heartattack.

[oly884]

oh, "Palin - hot, and she hunts" how the hell does that qualify her to be runner up to commander and chief??!?!?! the old dood is about to kick the bucket, really could at any moment have a stroke or heartattack.


:roll:

I never stated that it had anything to do with her being qualified. If you have actually read anything about her, you most likely would have not said that. If you think that Matt Damon's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWTzyU5MFgM) little rant he had the other day is accurate, then I think it's time you do some reading.

Political experience has been brought up quite a bit in this election. I say it's less about experience and more about judgment of the individuals and their ideology. If Palin's experience (or lack thereof) should be brought into this discussion, then the same is necessary for Obama.

I'm not going to get into a bickering contest about candidates, but I'm also not going to let people take what I say out of context.

[gilby4runner]

When i run for President someday Oly and Fluster will both be given any office they want!!!

Again- Oly, great point. I would say the Obama is historically one of the least qualified candidates that has ever been on the ticket. In the past 4 years, "his great experience", how much has he actually served his country? I would dare to say the he has been on the campaign trail for at least 2.5 years of that time. In watching the Rep. convention Liberman made a good point. Obama has the potential to be great and do so called "wonderful" things for the Democratic party but he has to have the experience in order to know what he is doing. Dont get me wrong, I check the air pressure in my tires but whats he going to say when iran points a nuke at us or russia gets high on the hog again? Sorry... I will get off the soap box.

My other bumpersticker....
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p304/gilby4runner/0912081002.jpg

[Seanz0rz]

of course its necessary for obama, which is why i cant vote for the lil bastard.

the reason i brought your quote into question is because its symptomatic of the election. people dont worry about the issues, they really have no clue where the cantidates stand on anything. most people vote for a person "because i can have a beer with him" or because "shes a woman" and thats total bs.

i really have heard nothing concrete from either side about how they plan on doing anything. so far i just see talking heads.

flame me all you want, but i think there are about 3 or 4 people in congress and washington that arent completely in it for themselves. i say purge them all and lets start over..

[gilby4runner]

flame me all you want, but i think there are about 3 or 4 people in congress and washington that arent completely in it for themselves. i say purge them all and lets start over..


AMEN!!!

[oly884]

of course its necessary for obama, which is why i cant vote for the lil bastard.

the reason i brought your quote into question is because its symptomatic of the election. people dont worry about the issues, they really have no clue where the cantidates stand on anything. most people vote for a person "because i can have a beer with him" or because "shes a woman" and thats total bs.

i really have heard nothing concrete from either side about how they plan on doing anything. so far i just see talking heads.

flame me all you want, but i think there are about 3 or 4 people in congress and washington that arent completely in it for themselves. i say purge them all and lets start over..


Ok, good response.

The reason I said that is because, well, that's what every one says, and while those are for the most part true, there is so much more to each candidate than what the media states.

[tulsa_sr5]

All of them scare the heck out me to be honest, Even though they are a little more in line with my ideals, McCain/Palin scare me a lot more. Not sure I can vote for Obama, but I really see a bleak 4 years no matter who gets elected.

Barring a miracle 3rd party candidate coming out of the woodwork at the 11th hr, all I'm hoping for at this point is some hard core partisan politics ensuring 4yrs of gridlock and nothing major getting changed. As bad as I think some things are right now, sometimes the best course of action is to not make it any worse.

[thook]

Nothing about this election annoys me. I could see in my late teens that our gov't (not everyone in it, probably) was f'd up. Then, later learned that...Oh!....it's nothing but a stage of puppets for global elitists that are really directing things and our voting is pointless. It's all a game of smoke and mirrors. Now that's what annoys me!

So, as with every political election, I won't be voting.

[Seanz0rz]

i thought about not voting, but this is the first election im able to vote in, i figure ill shove it in their face and vote for someone worthy who everyone hates.

[04 Rocko Taco]

So, as with every political election, I won't be voting.


Thats the way...... [/sarcasm]


Guys, while I dont agree with everyhting John McCain does or says, he is my canidate of choice, and therefore has my support 100%...

I just saw this and thought I would share.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8

[thook]

No. That's just my way. Why would I bother with something pointless? I have no faith or belief in our present political system. I could vote for someone who actually represents the values I believe in, but it would make no difference and I know that. Whomever the powers that be want in office will be there regardless. So....again....what's the point? Exercising my rights? Voting is the power I have to change things...make a difference? It's all lies, Chris. Has been for a very long time.

[Nick]

Thook - out of great curiosity (100% serious) , if you had a say in it, what would you replace/change in our present political system?

I myself, I don't know what exactly to do. I do not like the McCain & Palin combo. I am not fond of Obama and Biden . Choose the lesser of two evils? and which is that?

[mYnAmEiSmUdD]

I myself, I don't know what exactly to do. I do not like the McCain & Palin combo. I am not fond of Obama and Biden . Choose the lesser of two evils? and which is that?


Something tells me that, herein lies a good portion of American's problems/frustrations...

I lean towards McCain due to the fact he is not calling our situation in Iraq and Afganistan a failure. That, imho, is a slap in the face of every member of our armed service. But yet, this man (Mr. Obama) wants to be the Commander in Chief of these men? (my Mother sent me that video rocko posted, earlier this week.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpRXLDKSink&feature=related <- Bill Hicks on US politics

[gilby4runner]

Great video chris!

[calrockx]

I lean towards McCain due to the fact he is not calling our situation in Iraq and Afganistan a failure. That, imho, is a slap in the face of every member of our armed service. But yet, this man (Mr. Obama) wants to be the Commander in Chief of these men? (my Mother sent me that video rocko posted, earlier this week.)


That's not a slap in the face of the troops at all. It's a slap against the leaders/administration who sent them to fight. In my opinion, those have been failures. Bad exit strategy, those who attacked us came from Afghanistan, and have we caught BinLaden yet? Obama wants to focus the fight on the region where the threats are.
Both candidates support the troops - They're just doing what they're being commanded to do with the resources they have.

[fustercluck]

I lean towards McCain due to the fact he is not calling our situation in Iraq and Afganistan a failure. That, imho, is a slap in the face of every member of our armed service. But yet, this man (Mr. Obama) wants to be the Commander in Chief of these men? (my Mother sent me that video rocko posted, earlier this week.)


That's not a slap in the face of the troops at all. It's a slap against the leaders/administration who sent them to fight. In my opinion, those have been failures. Bad exit strategy, those who attacked us came from Afghanistan, and have we caught BinLaden yet? Obama wants to focus the fight on the region where the threats are.
Both candidates support the troops - They're just doing what they're being commanded to do with the resources they have.


If Iraq were harboring/aiding Al Queda within it's borders, would that have been reason to go in and take them out?

[thook]

My view is the whole system is corrupt. Way back when the country was founded the gov't was established on some very good principles I believe in. Still, I do not care for the way in which many settlers/immigrants chose to establish themselves in this land, but the constitution and bill of rights were a good thing to go by. There have always been parties that have wanted control over America and it's people (England, at that time), so with that corruption has been a constant force. Now, it's just a lot more....and I mean a lot more....prevalent. You know......those self serving people that like nothing more than for the citizens to be slaves while giving them the illusion they have freedoms. What better way to control them than by brainwashing them and keeping them confused? Granted we can do things in this country you can't elsewhere, but this makes it an even bigger lie. If you don't believe me, try not paying your taxes for a couple of years. Or, do something that would actually, truly upset the rulers game. They will kill you. In effect, it seems like Democracy, but still smacks of all the forms of gov't we as Americans despise.

Sorry....lesser of two evils is not a choice and it's not freedom. And besides, elected officials are ruled by those with more money, power, and larger agendas. Go ahead and vote for who you think might do less harm. You'll be bought and sold just like them. It's all a game show.

What would I do to change it?

Destroy the global elitists/Illuminati somehow. (Not sure how that would/could happen). Strip the gov't of a lot of the power they've coerced/manipulated from the people. Give the politicians A LOT less salary. Taxes would be distributed with largest percentage to those who made the largest percentage. The rich would NOT be able to benefit from desperation of the less fortunate. I still like the idea of Capitalism, but I think that needs a "cap" put on it....(hehe). Or maybe the tax thing would resolve that. The more you make, the more you are ABLE to give back to the community. I mean, how much money does a person need to be happy and comfortable?

The environment would be treated as something NECESSARY for our existent and not as an expendable commodity. Incrementally and SOUNDLY, all of our present forms of wasteful and polluting energy would be SERIOUSLY modified or abolished altogether. Agriculture and the land would in the same manner would be converted to organic farming without the need for expensive labeling and consumer prices. Food should be healthy, non-toxic and nourishing. Our soil should be vital and naturally immune with only natural aid. Animals (pets or livestock) would be treated with the utmost honor and respect for the service they provide for nurturing and benefit. It would be (should be) a serious crime to abuse them in any way.

Speaking of crime....our criminal justice policies would be COMPLETELY reformed. It's seriously not working the way it is. Though, there are small strides in that direction. They need to be educated and rehabilitated on a much larger scale than present.

Education would be based on teaching children to THINK, be creative, and be the geniuses they are born as. Politicians love to lie and spout of this cliche, but they are seriously our future. So, if they're raised as malnourished, overstimulated, numb dummies we simply won't advanced as an intelligent race. Children would be taught not only general curriculum pertinent to survival, but higher functioning that transcends linear thinking. (Think Einstein here before he was forcibly bought/threatened...however you want to put it). Mothers would be able to actually care for the children during their important developmental years and not HAVE to go to work, depend on nannies or corrupt facilities.

There's soooo much more I'd do would if I felt I had a real say. But, to sum it up, I'd set the country up like a cooperative. The individual is important, but without a cohesive community where the labor of living is shared we're all exhausted and tend to fend for ourselves....the man being an island sort of thing where in truth we are not.

Of course, this is all dependent on humanity as a whole working cooperatively and not maliciously. And, right now the latter is the way it works. So, I'm not sure what all the answers/solutions are (though, I have an idea), but I know voting is not changing it. It hasn't for a very, very long time the way it's been run.

