Jason you could just learn to homebrew and say screw the bars.
Homebrews don't come w/ lovely ladies.
Unless Norway is more awesome then legend says .... :think:
with all that extra time from not having to work you could make the most excellent homebrews and wines then woo the ladies with your amazing abilities.
you are right, but it isn't a coerced socialist ideal. That is the problem I have with it in a gov't form. Force. It breeds resentment of giving in some people.
I don't know if I would agree that we are a me society...that might be what shows up in New York, LA and other large cities, but that isn't what I see everyday in rural MN when I drive home at night...But we are very much more likely to be me first on domestic issues and we first on international issues...In a very general sense of course
well ... if one truly believes in the ideal - then it shouldn't breed resentment ... of course, if you really don't believe in it - i can see why one would build that resentment ...
the US stance on global issues are definitely based on "me" first ... why do you think the US whether it be democrat or republican has never signed onto any global warming protocol? ... it's stance against arms bans and mines is definitely a "me" first approach aimed at protecting the defense industry ...
nope. Sorry, but the use of force is the piece that can add resentment, it has nothing to do with not supporting "giving". That is kind of a grandiose assumption.
but you, and others, will make your assumptions about those that don't like the social safety net system in place right now, I can't stop that.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
nope. Sorry, but the use of force is the piece that can add resentment, it has nothing to do with not supporting "giving". That is kind of a grandiose assumption.
but you, and others, will make your assumptions about those that don't like the social safety net system in place right now, I can't stop that.
dude ... do you believe in a police force or a fire department? ... do you feel forced to have to pay for services such as those? ...
haha ... not sure why you have your back up over this ... i pretty much said that your particular belief in the libertarian model would probably work so long as everyone believed in it ... and i completely understand why many people do not like the social safety net system in place ... because its a clustercuss of epic proportions with inefficient spending and entitlement programs ... but that in it of itself does not make it a failed system ...
My biggest problem with socialism is that you have too trust politicians do the right thing...can anyone honestly say they trust politicians? For me to even consider socialism as an option it would have to be presented to me in a way that pays those in charge of running and providing the service reasonable wages, not outrage wages, remove nepotism, put in a process that severely penalizes those involved involved in corruption, including politicians. Over here in Canada or the US does any one believe a system like this is possible? I don't.
Here in Canada we have socialized medicine...just a few weeks ago the Ontario government rewarded the 2nd in command with a new contract paying 460 grand even though his department is responsible for a billion wasted on e health, the air ambulance is under scrutiny for lost lost lives and costing a fortune and wait times continue to be a problem.
Sorry highly doubt socialism will work in selfish, greedy, NA.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
nope. Sorry, but the use of force is the piece that can add resentment, it has nothing to do with not supporting "giving". That is kind of a grandiose assumption.
but you, and others, will make your assumptions about those that don't like the social safety net system in place right now, I can't stop that.
dude ... do you believe in a police force or a fire department? ... do you feel forced to have to pay for services such as those? ...
haha ... not sure why you have your back up over this ... i pretty much said that your particular belief in the libertarian model would probably work so long as everyone believed in it ... and i completely understand why many people do not like the social safety net system in place ... because its a clustercuss of epic proportions with inefficient spending and entitlement programs ... but that in it of itself does not make it a failed system ...
I wasn't referring to police fire or any of that. Social safety net, social welfare programs. That is where the problems come in. What should the gov't provide and what shouldn't it I guess is what it boils down to...
I don't have my back up over it at all. Just don't like the assumptions that people make about those that don't want a socialist system of gov't being all about themselves.
And you are right. To make any society work we need to work together to some extent. Probably why ours isn't working well at the moment.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I wasn't referring to police fire or any of that. Social safety net, social welfare programs. That is where the problems come in. What should the gov't provide and what shouldn't it I guess is what it boils down to...
I don't have my back up over it at all. Just don't like the assumptions that people make about those that don't want a socialist system of gov't being all about themselves.
And you are right. To make any society work we need to work together to some extent. Probably why ours isn't working well at the moment.
but they are social services ... and because we all agree that there should be police no one ever claims to feel forced to pay for it ... so, if we all agree that the community should look after each other - then there should be social programs put in place and we shouldn't feel forced to pay for that as well ...
what assumptions are you referring to? ... i am guessing you are referring to me as i seem to be the primary person responding in this thread ...
what assumptions are you referring to? ... i am guessing you are referring to me as i seem to be the primary person responding in this thread ...
Your insistence on saying that folks who don't agree with the socialist approach are "me-first". I suppose you've mostly said that America is me-first, but since that's the only non-socialist (which is debatable, since really we're all on a spectrum here) country I've seen discussed, one is tempted to employ the commutative property.
what assumptions are you referring to? ... i am guessing you are referring to me as i seem to be the primary person responding in this thread ...
Your insistence on saying that folks who don't agree with the socialist approach are "me-first". I suppose you've mostly said that America is me-first, but since that's the only non-socialist (which is debatable, since really we're all on a spectrum here) country I've seen discussed, one is tempted to employ the commutative property.
Isn't the U.S. as a whole qualitatively me-first? Don't we celebrate that via the "American Dream" mythology? Yes we do nice things for one another, but not consistently nor to a point that would be overly detrimental to our individual bottom line because there is no cause to do so. I don't think Polaris is wrong in her assumption since its based in several years of evidence.
I wasn't referring to police fire or any of that. Social safety net, social welfare programs. That is where the problems come in. What should the gov't provide and what shouldn't it I guess is what it boils down to...