[thook]

Oh...and on the whole war/troops in Iraq/or wherever else thing. I've never believed this war or many, many, many wars we've had were necessary. Never have I believed that any of them were to defend our freedom or anyone else's freedom. In fact, I believe it's always been about money, commodity, and rulership of. Nothing more. I honor the idea behind an army and those who believe it's worth their lives to defend a country of freedom, but given what I've said already, what is happening now and for a long time is a lie to America and the world. So, you can probably see why I won't vote for anyone that supports it and thinks it's good, "honorable" thing we're doing over there. It's insanity.

[thook]

Furthermore, I believe our gov't (those with ties in the globlists) was behind 9/11, Oklahoma City, and many others. Why? Because they're ruthless with no conscience. How are you going to get a very large group of people ...a country...to want something that goes against logic, humanity, and economic prudence? You have to shock them with something horrific. It's a very common military/psychological tactic called brainwashing and lies. How could anyone particularly our gov't do something like that? Killing hundreds/thousands of innocent people? We are commodities and nothing more.

[oly884]

thook, quite a bit of change eh?

I see where you are coming from, however, a couple points (I only have internet access at work right now due to a move, but will discuss later)


1. I agree, the government needs much less power.

2. Can't agree on taxes. Simply a flat tax is how i'd have it. I view the 'taxing the rich higher' as punishing being successful. The more you make, the more you are ABLE to contribute, yes, but not the more you make the more you NEED to contribute. Taking, forcefully, some one's hard earned money and giving it to others does not follow in the guidelines of what I consider freedom. I didn't get a degree in chemical engineering only to have a good portion of my money go to help those who do not wish to help themselves. I WILL help people if they are in need, I don't need anyone else telling me who I need to help. In every aspect of life, there is competition, it is how we came to be. Removing that is going against the flow of life. We, as humans, are far beyond animals in the survival mentality, however, it does not remove the fact that the laws of nature still need to apply to us.

Much like the strong and wealthy can take advantage of the weak and hungry, the roles can be turned around. The kind and giving can be taken advantage of by the mischievous and unethical.

There is beyond enough opportunity for people to be successful in this country, however, people piss those opportunities away and then demand that others take care of them. Everyone has their bad times, but if the do not show the will to carry on and strive to be successful, then they are not a productive member of society and what good does it do to attempt to support them any further?

3. The environment is clearly important, but we cannot sacrifice our current path. We will get to the point where clean energy is viable, it just doesn't happen overnight.

4. Crime, can't agree their either. We have pretty easy guidelines to live by and if someone can't follow those, that's their problem. If it were my choice, child molesters and rapists (assuming they ARE guilty), death. Same for cold blooded murderers. Any crimes committed with guns get 2x the time.

5. Education needs revamping, yes. To that extent, I couldn't say one way or another.

6. A cooperative is a neat idea, but human nature will always fight against the idea. Much like the idea of socialism, communism, fascism, etc. they simply don't work because it goes against the idea of personal freedom. People need to CHOOSE to help others, not be forced into doing so.

[oly884]

Furthermore, I believe our gov't (those with ties in the globlists) was behind 9/11, Oklahoma City, and many others. Why? Because they're ruthless with no conscience. How are you going to get a very large group of people ...a country...to want something that goes against logic, humanity, and economic prudence? You have to shock them with something horrific. It's a very common military/psychological tactic called brainwashing and lies. How could anyone particularly our gov't do something like that? Killing hundreds/thousands of innocent people? We are commodities and nothing more.


:shake:

What expertise do you have that you can support this. I have found that in every case, beliefs like this have everything to do with a hatred of government, Bush, USA, etc and nothing to do with common sense.

Have fun with the comments to follow.

And to think, I was actually starting to think you were a pretty cool guy.

[thook]

Yeah Oly...I agree with a lot of what you say. That's why I said incrementally and soundly. No solid changes can happen overnight without total collapse. That's not good, either. It's just that I don't believe efforts are wholeheartedly being made towards a lot of what I've pointed out. I think we're getting lip service and placation. It can and seriously needs to happen faster. The technology is there, but being squelched.

On taxes.....that's why I said ABLE to. I don't believe in force. And I don't see it as a punishment. Why do you? I believe in cooperative communities where people realize and support the notion that giving back actually benefits the giver greatly. A very strong, healthy, and wealthy nation based on cooperation cannot help but support every individual much more than an individual alone. Taxes in this way can be seen as something entirely different than the way it has been and still is brought upon us. Selfish thinking would not allow some people to see or believe that, though. Engghh...fear. My guess, though, is that you would not be one of the immeasurably wealthy peoples that would not be philanthropic or giving of taxes to benefit your community, either. For those that do not choose to, maybe the "cap" idea would be necessary. Like I said, how much money does a person need? Geez....if one was earning a $1mill a year, don't you think that's enough? Many, many people earn more than that.

And, yes.....the leeches of society. Yeah...I hear you there. Well, this would mean reform of welfare and what not. And, also people that would otherwise give need to learn discernment and not allow themselves to be manipulated. But, let's face it. Much of the state these kind of people are in is a negative, depressive state. Let's you and I think of a better way to do deal with that then, eh? Maybe we can gather a mass letter and send it to our gov't. What do you think they'll do? Wait....that's right. They want a drain on our economy...hahaha. Good way to keep people down and others....like us...arguing.

And for the love of God....I've mentioned nothing about force!!! A cooperative is not about force. A cooperative comes from the heart of people wherein...like I said...giving back means gaining. And, what makes you think our present form of economy, gov't, etc is not forced? Aren't you forced to pay taxes now? Aren't you forced to make many decisions based on your survival now? A cooperative based on capitalism is nothing like communism or socialism or anything else everyone likes to throw into the discussion right now to justify their side. This is why I said it will require humanity working as a whole. If more people were "cooperative" than not, eventually the slackers would fall in line like the sheep they already are. They might even find they like it!!! And actually begin to be productive!!!!!

[thook]

Furthermore, I believe our gov't (those with ties in the globlists) was behind 9/11, Oklahoma City, and many others. Why? Because they're ruthless with no conscience. How are you going to get a very large group of people ...a country...to want something that goes against logic, humanity, and economic prudence? You have to shock them with something horrific. It's a very common military/psychological tactic called brainwashing and lies. How could anyone particularly our gov't do something like that? Killing hundreds/thousands of innocent people? We are commodities and nothing more.


:shake:

What expertise do you have that you can support this. I have found that in every case, beliefs like this have everything to do with a hatred of government, Bush, USA, etc and nothing to do with common sense.

Have fun with the comments to follow.

And to think, I was actually starting to think you were a pretty cool guy.


Jesus Christ Oly....are you really going to go there? Now I'm not a cool guy? What makes a cool guy, Oly? That I support the views you or anyone else does? Do I seriously have to be an expert to see the evidence that I've seen, the trends that I've seen, etc. etc. etc. to be able to say any of what I've said? Are you an expert, dear sir? I doubt it.

And common sense...so now I'm stupid and one of these joe blows that spout off whatever trendy anti-gov't/USA speal that's going on right now? No... I don't like Bush. But, should I think you're not a cool guy because you do? This is called divide and conquer. Keep people divided and they are easier to manipulate. Keep watching the direction this country is going in. Maybe I'll see you in the prison camps, eh.

Yeah....there are things I hate about our gov't. Their are things I hate about our world. There are things I hate about myself. There might even be things I hate about you....but, then I don't know you well enough to say. Does this mean immediately we should choose sides of the fence and prepare to dual? No Oly...it doesn't. It means finding common ground. Something we can agree on and begin to work with. See what works for us all and what doesn't. THIS is why everything is the way is. AND, I'm NOT talking about Socialism, Communism, and all that garbage. That's never worked either. All for one and one for all, Oly. Like I said, the individual is important, but so is the community. It is very, very possible for people to think this way and still have a sound society living as comfortably....if not more comfortably...as we do now. I love completely the idea of America....our freedoms and promise of life and the pursuit of happiness. I just don't think there are people in our gov't that really, truly want that for us. Is that just impossible for you to consider?

[oly884]

Well, I misunderstood the statement you made:

"Taxes would be distributed with largest percentage to those who made the largest percentage."

Kinda leads me to believe that you would have people who make more give more. Isn't always going to happen unless you make people do it...

I also never said that our system right now is perfect. I still think there needs to be a flat tax.

The problem is that humanity will never really work as a whole (as much as I'd like it to as well) it simply won't happen. That would require everyone to believe in the exact same ideology, and my simple move from Montana to Seattle has shown me that it won't happen. There are too many variables in life and humans are too complex. Life in Montana vs Seattle is vastly different, what works here would not work out there, same for the other way.

I used socialism, etc to make a point that, theoretically, they would work, but when practiced, they do not. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with most of your world view, but I simply think that is naive, sorry, no other way to put it. What you feel works for you doesn't always mean it would work for someone else.

[oly884]

Furthermore, I believe our gov't (those with ties in the globlists) was behind 9/11, Oklahoma City, and many others. Why? Because they're ruthless with no conscience. How are you going to get a very large group of people ...a country...to want something that goes against logic, humanity, and economic prudence? You have to shock them with something horrific. It's a very common military/psychological tactic called brainwashing and lies. How could anyone particularly our gov't do something like that? Killing hundreds/thousands of innocent people? We are commodities and nothing more.


:shake:

What expertise do you have that you can support this. I have found that in every case, beliefs like this have everything to do with a hatred of government, Bush, USA, etc and nothing to do with common sense.

Have fun with the comments to follow.

And to think, I was actually starting to think you were a pretty cool guy.


Jesus Christ Oly....are you really going to go there? Now I'm not a cool guy? What makes a cool guy, Oly? That I support the views you or anyone else does?

And common sense...so now I'm stupid and one of these joe blows that spout off whatever trendy anti-gov't speal that's going on right now? No... I don't like Bush. But, should I think you're not a cool guy because you do? This is called divide and conquer. Keep people divided and they are easier to manipulate. Keep watching the direction this country is going in. Maybe I'll see you in the prison camps, eh.

Yeah....there are things I hate about our gov't. Their are things I hate about our world. There are things I hate about myself. There might even be things I hate about you....but, then I don't know you well enough to say. Does this mean immediately we should choose sides of the fence and prepare to dual? No Oly...it doesn't. It means finding common ground. Something we can agree on and begin to work with. See what works for us all and what doesn't. THIS is why everything is the way is. AND, I'm NOT talking about Socialism, Communism, and all that garbage. That's never worked either. All for one and one for all, Oly.


Well, see, there's a line for me. For example, I really have no interest cooperating with, say, a Nazi, or other extremists such as that. Where to you suggest that our 'middle ground' is on this subject, thook? I don't know where it is.

I have approached all the arguments that the 'truthers' spew out, so I know the arguments, and they are all BS.

[thook]

No...it's not naive. I never said it "would" happen. I know how people are all too well right now. But, I keep pushing for the potentials so I say it can. Nothing's impossible even if we can't see it in the moment we find ourselves.

Thing is, this ideology would work. No, not everyone might find it satisfactory for themselves, but that would only be those that are still quite selfishly oriented. Or, maybe they've not even considered that this kind of ideology could be good for them and even downright fun. We're very conditioned in our thinking, Oly. Negatively condition at that. I've read where the mind works in reverse logic when the heart is oriented in a negative state. After a ton of self observation and introspection....and hell, even watching people....I believe this to be true. So, is it any wonder this might be seen as undesirable or impossible?

Back to what I'd change...
I realize to get people to do something they have to want to do it, if your goal is to not establish a rulership. I don't believe in rulership. What get's people to really want to do something is to inspire them. For that, you have to show them the possibilities. You have to encourage them....make it well worth their while. People are not truly won by force. You have to win their hearts. And, it's the heart that is naturally giving. Unfortunately, too many people are...like I said...conditioned, beaten down by pressures, despondent, uninspired, dulled by environmental factors of all kinds, confused, and on and on. This is the negative orientation I speak of.

Lastly Oly...I really want to impress upon you something about me if we are to discuss anything or relate in anyway. I'm not about ideology because it's the trend. I'm not about stupid or irrational solutions that do nothing more than to confuse any given problem or predicament. I believe in intelligent minds and lively hearts that work for clarity and that "undivided house" in the sky.

BTW, why the flat tax? Wouldn't you agree that there are so many individuals who have soooo much that they could stand to help offset our deficits. This, of course, would be contigent on a lot of unnecessary gov't/political spending.

[thook]

Well, see, there's a line for me. For example, I really have no interest cooperating with, say, a Nazi, or other extremists such as that. Where to you suggest that our 'middle ground' is on this subject, thook? I don't know where it is.

I have approached all the arguments that the 'truthers' spew out, so I know the arguments, and they are all BS.


Well, I agree there. This is the problem with internet and not hearing the whole story.

The middle ground is agreeing there's a problem that neither of us care for too much. The challenge is to see where each other is coming from without putting up walls, invalidating, and calling BS even if you don't outright agree.

First of all, cooperating with a Nazi is not part of my ideology either. There would have to be measures for that. (Did you know Bush's grandfather had ties with the Nazi's?..;))

Secondly, like I said, I don't know all the solutions and there is still more I'd change.

But, Nazi's, axe murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc. are all the dark parts of ourselves we choose not to accept and deal with appropriately. I know you're going to shat yer britches and flame me for saying that....even call it BS. Doesn't matter because I don't need you to agree with me to say it and or to even say that it's true. There's a very deep level of consciousness we don't normally see or use. Practically speaking, though, people like Hitler should never have been allowed to rise to power. The way people like that (as well as rapists, pedophiles, etc) keep from having power...or atleast there being fewer instances of....is that people change in their hearts. It's that negative orientation again.

For example, it can be proven that many diseases cannot survive and flourish within a certain range of pH. Were people oriented more positively and more securely within balance, there'd be little to no room for negative outbreaks of this nature.

I realize this is all "would be/could be" Oly. But, remember...the dude asked me what I'd change if I could. Okay?

[thook]

Here's what you said earlier...

"Can't agree on taxes. Simply a flat tax is how i'd have it. I view the 'taxing the rich higher' as punishing being successful. The more you make, the more you are ABLE to contribute, yes, but not the more you make the more you NEED to contribute. Taking, forcefully, some one's hard earned money and giving it to others does not follow in the guidelines of what I consider freedom. I didn't get a degree in chemical engineering only to have a good portion of my money go to help those who do not wish to help themselves."

I had to think a bit and decided maybe flat tax is the best idea. Still, in this way, the richer are contributing more. (See? Cooperation!:))

The other thing I had to think of was that the way things are now, taxation would still have to be enforced. In order for it to work the way I'd set it up, it would have to voluntary and you could even choose where you're tax money would go.....eliminating going to the leeches. But, that won't work, will it? So, I'd still have to enforce. Be rest assured, though, even if I were forcing taxation, your tax money wouldn't go to my three beach houses, five private jets, huge society parties, and cuban cigars. Well....maybe cuban cigars, but I could live without the rest.:D Instead, I'd actually do the things that are suppose to be done with it. One example is eliminating this school consolidation thing. I know some teachers. This consolidation thing is a mess. So, I'd keep more schools open and pay teachers much better for starters.

[waskillywabbit]

Several random thoughts, not necessarily related to the other, but could be. :D

It seems to me that we are doomed to repeat the history of the Roman Empire, the more "civilized" they became and the more personal freedoms granted to the individual, the less "civilized" they became.

I am voting, as I believe not exercising a privilege/duty makes one part of the problem.

I see the real breakdown in our country that can be tied to the crime rate, unemployment, education and a host of other problems is the lack of parenting and the demise of the importance of family (the emphasis is on the individual).

I can remember getting up early and going hunting, then going to school in my camo with the guns in the gun rack of the truck or the bow in the back. No one ever got killed, much less even shot at, and no one certainly got expelled from school.

It is truly sad with all the great men and women in the world today who are great leaders, that the Pacaderms and Jackasses can't find any of them to run for President.

:guitar:

[thook]

Not voting is also a right, though. A right I can exercise as a freedom. How is that part of the problem when I have only so many to choose from knowing only the two major parties will be in the final running? And, neither party which I agree with?

Let's say I vote for McCain because Obama is obviously an idiot. I don't like McCain. So, how is voting for him solved anything in as far as my participation goes? Have I fulfilled my duty then? My duty as a citizen is for the benefit of you, me, and all of my brothers and sisters. I don't see voting for more corruption as part of that.

Maybe one day when there is actually someone is in the final running who is not corrupt I will vote. But, even then, would that person be able to overcome the corruption that is already established without getting killed?

[thook]

Several random thoughts, not necessarily related to the other, but could be. :D




I see the real breakdown in our country that can be tied to the crime rate, unemployment, education and a host of other problems is the lack of parenting and the demise of the importance of family (the emphasis is on the individual).

I can remember getting up early and going hunting, then going to school in my camo with the guns in the gun rack of the truck or the bow in the back. No one ever got killed, much less even shot at, and no one certainly got expelled from school.

It is truly sad with all the great men and women in the world today who are great leaders, that the Pacaderms and Jackasses can't find any of them to run for President.

:guitar:


The importance of family is part of it, but it's also the importance of community. I don't know...it seems to me the harder people have to struggle to stay afloat in life, the more self absorbed they become focusing only their problems and forgetting that everyone has it hard. Have you ever seen a community garden in effect? It's a really great thing to see. Everyone working for the whole while the individual still gets what they need. Sometimes more because maybe they put more effort into and maybe someone else had more than they needed. No one went without. The garden flourished and everyone flourished.

Your early days of hunting and school..
I grew up Tennessee where there was a large hunting community. I tried it, but hunting was not in my nature. But, yeah...no one got shot and no one was expelled. Now, though, lots more kids are on prescription drugs and the poor dietary habits are really messin' with their brains and hormones, the electronic stimulation (games and whatnot) are WAAAYYY different than when we were growing up, peer pressure seems to be more extreme, plus the education is more dummed down....enough to keep them bored and restless. And, as you said, more focus is on the individual from media, television programming, marketing and commercials via emotional and mental manipulation. You can't pinpoint the problem on any one thing, but seems to me to be all of it combined.

[waskillywabbit]

The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all. ~ John F. Kennedy

:guitar:

[thook]

Security? Ignorance? How does this undermine security? What's ignorant about it? I'm making a conscious, informed choice. As well, look at my choices, Brian. I will not vote for someone I don't believe in because it's "the proper thing" to do. I don't buy into pressuring from anyone regardless if it's JFK or Jesus. And, the revolutionists didn't buy into the pressuring they received for not supporting the monarchy. I'm not saying I'm a revolutionist or something, but I will say I don't support those who represent the current system.....and even much of the current system itself. If this undermines security, it only undermines the security of the system that is in fact corrupt. I'd feel differently were it truly a democracy.

[MasterWIII]

And to think, I was actually starting to think you were a pretty cool guy.
[/quote]

I think that if someone is going to post up a very debatable topic, where people are always going to have different views, we shouldn't be judging people on those views. I really like this site, but I expect a certain level of professionalism, especially from a staff member. Comments like this need to be kept to yourself.

[thook]

Oh, it's fine really. I'm sure he'd just forotten to wear his Republican deodorant that day.....:D

[glenyoshida]

Several random thoughts, not necessarily related to the other, but could be. :D

It seems to me that we are doomed to repeat the history of the Roman Empire, the more "civilized" they became and the more personal freedoms granted to the individual, the less "civilized" they became.

I am voting, as I believe not exercising a privilege/duty makes one part of the problem.

I see the real breakdown in our country that can be tied to the crime rate, unemployment, education and a host of other problems is the lack of parenting and the demise of the importance of family (the emphasis is on the individual).

I can remember getting up early and going hunting, then going to school in my camo with the guns in the gun rack of the truck or the bow in the back. No one ever got killed, much less even shot at, and no one certainly got expelled from school.

It is truly sad with all the great men and women in the world today who are great leaders, that the Pacaderms and Jackasses can't find any of them to run for President.

:guitar:

Wab, your words are insightful, show that you are well read, and that you have a strong propensity to uncover the root problem leading to forward thinking. I dig it!

I've often found that especially in the US, the best solution is often superseded with the easiest one. Being a good parent has got to be one of the toughest and most important jobs. It's too bad the solution isn't as easy as making it illegal to be a bad parent. lol

[oly884]

And to think, I was actually starting to think you were a pretty cool guy.


I think that if someone is going to post up a very debatable topic, where people are always going to have different views, we shouldn't be judging people on those views. I really like this site, but I expect a certain level of professionalism, especially from a staff member. Comments like this need to be kept to yourself.


Very debatable topic? How so? Aside from peoples' bias against the government, bush, et al. what evidence is there? People need to put their bias aside and approach it scientifically. Every single one of the 'truthers' seems to have, on some level, a hatred of government and lack any proof. They start with the conclusion and take bits and pieces of the story, while at the same time throwing out anything that doesn't jive with their conclusion, to make it appear that they are right. That's not to say I really like government, but lets be honest, do you think the government is that competent?

Voicing your opinion is what makes this site great, let alone this country, and not an over censored land of rainbows and puppy dogs, sorry to burst your bubble.



Oh, it's fine really. I'm sure he'd just forotten to wear his Republican deodorant that day.....:D


Right, that's because I'm a republican... oh, wait, nope.

So, what actual proof do you have that 9/11 "was an inside job" besides your 'gut' feelings?

[4runnerchevy]

I am using this really annoying guy at work to decide my vote. I am going to vote the opposite of him just to cancel him out. :flipoff:

[gilby4runner]

I have read some very interesting arguments so far. By no means do i speak with the eloquence that some posses or have the in depth knowledge of others but i do agree there is a problem. When it comes to changing our nation we have to start on completely different level then a national election. thook you make a good point in saying that it should start with the family and community. I agree with that. I envision it a little different. Not to throw relgion into the mix but i will use my church as an example. Being on staff i am required to start new programing and curriculums. I may think that my latest idea is the best thing for the church but it will never work without the support of the members. On paper it will seem like its the answer to what we need but unless people see the need and respond to it then it will fail.
I see on a daily basis the lack of respect and morals in our homes. Parents need to be partents and not best friends. Grandparents and Greatgrandparents are raising children to day becuase the real parents are trash. Until we finally decide that enough is enough the nation will not change course. It starts off in our homes and grows from there. From our homes to our communities...and so forth. Revolution by no means but an awakening to things.
At some point we will have to draw the line on issues. You want to sit and draw welfare?....ok, six months for you to get back on your feet and then its over. If your a punk and commit a crime then you do the time for it. I dont care how you were brought up or if your techer made fun of you and you quit school. I agree with oly as far as crime is concerned. Fair tax for all. Rich or poor you pay your part. Sorry.. i will get off the box. Anyone ever ready any of the ashes series..crappy reading but a good idea for the most part.

[oly884]

Here's what you said earlier...

"Can't agree on taxes. Simply a flat tax is how i'd have it. I view the 'taxing the rich higher' as punishing being successful. The more you make, the more you are ABLE to contribute, yes, but not the more you make the more you NEED to contribute. Taking, forcefully, some one's hard earned money and giving it to others does not follow in the guidelines of what I consider freedom. I didn't get a degree in chemical engineering only to have a good portion of my money go to help those who do not wish to help themselves."

I had to think a bit and decided maybe flat tax is the best idea. Still, in this way, the richer are contributing more. (See? Cooperation!:))

The other thing I had to think of was that the way things are now, taxation would still have to be enforced. In order for it to work the way I'd set it up, it would have to voluntary and you could even choose where you're tax money would go.....eliminating going to the leeches. But, that won't work, will it? So, I'd still have to enforce. Be rest assured, though, even if I were forcing taxation, your tax money wouldn't go to my three beach houses, five private jets, huge society parties, and cuban cigars. Well....maybe cuban cigars, but I could live without the rest.:D Instead, I'd actually do the things that are suppose to be done with it. One example is eliminating this school consolidation thing. I know some teachers. This consolidation thing is a mess. So, I'd keep more schools open and pay teachers much better for starters.


Ok, so, thook, we can agree on quite a few things. Flat tax is definitely the fairest way to collect.

15% of $25,000 per year is: $3,750

15% of $250,000 per year is: $37,500

The rich still pay MORE, but as a percentage of their income, it remains the same. To me, it seems to be the most fair. And for those under a certain amount of pay, they have 0%.

Thook, I'm sorry for my comment(s), but it's a real hot button issue for me. Coming from the perspective of an engineer, I find that 99% of the arguments don't hold up. The other 1% can be attributed to the simple lack of data, evidence, or simply just 'gut feelings'

I understand the frustration with the government, I have it just as much as anyone else. I don't trust them and they are not in the best interest of my family, friends, or myself. I think giving up isn't necessary though, we have to push hard for the things we believe.

[fustercluck]

BTW, why the flat tax? Wouldn't you agree that there are so many individuals who have soooo much that they could stand to help offset our deficits. This, of course, would be contigent on a lot of unnecessary gov't/political spending.


Taxation is rulership if it is compulsory. The idea that one person can tell another person that he has enough or that he makes more than is necesary is nascent oppression. The fact is that human nature is the central component to any economy. If we seek to work with it, then the economy will be successful. If we move contrary to human nature, we rush to failure.

At the core of economies is currency/money. Money represents the time of a man's life that it takes to earn it. If it takes me an hour to earn a dollar, then to take by force that dollar is to steal an hour of my life. To say that my life is only as valuable as centralized powers dictate is oppression/rulership.

Is it ever right to take one man's life by force and give it to another because he needs or wants it? That is the essential principle. If you can convince the man to voluntarily surrender portions of his life to give to another who needs or wants it, then what you have is a benevolent society which will endure. If you move to seize the first man's life, you are an oppressor.

I understand that taxes must be levied. I think that it ought to be an equal burden if we are to be equal in the eyes of the constitution. I would establish a baseline for poverty, say 12,000.00. Then everything that is earned over 12,000.00 is taxed at 10%. So if I made 12,001.00, I'd be responsible for .10 cents tax period. No State, local, sales, etc. tax. There should only be one baseline exception tax. There in lies fairness with dispensation for poverty. I would still have a voluntary welfare fund that is dispersed after a means test for accountability.


There is more, but I have to go to Lacrosse practice...

[fustercluck]

Okay, I'm back.
Every man is born with two assets; his potential for productivity and his freedom to accomplish that end. He has three basic needs. Those are food, shelter and clothing. He has frailties of character naturally. He is subject to consequences of behaviors whether they be positive or negative. These serve to refine the character of man so that the consequences he experiences will be mostly positive and his inherent freedom is complete. We use moral anchorages and priniciples to guide us through life with the least resistence.

When we discuss the need for a utopic egalitarian economy, we must first understand that at the nucleus must be volutary cooperation. There have been niche societies which have attempted such a communal system, but due to human nature and character frailty, they failed. Invariably, some folks are more productive than others. Those who either worked harder or produced more would see that those who didn't, recieved the same reward. Naturally, they sensed they were being exploited and began to protect their interests by working and producing less. Human nature dictates that if we are to be equal, then one man should produce equal to another for similar reward. Since this cannot be, then there must be equitable transfer of value. This is the basis for societal economy.

In an egalitarian society, there can be no greed; no avarice; no envy; no covetousness; no selfishness. These traits are frailties most often assigned to the wealthy or most productive. However, they are as often found in the poor or least productive (remember not to confuse 'hard-working' for 'productive'). As long as these character flaws exist in even one man, there can be no enduring communal economy. These flaws have been the root cause of every voluntary experiment in consecrated living since the beginning of time.

The economy most suited to compensating for human nature and human frailty is the one which embraces the principle that every man eats by the sweat of his own brow. Those who won't, perish (they really won't perish if they are convinced that the consequence for failure is death by starvation). Those who can't are at the mercy of morally anchored brothers. This economy is called true capitalism. True capitalism requires that there be an equitable transfer of value. To reach the definition of 'equitable', there must be an understanding of morality wherein the point is to avoid exploitation.

If we remove from man negative consequences or delay the same, we deny him the benefit of learning through adversity which is the method humans learn most effectively. A man who progresses through life without learning basic principles is a weaker being and less able to be self sufficient. Strength through adversity is a principle that closely orbits true capitalism. Weakness through delayed or denied consequences is the central tenent of socialism or communal life. Weakness of morals is the path of MOST resistence through life. Mentioned earlier was the demise of the Roman empire. Suggested was that too much personal freedom was the culprit of the fall. I assert that immoral/amoral/irresponsible freedom was the cause. Strength of character and soundness of moral code is the facilitator of the purest freedom. Freedom and potential for poductivity are enduring and our birthright as human beings.

[fustercluck]

Alexis d' Toqueville is credited with this quote: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury."

In preservation of this democratic republic, I'll cast my vote for the candidate which most closely embraces moral capitalism.

[thook]

Hey guys....I'm not flakin' out on this. Power's been out for two days at home....you know, hurricane storms. Right now I'm in town at where I work on the weekend, though.

Oly....the deodorant joke. I said Repugnican....upppss...I mean Republican because you seem to favor Bush. None if it's serious, though....whether you're Rep. or not.

[fustercluck]

I favored Bush over Al-Ijustboughta100fthouseboat,butyoushouldwalktowork-Gore. I favored Bush over John-effing-Kerry too. I would favor Bush over Barack-don'tmentionmymiddlenameorexaminemylifetooclosely-Obama. While Bush is a closet socialist, I prefer him to the wacked out Marxist/Lenninists that the Dummycrats prop up.



































...Bad Fuster! No donut!....

[Bob98SR5]

I just dont get the whole star struck Obama thing from a pragmatic perspective. Same too with Ms. Palin. Here's why:

Think about your the college and the president who ran it. Say its time for the spot to be filled. You are on the board of trustees and you have two candidates: a seasoned, well experienced candidate who has taught as well as administered major universities. The 2nd candidate is a well polished, well spoken gentleman, but has only 1 year of experience...maybe 2 if youre generous. So who do you pick? A talker or someone whose walked the walk?

Same analogy for your company: would you trust the industry vet with 20 years of working with the company? Or the nice looking, nice sounding marketing guy who just put in his first year at the company?

Yes, the experience equation is very important to me. The fawning over Barack Obama is really taking away from the political process, imho. Sure, anybody but Bush! But c'mon. I've read his background off both his website as well as his voting records. A solid liberal. Nothing wrong with voting on what you believe in, but I cannot fathom putting a man like that in charge of our nation let alone trusting someone like that as my college president or the CEO of the company i work for.

Alot will come out during the next 2 months. Lots of dirt, as usual. In my opinion, the unsavory characters that Obama associated with during his rise to power in Chicago politics will come out to haunt him. And middle America is probably not as tolerant or forgiving as the coasters. Sad to say, he built his career in the early days as a so called community activist. Those same community activists hated "whitey". So to me, its incredulous to think that a man whose party is the party of tolerance had elected Barack Obama as its spokesman and candidate. Its even more incredulous to think that those of Caucasian background believe that 20 years of being part of a very hateful pastor who wed him, baptized his children, etc...well he just flat out "didn't know he held those beliefs".

And then there's McCain. Total has been. But I can respect the man for what he went through as a POW, what he sacrificed when offered to be released, and how he built his career from there. I am NOT in favor of his campaign policy reform b/c it was legislation without teeth (you cant keep money and corruption from politicians--thats their main line of business!!) nor am i in favor of his amnesty bill with that drunk murderer, Ted Kennedy. That said, I'd choose him over Barack any day of the week. I do feel that terrorism is and will be, an on-going battle that can't be won overnight. People criticze the man for saying we'll be in Iraq for 10 years. I think he, more than the current President and Barack Obama, knows the military and geopolitical situation better than them.

I dont know if these two ass clowns are better than the last two clowns who ran for office. At least Bush has my respect for keeping terrorism at bay---at least thats what i attribute his legacy to

[oly884]

Hey guys....I'm not flakin' out on this. Power's been out for two days at home....you know, hurricane storms. Right now I'm in town at where I work on the weekend, though.

Oly....the deodorant joke. I said Repugnican....upppss...I mean Republican because you seem to favor Bush. None if it's serious, though....whether you're Rep. or not.




I did favor bush for a while, however, many decisions made by him have changed my views.

When it comes down to the president, I want them to stand up and say, if it's in the constitution, then we'll enforce it. If not, well, then you the people need to decide what to change.

I could care less what he or she looks like, if they are 400 lbs, or 150 lbs. It doesn't matter to me. What matters to me for a president of this country is that he views the constitution as the founding document of this land and that it is still 100% relevant to today's world.

Sadly, I don't foresee that happening.

[AxleIke]

Couple of points

Thook, the tax system you describe is exactly what we have. Its called a progressive tax.

Fuster, the poverty line already is that low. Lower actually, at about 11k for a single person, and 14k for 2 people. This is a travesty, yet there is a reason for it. By setting the poverty line that low, politicians can claim that there are less poor people in the country. Thats good for elections. Not so good if you are making 15k in a 2 person household. Hell, with oil prices doing what they are doing, and the cost of everything from electricity to food going up, its damn hard to live on 20k a year.

Benevolent society? Bah! Find one for me, so I can move there.

Anyway, not sure who I'm voting for yet.

one thing is for sure, I think this bumper sticker is hilarious:

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/2008/09/934494/mcsame-milf.jpg

[oly884]

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/2008/09/934494/mcsame-milf.jpg


:rofl:

[4Runner202020]

GO GREEN PARTY!!

[fustercluck]

Couple of points

Thook, the tax system you describe is exactly what we have. Its called a progressive tax.

Fuster, the poverty line already is that low. Lower actually, at about 11k for a single person, and 14k for 2 people. This is a travesty, yet there is a reason for it. By setting the poverty line that low, politicians can claim that there are less poor people in the country. Thats good for elections. Not so good if you are making 15k in a 2 person household. Hell, with oil prices doing what they are doing, and the cost of everything from electricity to food going up, its damn hard to live on 20k a year.

Benevolent society? Bah! Find one for me, so I can move there.

Anyway, not sure who I'm voting for yet.

one thing is for sure, I think this bumper sticker is hilarious:

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/2008/09/934494/mcsame-milf.jpg


I set the poverty level randomly. I hoped the concept of baseline poverty flat tax would be what was learned from that post.

A benevolent society is nurtured, not compulsory. This globe has rarely seen a society that encourages voluntary charity without a compulsory aspect. When a man's free will is removed, he loses a connection between compassion and duty. On the other side of the equation, the man who is in need and is given beyond what is necessary for him to become self sufficient, is stunted and oppressed by dependence. There is no edification to either man and the centralized authority is empowered further.

For a truly benevolent society to exist, there must be moral synchronicity and the appreciation for the value of human potential. There must me an axiomatic code such as "do unto others...." which is universally accepted.

We have effectively evicerated from our society those moral codes and cheritable free will. As long as that is the case, we will be compelled to charity, the needy will be oppressed by dependence and the govt. will benefit by power augmentation.

[oly884]

GO GREEN PARTY!!


Good luck with that

[AxleIke]

GO GREEN PARTY!!


Good joke.

[AxleIke]

I set the poverty level randomly. I hoped the concept of baseline poverty flat tax would be what was learned from that post.

A benevolent society is nurtured, not compulsory. This globe has rarely seen a society that encourages voluntary charity without a compulsory aspect. When a man's free will is removed, he loses a connection between compassion and duty. On the other side of the equation, the man who is in need and is given beyond what is necessary for him to become self sufficient, is stunted and oppressed by dependence. There is no edification to either man and the centralized authority is empowered further.

For a truly benevolent society to exist, there must be moral synchronicity and the appreciation for the value of human potential. There must me an axiomatic code such as "do unto others...." which is universally accepted.

We have effectively evicerated from our society those moral codes and cheritable free will. As long as that is the case, we will be compelled to charity, the needy will be oppressed by dependence and the govt. will benefit by power augmentation.


I live my life by "do unto others..."

As indicated in my previous post, I would love to live in one. It does have some of the markers of "utopia" but I think we could work around that.

The problem arises with "moral synchronicity". That works in small groups, but in a nation even a tenth our size, it never will. You can only avoid diversity up to a certain point, and after you reach that population number, it is inevitable. And then, whose morals do you go with?

I think you have great points, and great ideas. There is a problem with implementation. Solve that, and we've got a ball game.

On another note, I wonder what makes you think that, even if we released everyone from all compulsory payment, people would be inclined to give.

I think some would, but not many. Most would assume the rich will donate their cash to worthy causes, like a military, or the fire department. If we are not forced to pay for these services, where will the money come from?

[fustercluck]

I set the poverty level randomly. I hoped the concept of baseline poverty flat tax would be what was learned from that post.

A benevolent society is nurtured, not compulsory. This globe has rarely seen a society that encourages voluntary charity without a compulsory aspect. When a man's free will is removed, he loses a connection between compassion and duty. On the other side of the equation, the man who is in need and is given beyond what is necessary for him to become self sufficient, is stunted and oppressed by dependence. There is no edification to either man and the centralized authority is empowered further.

For a truly benevolent society to exist, there must be moral synchronicity and the appreciation for the value of human potential. There must me an axiomatic code such as "do unto others...." which is universally accepted.

We have effectively evicerated from our society those moral codes and cheritable free will. As long as that is the case, we will be compelled to charity, the needy will be oppressed by dependence and the govt. will benefit by power augmentation.


I live my life by "do unto others..."

As indicated in my previous post, I would love to live in one. It does have some of the markers of "utopia" but I think we could work around that.

The problem arises with "moral synchronicity". That works in small groups, but in a nation even a tenth our size, it never will. You can only avoid diversity up to a certain point, and after you reach that population number, it is inevitable. And then, whose morals do you go with?

I think you have great points, and great ideas. There is a problem with implementation. Solve that, and we've got a ball game.

On another note, I wonder what makes you think that, even if we released everyone from all compulsory payment, people would be inclined to give.

I think some would, but not many. Most would assume the rich will donate their cash to worthy causes, like a military, or the fire department. If we are not forced to pay for these services, where will the money come from?


The problem of implementation is the fatal component. As you stated, moral synchronicity works well in small associations. We don't live in that world anymore. If one pursues fantasy he could advocate that we adopt the highest morality as a rule. Sadly each human is saddled with character flaws and frailties which preclude an enduring utopia.

What we confuse is equality and egalitarianism. Equality is that we all have equal opportunity and human rights. Egalitarianism dictates that the reward be the same regardless of divergent circumstance, drive and ability. Egalitarianism runs contrary to human nature. It runs contrary to nature in general. Socialism as a transition to Communism is steeped in the egalitarian ideal. These systems are set to fail from their genesis. From each according to his means; to each according to his needs is a beautiful idea. It never works as an enduring economy. When I read folks advocate it, I know they either do not understand human nature or they refuse to discern fantasy from reality.

Ike, your last paragraph is a perfect illustration of what I was describing. Over the centuries of compulsory charity we have disconnected compassion from duty. We feel exploited and the pendulum has swung to self interest first. Our poor have become dependent and angry. Our govt. has metastasized to the point of strangling individual freedom and agency. Yeah, show me that voluntary beneficent community and I'm there. Like Ponce de Leon, I doubt we'll find that fountain.

[calrockx]

I just dont get the whole star struck Obama thing from a pragmatic perspective. Same too with Ms. Palin. Here's why:

Think about your the college and the president who ran it. Say its time for the spot to be filled. You are on the board of trustees and you have two candidates: a seasoned, well experienced candidate who has taught as well as administered major universities. The 2nd candidate is a well polished, well spoken gentleman, but has only 1 year of experience...maybe 2 if youre generous. So who do you pick? A talker or someone whose walked the walk?

Same analogy for your company: would you trust the industry vet with 20 years of working with the company? Or the nice looking, nice sounding marketing guy who just put in his first year at the company?

Yes, the experience equation is very important to me. The fawning over Barack Obama is really taking away from the political process, imho. Sure, anybody but Bush! But c'mon. I've read his background off both his website as well as his voting records. A solid liberal. Nothing wrong with voting on what you believe in, but I cannot fathom putting a man like that in charge of our nation let alone trusting someone like that as my college president or the CEO of the company i work for.

Alot will come out during the next 2 months. Lots of dirt, as usual. In my opinion, the unsavory characters that Obama associated with during his rise to power in Chicago politics will come out to haunt him. And middle America is probably not as tolerant or forgiving as the coasters. Sad to say, he built his career in the early days as a so called community activist. Those same community activists hated "whitey". So to me, its incredulous to think that a man whose party is the party of tolerance had elected Barack Obama as its spokesman and candidate. Its even more incredulous to think that those of Caucasian background believe that 20 years of being part of a very hateful pastor who wed him, baptized his children, etc...well he just flat out "didn't know he held those beliefs".

And then there's McCain. Total has been. But I can respect the man for what he went through as a POW, what he sacrificed when offered to be released, and how he built his career from there. I am NOT in favor of his campaign policy reform b/c it was legislation without teeth (you cant keep money and corruption from politicians--thats their main line of business!!) nor am i in favor of his amnesty bill with that drunk murderer, Ted Kennedy. That said, I'd choose him over Barack any day of the week. I do feel that terrorism is and will be, an on-going battle that can't be won overnight. People criticze the man for saying we'll be in Iraq for 10 years. I think he, more than the current President and Barack Obama, knows the military and geopolitical situation better than them.

I dont know if these two ass clowns are better than the last two clowns who ran for office. At least Bush has my respect for keeping terrorism at bay---at least thats what i attribute his legacy to




Okay, if that's the game we're playing..

You are The Boss... which team would you hire?

With America facing historic debt, multiple war fronts, stumbling health care,
a weakened dollar, all-time high prison population, skyrocketing Federal
spending, mortgage crises, bank foreclosures, etc. etc., this is an unusually
critical election year.

Let's look at the educational background of your two options:

Obama:

Occidental College - Two
years.
Columbia University - B.A. politic al science with a specialization in
international relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude

& Biden:

University of Delaware - B.A. in history and B.A. in political science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor
(J.D.)

***VERSUS***.

McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank 894 of 899

& Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in journalism

Now, which team are you going to hire ?

______________

Me? That education and experience are nice and all, but I like Obama-Biden for their stances on the issues and judgment. The charisma/inspiration is nice to have tho.

[waskillywabbit]

Education is no substitute for experience, while experience is a great subsitute for education. :D

:guitar:

[bamachem]

Education is no substitute for experience, while experience is a great subsitute for education. :D

:guitar:


words of wisdom, indeed.

[fustercluck]

Okay, if that's the game we're playing..

You are The Boss... which team would you hire?

With America facing historic debt, multiple war fronts, stumbling health care,
a weakened dollar, all-time high prison population, skyrocketing Federal
spending, mortgage crises, bank foreclosures, etc. etc., this is an unusually
critical election year.

Let's look at the educational background of your two options:

Obama:

Occidental College - Two
years.
Columbia University - B.A. politic al science with a specialization in
international relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude

& Biden:

University of Delaware - B.A. in history and B.A. in political science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor
(J.D.)

***VERSUS***.

McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank 894 of 899

& Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in journalism

Now, which team are you going to hire ?

______________

Me? That education and experience are nice and all, but I like Obama-Biden for their stances on the issues and judgment. The charisma/inspiration is nice to have tho.


As to Americas debt, sky rocketing federal spending, mortage crisis, bank foreclosures, etc. etc., what role does the president play in all of that? Constitutionally, it is congress' aegis to form fiscal policy and oversight. What was congress doing while this trouble percolated? I'll tell you. They were having hearings on sports doping and passing non-binding resolutions. They were obstructing the war effort by castigating the troops and the President et al. They were avoiding energy policy and relief with empty fatigued environmental myth. Congress has failed us. President Obama or President McCain would have been equally impotent relative to the fiduciary matters of the treasury and fiscal policy legislation.

On to the war fronts...I think it's clear to most of the American people (polls I've read) that McCain is more likely to prosecute those war fronts, and any that may surface, better than Barack-I'llpullthetroopsoutassoonasI'melected,butdon'tpul lthemoutsoonercausethatwillhurtmyfeelings-Obama. Are you ready for another war front with Pakistan (nuclear armed)? That is where Obama promised to put the troops he removes from Iraq. Pakistan just issued a threat that any incursion into their borders constitutes a declaration of war.... We'll have a resurgence of Al Queda in Iraq and a war in Afghanistan and Pakistan; to say nothing of Iran. We'll be surrounded. Who's naive now?

As to rising healthcare costs...can you show me in the constitution where the federal powers have that responsibility? It is the constitution that delineates and limits federal powers. The fed has no right or duty beyond those parameters.

On to education. Can you tell me which college Abraham Lincoln went to? Can you tell me where George Washington went to college? I understand that these men are not the rule, but in this case the exception proves the point that education comes from within not from without. There are degreed individuals aplenty in history which guarantees little anymore. I've discussed politics and priciples with many folks claiming a degree in one discipline or another who could barely spell or assemble a cogent thought on anything but emotion. Their degree and patents are hollow.

These matters can be complicated, I understand. In times like these we must fall back to principle. Whose plan more closely provides individual liberty and fairness to all (not just the middle/lower classes)? Whose ideology more closely resembles true moral capitalism and not pseudo capital socialism? Which candidate has the longer track record to examine and rely on? Which candidate has reliably crossed the isle to adopt ANY good ideas and not just from the partisan echo chamber?

[Bob98SR5]

Chucky,

Please read what I said. No need to be defensive. I don't consider this a game. I provided what I felt was my assessment and reasons why I do not like all these candidates, but elaborate more about why I prefer (marginally so) McCain over Obama. For the very same reasons why I feel Obama is deficient, I find too that Palin is deficient for the same inexperience reasons. While there was a boost in the numbers because of her announcment as the VP candidate, I cannot understand why she was chosen as the strongest VP candidate for the same reasons why I don't approve of Obama.

Regarding education and experience, they are two different things in my book, but lets talk about education first. Obama has a great educational background (post Occidental college, that is). Among his many academic accomplishments, to be the first (1/2) black editor of Harvard Law Review is no slouch accomplishment. I am not discounting that.

By the same token, McCain's own educational accomplishments are nothing to trivialize. In fact, I would say that any of our military academies would equal or trump the education you would get at an Ivy League. Your assessment/comparison I would hope would change if you had any idea how competitive it is to be admitted let alone survive the mental and physical rigor of any of the military academies. Moreover, military academies provide a very thorough education on world and military history and geopolitics---courses that would provide a much more thorough background than say a degree in International relations, especially in this day and age of assymetric warfare and terrorism. Anecdotally, my wife's cousin and my best friend's cousin are both West Point graduates. Both people were in the highest percentiles academically, received admission letters from Ivys and public Ivys, had stellar community service backgrounds, athletic accomplishments, etc. Whether or not they gradated in the back half of their class is irrelevant to me. He got in and survived. I would say that Obama may not have survived such an environment, but that is pure speculation on my part.

Now, getting back to the crux of my issue with Obama and Palin: experience, experience, experience! While those in the Democratic party are quick to point out the "scary thought of McCain dying and leaving Palin in charge" because of the reasons you mentioned, why not the same concern for Obama? Because he is articulate? Because he got such a warm reception in Europe? Why is the same thought process and criticism not applied to him?

So here's my point: Obama is a freshman senator with very little experience in the issues that matter to me most: 1) terrorism 2) economy 3) developing US-based energy sources

If he had the background of Biden (whose experience is more in line of what I'm comfortable with)...practical application of his lofty degrees, years of being on the Senate Intelligence and various Defense related committees, I'd feel better about him. But he doesnt. He does not meet my standards of a well-seasoned leader. Just because people like him and Europeans fawn over him does not mean that he will be an effective leader nor have the wherewithal to understand how things work in the world. In fact, Europeans and the rest of the world typically like weak American presidents. Carter was hugely popular in Europe and reviled here in America for capitulating to the world's whims. You know how I feel about "world opinion". For the ones who dont, my view is that the world shits on us for not doing enough, and also shits on us for doing it (whatever "it" really is).

On the economy, there is a belief that Democrats are better as there is the belief that Republicans are better on defense. But to this day, what has Obama done to make you believe he would be better? How have the districts and his state benefitted from his leadership? I can provide you stats on how AZ has prospered from McCain's leadership in business, keeping taxes down, supporting pro-small business laws/initiatives, his pro-technology stance, etc. But again, I have not and nor do I expect much about what he's done to effect much change because he has only presided as a Senator for less than 2 years.

Chuck, I understand that you like his and Biden's stances on the issues. I have examined them too. Most people don't go to the other party's websites, but I have. I know that, for example, 8 weeks ago, Obama's website never mentioned nuclear or off shore drilling as an alternative. Now it does. Why? Because McCain gained significant points on those two issues. Does his voting record back that up? You be the judge by viewing his voting records, which can be easily Googled by typing {candidate name} + voting record. But I am not naive to think that both candidates will do that to gain points. It's part of the game and both sides will play the dirty politics game.

So yet again, what does a voter need to do? Aside from exhaustive reading/research that most people won't do, it'll come down to which candidate has the most favorable character. Who do they trust or alternatively, who do they think is lying to get votes? I just saw a recent MSNBC poll that said Obama leads on the economy/domestic poll by double digits, but McCain leads by double digits in the "character" poll. Whether that is reflected in the votes, we'll see

Bob

[fustercluck]

Birds of a feather flock together.

[calrockx]

Bob,

See, I wasn't taking that last post too seriously, hence why I called it a "game".

I don't see terrorism as important of an issue these days (oh boy, watch how you guys distort that). While it is still is important period, too many politicians (Giuliani) are politicizing it and using fear tactics. The economy, energy, and environment are more pressing to me. Interestingly, those are related to national security anyway.

And character isn't the most important to me. Voters chose Bush cause he was a guy they could have a beer with, look where that got us. I want the smarty-pants in there, even if he is a dick. Not that Obama is, I see him as a pretty down-to-earth guy - I've read a bunch of interviews with the guy. He's especially in touch with people of my generation. Not just cause he knows how to use the internets. You found some poll saying McCain has the more favorable character personality...I just saw some poll saying McCain would more likely cheat on his wife....yeah, those polls don't mean the most.

Experience is important, but judgment is even more important. I'd prefer the direction Obama would take this country. I understand most of y'all aren't. But well that's an off-roader forum for ya.

I agree with McCain on some things (OMG!!!!), and think he's served this country well. I'm not a fan of his sleazy campaign these days tho, and he is milking his POW experience (as awful as that was I'm sure). Yeah, politicians being politicians.

Whatever our thoughts, I think the country sees the economy as the most important issue. And democrats have the better rating there by most accounts...http://www.slate.com/id/2199810/ Plus, fair or not, many will associate these bad times with the Bush administration.

This election will be close, but I'm feeling good about it.

[fustercluck]

What if the smarty pants is a socialist promoting socialist ideals?

[calrockx]

You don't like Obama or his policies...I get it.

[fustercluck]

What if the smarty pants profitted from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...? Are we still concerned about our economic troubles or are we too conflicted?

Barack Obama's Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Connection
Tuesday, September 16, 2008

By John Gibson

E-Mail Print Share:

Lehman Brothers collapse is traced back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two big mortgage banks that got a federal bailout a few weeks ago.

Freddie and Fannie used huge lobbying budgets and political contributions to keep regulators off their backs.

A group called the Center for Responsive Politics keeps track of which politicians get Fannie and Freddie political contributions. The top three U.S. senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were Democrats and No. 2 is Sen. Barack Obama.

Now remember, he's only been in the Senate four years, but he still managed to grab the No. 2 spot ahead of John Kerry decades in the Senate and Chris Dodd, who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the congressional Democrats and the Clinton White House, designed to make mortgages available to more people and, as it turns out, some people who couldn't afford them.

Fannie and Freddie have also been places for big Washington Democrats to go to work in the semi-private sector and pocket millions. The Clinton administration's White House Budget Director Franklin Raines ran Fannie and collected $50 million. Jamie Gorelick Clinton Justice Department official worked for Fannie and took home $26 million. Big Democrat Jim Johnson, recently on Obama's VP search committee, has hauled in millions from his Fannie Mae CEO job.

RelatedColumn Archive
Barack Obama's Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac ConnectionDoudou Diene Can Go Home NowObama's Iraq JamMad at HillaryBig Oil Meets Big PoliticsFull-page My Word Archive
Now remember: Obama's ads and stump speeches attack McCain and Republican policies for the current financial turmoil. It is demonstrably not Republican policy and worse, it appears the man attacking McCain Sen. Obama was at the head of the line when the piggies lined up at the Fannie and Freddie trough for campaign bucks.

Sen. Barack Obama: No. 2 on the Fannie/Freddie list of favored politicians after just four short years in the Senate.

Next time you see that ad, you might notice he fails to mention that part of the Fannie and Freddie problem.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423701,00.html

[Small_words]

A military Academy teaches you a skill, Mech Engineering for me, but gives you the beginnings of leadership. Mostly, that requires learning who you are because before you can command others, you have to command yourself and know your weaknesses. I think Obama will learn who he is while he is in office and can be a great President, but only if he actually believes all men are created equal instead of dismissing those that don't believe what he believes.
Most people see flip-flopping as a disqualifier for office, but at least Obama is smart enough to feel the wind blowing toward expanding nuclear power before pouring billions into solar cells. McCain single handedly held up the promotions of EVERY General officer in the Air Force because he wasn't convinced the tanker-deal was handled well. "He stuck to his guns..." and crippled us while we were at war because the commanders were all temporary.
I'm not sure who will get my vote for President. What I'm positive about though is that we need to pay 10 TIMES more attention to our senatorial and representative elections than we do to President. A President cannot introduce legislation, has no vote on laws, cannot ratify judges, and has no ability to levee taxes. The President cannot even go to war, but is in charge once it is granted. The problems we face, economy, trade, civil liberties, and terrorism are not the sole responsibility of Bush or the Republicans. Bill Clinton happily walked around the world smiling and making happy while Al Qaida grew in boldness and organization. He also signed NAFTA, which has been a boon to Americans as a whole while it has hurt low tech industries. Clinton had a Republican Congres. Bush pushed for an unneccesary war and blew our budget apart, with the help of a Democratic congress. Who is to blame? We are becuase we keep electing idiotic lawyers who's names we recognize but who don't know a thing about payroll, OHSA, unemployment insurance, health insurance, or paying off school loans. We are to blame!

[oly884]

Obama:

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face," he said.

Sounds like a real good guy willing to cooperate with people of differing views :roll:

"And if they tell you that, 'Well, we're not sure where he stands on guns.' I want you to say, 'He believes in the Second Amendment.' If they tell you, 'Well, he's going to raise your taxes,' you say, 'No, he's not, he's going lower them.' You are my ambassadors. You guys are the ones who can make the case."

linky (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/09/17/politics/p185733D40.DTL&type=politics)

Obama on gun conrol:

* Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
* FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
* Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
* Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
* 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
* Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
* Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
* Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
* Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
* Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
* Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
* Ban semi-automatics, and impose more restrictions on other types of firearms possession; Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998
* Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons;
* Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms;
* Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
* On the issue of prohibiting citizens from carrying concealed weapons, Obama said he believes national legislation should be passed to �revent other states laws [allowing citizens to conceal their guns] from threatening the safety of Illinois residents.
* çš„ believe we need to renew墨ot roll back this common sense gun law, [The Clinton é„Â*ssault Weapons Ban]
* Proposes several gun-control laws, including restricting purchases of weapons and ammunition at gun shows, establishing a national database that would capture and record imprints left by bullets, and making gun locks mandatory. Source
* Obama said concealed weapons should be allowed for retired police officers and some military personnel.
* å¾¹rdinary citizens should not be allowed to own military assault weapons, such as AK-47s and Uzis.

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

Uh huh, he really understands the 2nd amendment :roll:

[fustercluck]

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!!

http://verdoux.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/the-wonderful-wizard-of-oz.jpg



http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b311/TomoeGozen/oz.jpg

[thook]

And to think, I was actually starting to think you were a pretty cool guy.


I think that if someone is going to post up a very debatable topic, where people are always going to have different views, we shouldn't be judging people on those views. I really like this site, but I expect a certain level of professionalism, especially from a staff member. Comments like this need to be kept to yourself.


Very debatable topic? How so? Aside from peoples' bias against the government, bush, et al. what evidence is there? People need to put their bias aside and approach it scientifically. Every single one of the 'truthers' seems to have, on some level, a hatred of government and lack any proof. They start with the conclusion and take bits and pieces of the story, while at the same time throwing out anything that doesn't jive with their conclusion, to make it appear that they are right. That's not to say I really like government, but lets be honest, do you think the government is that competent?

Voicing your opinion is what makes this site great, let alone this country, and not an over censored land of rainbows and puppy dogs, sorry to burst your bubble.



Oh, it's fine really. I'm sure he'd just forotten to wear his Republican deodorant that day.....:D


Right, that's because I'm a republican... oh, wait, nope.

So, what actual proof do you have that 9/11 "was an inside job" besides your 'gut' feelings?


I'm back.

Proof? Well, I'm sure it's debatable proof and you've probably seen it all yourself. You know....all the contraversy info that's been posted all over the internet ranging from years and years ago to this day. Photos, interviews, videos, testimonies....all of this stuff (and more)leads me to believe what I do. I'd never trust a gov't that would kill it's own president.

Thing is, I could spend weeks of digging up all the info I've seen over the past decade and more to try and prove to you my point of view. But, you've probably seen it all and still consider it BS. The other thing is, in your case, you could dig up all of what you've run across to try and prove to me your point of view. Wouldn't get us anywhere, would it?

Let me tell a personal story, though.

My wife dated a man back in the late 60's and early 70's when she lived in Houston...where she's originally from. Raised there, went to school there, etc.
The man she dated was a from a very wealthy oil family. His grandfather was one of the founders of Gulf Oil. So, the man she dated (don't remember his name offhand, so let's call him Billy Bob) got around in society. Well, the oil family/political society, anyway. When he reached his late teens, though, he decided to explore the hippy scene which my wife was a part of then. After they got to know each other fairly well, he proceeded to tell her about these rich families and political ties....Bush included. He told her a lot, but I'll consolidate to keep it short and to the point.

There are families than run everything around the world....names that we ordinary folks will never hear of because they don't make it into the media. They choose to remain under the radar running things and people from behind the scenes. They are the ones that actually control economy and the policy makers we are familiar with. And, they have no problems dispatching someone if things do not go as desired. They are very powerful people with their hands in everything including our gov't. and even mafia families. Basically, one could say our gov't is ruled by mafia like people. Sounds preposterous, probably, but while my wife and Billy Bob were dating his parents actually drew up "files" (not sure what the proper name is) made on her and all her friends to keep close track of their activities and Billy Bob's involvement. One time, he even took her for a drive to show her where some of these folks lived. "Spooky" is what my wife said. No addresses....not even findable on a map. The spookiest thing is more what Billy Bob told her these people were capable of and how they view ordinary people and even the high profile people (like stars and political figures) as expendable. If they're not family, they don't matter. This attitude is also applicable to their ties in foreign countries and how those ties view non-family in the same way.

That being said, if the rulers are willing and capable of destroying numbers of people (like Hitler, for example) or just individuals, what makes you think pulling a cover up like 9/11 impossible? Or, BS, as you put it?

I can't offer you any substantial proof other than what I've expressed here. I mean, I suppose I could have my wife call you and tell you the stories, but unlikely that will happen. Plus, I've had my own visions and dreams of which is obviously nothing concrete. :D

So, again....I don't vote. There's no one to vote for. It's all staged according to the powerful and who they want in. Just ask JFK. Oh wait...he's dead. Hmmmm....wanna borrow my crystal ball?

[AxleIke]

If I'm reading your post correctly Thook, you take issue with the way the government/economy/world is run.

Yet you don't vote. Okay, I can see that, if you feel that your vote is not going to change anything or be counted in a meaningful manner. I don't agree with it, but the choice is yours and I can respect that.

But that leads me to ask: what are you doing instead to participate and change the things you have a problem with?

If you are, I wish you the best of luck and strength in your endeavors.

If not, there is a cliche about actions and words that comes to mind.

Vigilance against oppression and corruption in government is good and responsible. Action on the part of the citizenry against oppression and corruption is both noble and necessary for the sustainability and betterment of our nation.

Having issues but remaining idle is apathy, and apathy, in my opinion, is a major cause of the problem you describe above.


***Disclaimer: My postings are made in the furtherance of discussion and should in no way be taken as a personal attack on anyone. I am raising issues and nothing more.***

[fustercluck]

If I'm reading your post correctly Thook, you take issue with the way the government/economy/world is run.

Yet you don't vote. Okay, I can see that, if you feel that your vote is not going to change anything or be counted in a meaningful manner. I don't agree with it, but the choice is yours and I can respect that.

But that leads me to ask: what are you doing instead to participate and change the things you have a problem with?

If you are, I wish you the best of luck and strength in your endeavors.

If not, there is a cliche about actions and words that comes to mind.

Vigilance against oppression and corruption in government is good and responsible. Action on the part of the citizenry against oppression and corruption is both noble and necessary for the sustainability and betterment of our nation.

Having issues but remaining idle is apathy, and apathy, in my opinion, is a major cause of the problem you describe above.


***Disclaimer: My postings are made in the furtherance of discussion and should in no way be taken as a personal attack on anyone. I am raising issues and nothing more.***


This post give me goosebumps. I am continually inspired by those who understand the critical elements of liberty and are willing to disseminate them effectively. Thanks Ike.

I understand Thook's cynicism too. I believe it is an honest reaction to his perceived surreptitiously eroded liberty. I think it is a righteous man's expression of isolation. Perhaps with enough warriors for individual liberty and accountability united to that cause, patriots like Thook will again have a sense of encouragement.

[thook]

If I'm reading your post correctly Thook, you take issue with the way the government/economy/world is run.

Yet you don't vote. Okay, I can see that, if you feel that your vote is not going to change anything or be counted in a meaningful manner. I don't agree with it, but the choice is yours and I can respect that.

But that leads me to ask: what are you doing instead to participate and change the things you have a problem with?

If you are, I wish you the best of luck and strength in your endeavors.

If not, there is a cliche about actions and words that comes to mind.

Vigilance against oppression and corruption in government is good and responsible. Action on the part of the citizenry against oppression and corruption is both noble and necessary for the sustainability and betterment of our nation.

Having issues but remaining idle is apathy, and apathy, in my opinion, is a major cause of the problem you describe above.


***Disclaimer: My postings are made in the furtherance of discussion and should in no way be taken as a personal attack on anyone. I am raising issues and nothing more.***


I understand apathy because I've been apathetic. My not voting is not apathetic, rather (to me) it's understanding (from my perspective) where change is most needed and/or where it's (again, from my perspective) most effective. People have been voting since the time of it's origin, and with the demise of true liberty in voting since the time of G. Washington and the like it's not changed anything. Corrupt peoples still run the gov't and rig our elections.

My wife mentioned to me yesterday some female Senator from Ohio or something like that and some statements she made to the public in a congressional meeting. I'm not sure on any of these details...it was a short little quip she paraphrased. I'll find out more later, but the gist is that she was telling the people how their gov't was screwing them (us) in many ways and that it was time for them to wake up. Someone like her I'd vote for. But, I don't see someone like her actually getting into Presidential office for reasons I've said before.

Anyway, the way I see all of it is that gov't, politics, elections, rulers....all the stuff discuss here is really a reflection of a larger picture of the collective human consciousness. In the words of the late John Lennon,"You're inside is out, and you're outside is in". So, the majority of my "efforts" are raising my own consciousness. As Eistein said (to paraphrase)...there is no solution at the level of the problem".

More later....I have to call the IRS. Bahahaha!

Oh, fuster, I really like a lot of what you have to say. Same for you Ike...and Oly. May not agree with all of it, but that's the beauty of being individuals at the same time one consciouness.

And, fuster, thanks for your last post. Very compassionate of you.

One last thing....
I believe it's people like you all (us) that will eventually be ruling our world. Should anyone be interested, there is a doc. movie entitled "Odyssey 2012" that is very in accordance with the way I see things. George Washington, Ben Franklin, DaVinci, and a host of other great men were all Freemasons.

[tulsa_sr5]

I've come to the conclusion that unfortunately voting matters a lot less than opinion polls any more. Neither pres candidate is going to go against the grain, and thats on us i think. I know my vote counts, and i'll vote, but if i can start spreading the idea that the worst place to look for answers to your problems is the fed govt I think i'll do a lot more good. Safety nets sound great, but they are expensive as hell, and most of us don't need one. The existence of them also encourages their use.

But yeah, still sick of this election, and I don't even have a tv hooked up at this house yet.

[fustercluck]

....The existence of them also encourages their use.





....and their expediency which creates the need for more 'safety nets' (read: socialist programs)

[oly884]

So, after today, I'm pretty sure I think we need to pool some $$$ together and get a few hundred acres in Montana, away from all civilization.

Who is with me?

[tulsa_sr5]

So, after today, I'm pretty sure I think we need to pool some $$$ together and get a few hundred acres in Montana, away from all civilization.

Who is with me?


it's a damn appealing thought, but have you looked at belize as an option?

[oly884]

So, after today, I'm pretty sure I think we need to pool some $$$ together and get a few hundred acres in Montana, away from all civilization.

Who is with me?


it's a damn appealing thought, but have you looked at belize as an option?


Can I bring all my guns?

[fustercluck]

So, after today, I'm pretty sure I think we need to pool some $$$ together and get a few hundred acres in Montana, away from all civilization.

Who is with me?


it's a damn appealing thought, but have you looked at belize as an option?


Can I bring all my guns?


I'm in. If you bring yours, I'll bring mine....I get to play with your Glock all I want though :hillbill:

[oly884]

So, after today, I'm pretty sure I think we need to pool some $$$ together and get a few hundred acres in Montana, away from all civilization.

Who is with me?


it's a damn appealing thought, but have you looked at belize as an option?


Can I bring all my guns?


I'm in. If you bring yours, I'll bring mine....I get to play with your Glock all I want though :hillbill:


Deal, so long as I get to fondle your TRG

[fustercluck]

So, after today, I'm pretty sure I think we need to pool some $$$ together and get a few hundred acres in Montana, away from all civilization.

Who is with me?


it's a damn appealing thought, but have you looked at belize as an option?


Can I bring all my guns?


I'm in. If you bring yours, I'll bring mine....I get to play with your Glock all I want though :hillbill:


Deal, so long as I get to fondle your TRG


Deal! I'll keep it warm in the mean time :hillbill:

[thook]

I'll take Belize. Montana is too damn f'n cold!!

Oh....and guns are fine, but you guys play all you want. I'll take my coffee and pipe to my little canoe and drift along quietly down the river. And, if I scream...aim for the crocodile! PLEASE!!!

:D

[fustercluck]

Sorry Thook, you have to play with guns too...:hillbill:

[thook]

The closest you'll get me to a gun.....rather ANYTHING that shoots something...is a trusty, little plungerhead bow and arrow set. You'll all be standing around polishing and admiring your guns only to be disturbed by the sound of a gentle "swooosh" of air and an abrupt and pointed "thock!" on your foreheads followed by a blood curdling laughter and victorious "Geronimo!!!" quickly fading into the distant woodland. :tongueout:

[fustercluck]

Just promise me you'll at least wear a loin cloth, Thook...

[thook]

Oh....I don't know. We'll just have to see what kind of mood I'm in. (And! how bad the mosquitoes are)

Maybe Montana would be the place? Insect, snake, and/or crocodile bites....ooorrr.... frostbite. Hmmmmm.....tough one.

[oly884]

Yeah, winters in MT are less than ideal. However, enough wood you'd be fine.

[fustercluck]

...should resolve the loin cloth dispute then....Montana it is!

[oly884]

http://www.montana-ranches-and-land.com/Flyer.cfm?Ulist=1925

http://www.montana-ranches-and-land.com/Flyer.cfm?Ulist=1923

Alright, I've got $10, who can cover the rest?

[thook]

Hold on.....let me see when that next lottery check's coming in.....











Pfffft!!!!!!!!!

Hey....if we move up there and have lived there unnoticed for 14yrs or so, maybe we can claim squatter's rights?! Eminent domain?! Something like that....

Of course, I'll have to invest in a dozen pair of expedition weight Patagonia long underwear and assortment of insulated Gore-tex wear. This is getting really expensive, guys. Loin cloths would be so much cheaper. Would ya'll reconsider? I promise I'll have front and rear cloths.:D

[oly884]

wow... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW9b0xr06qA)

I really do feel sorry for those kids. They don't understand politics, it's as simple as that.

Comrades! Our glorious leader will save us all!!! :roll:

[fustercluck]

http://www.montana-ranches-and-land.com/Flyer.cfm?Ulist=1925

http://www.montana-ranches-and-land.com/Flyer.cfm?Ulist=1923

Alright, I've got $10, who can cover the rest?


...Let me check the couch cushions real quick...

[fustercluck]

wow... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW9b0xr06qA)

I really do feel sorry for those kids. They don't understand politics, it's as simple as that.

Comrades! Our glorious leader will save us all!!! :roll:


There's nothing like a healthy dose of indoctrination coupled with continual propaganda and social re-education to affect a cultural revolution. Mao would be so pleased. You realize that in the Chinese communist revolution the polit bureau used the children because they were more easily programmed. Eventually, the children were encouraged to rat on their unwilling parents (who were then re-educated or murdered) and teachers (those who were not yet slaughtered...).

This kind of brain washing/politician worship gives me the creeps.

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/29/38629-004-56A5B1EF.jpg

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/133p/133p04papers/133p04papimg/HitlerYouth.jpg

http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/576/11hitler_youth_02.jpg

http://www.hermes-press.com/hitler_youth2.jpg

How long before 'Yes we can!' becomes equivalent to 'Hile Hitler!'? Guess we better stock up on the Zyklon B...