I don't have my back up over it at all. Just don't like the assumptions that people make about those that don't want a socialist system of gov't being all about themselves.
And you are right. To make any society work we need to work together to some extent. Probably why ours isn't working well at the moment.
but they are social services ... and because we all agree that there should be police no one ever claims to feel forced to pay for it ... so, if we all agree that the community should look after each other - then there should be social programs put in place and we shouldn't feel forced to pay for that as well ...
what assumptions are you referring to? ... i am guessing you are referring to me as i seem to be the primary person responding in this thread ...
contrary to what you may think, I do talk to people in real life too
I have read it in multiple threads over the years...Police aren't a social service by the way...they are a civil service. Protection from someone infringing on my rights is much different than giving someone who is down on their luck help. also, technically paying for police is just as selfish as anything else.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
contrary to what you may think, I do talk to people in real life too
I have read it in multiple threads over the years...Police aren't a social service by the way...they are a civil service. Protection from someone infringing on my rights is much different than giving someone who is down on their luck help. also, technically paying for police is just as selfish as anything else.
really!? ... i thought you were a BOT paid for by the Ron Paul campaign!? ...
well ... that's really semantics ... civil or social ... they are put in place for the greater good of society ...
Your insistence on saying that folks who don't agree with the socialist approach are "me-first". I suppose you've mostly said that America is me-first, but since that's the only non-socialist (which is debatable, since really we're all on a spectrum here) country I've seen discussed, one is tempted to employ the commutative property.
that would be a poor inference from my posts ... let me clarify:
america is a "me" society ... i feel very comfortable in saying that and I think many people would agree to that so long as they don't take unnecessary offense to the term ... as a me-first society - socialism wouldn't work ... for obvious reasons ... people who disagree with socialism are not necessarily "me-first" people ... like i've said ... you could be a "we-first" person and believe that a more conservative or libertarian approach is best to organize society ...
what assumptions are you referring to? ... i am guessing you are referring to me as i seem to be the primary person responding in this thread ...
Your insistence on saying that folks who don't agree with the socialist approach are "me-first". I suppose you've mostly said that America is me-first, but since that's the only non-socialist (which is debatable, since really we're all on a spectrum here) country I've seen discussed, one is tempted to employ the commutative property.
Isn't the U.S. as a whole qualitatively me-first? Don't we celebrate that via the "American Dream" mythology? Yes we do nice things for one another, but not consistently nor to a point that would be overly detrimental to our individual bottom line because there is no cause to do so. I don't think Polaris is wrong in her assumption since its based in several years of evidence.
I think it is better for EVERYONE for people in the US to be independent of gov't help. That isn't self serving, in fact I probably would have to look for other work if that happened, public health... Just consider me Ron Swanson. That isn't me motivated, and that is putting myself out so that others may have a better chance to succeed.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I think it is better for EVERYONE for people in the US to be independent of gov't help. That isn't self serving, in fact I probably would have to look for other work if that happened, public health... Just consider me Ron Swanson. That isn't me motivated, and that is putting myself out so that others may have a better chance to succeed.
dude ... i really think you've missed the point or perhaps i am simply not communicating it properly ... i just reiterated that just because you don't believe in a socialist system doesn't make you a "me-first" person ... all i said was america in general is a "me-first" populace and therefore a socialist system would never work there ...
yeah what polaris said. you, as a person, may be libertarian and care about others/think that type of system will help everyone. however, most americans liberal/conservative/libertarian are me-first and that would undermine the potential free-market utopia you dream of because those in power will always use their power to make the game easier for them. given past evidence as context i think taking their money away via "wealth taxes" helps to undermine the garnering of wealth and power amongst the few. if you are ron swanson then i am probably amy poehler.
contrary to what you may think, I do talk to people in real life too
I have read it in multiple threads over the years...Police aren't a social service by the way...they are a civil service. Protection from someone infringing on my rights is much different than giving someone who is down on their luck help. also, technically paying for police is just as selfish as anything else.
really!? ... i thought you were a BOT paid for by the Ron Paul campaign!? ...
well ... that's really semantics ... civil or social ... they are put in place for the greater good of society ...
I don't think it is semantics though. police are there to protect me from you and you from me. That isn't at all the same as the gov't taking from me and giving to you, which is essentially what they do with a program like EBT in MN. so technically being ok with paying for police is selfish by definition. It is a side effect that others benefit from it. You qualify as much as anyone else does for police protection. I don't qualify for EBT. Some people might have a problem with people who have iphones and dish network getting EBT (electronic benfit transfer)...those aren't the same in anyway.
Those who want large social safety nets are not we first by definition either....Many are me first and support those programs because they themselves benefit from them.
At any given time, dems and liberals make up about 45%-55% of the country give or take...If I am to believe what I am told on here by many of them...they are we first. Taking that into consideration, how could you classify that as me first based on assumption and observation alone.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
contrary to what you may think, I do talk to people in real life too
I have read it in multiple threads over the years...Police aren't a social service by the way...they are a civil service. Protection from someone infringing on my rights is much different than giving someone who is down on their luck help. also, technically paying for police is just as selfish as anything else.
really!? ... i thought you were a BOT paid for by the Ron Paul campaign!? ...
well ... that's really semantics ... civil or social ... they are put in place for the greater good of society ...
I don't think it is semantics though. police are there to protect me from you and you from me. That isn't at all the same as the gov't taking from me and giving to you, which is essentially what they do with a program like EBT in MN. so technically being ok with paying for police is selfish by definition. It is a side effect that others benefit from it. You qualify as much as anyone else does for police protection. I don't qualify for EBT. Some people might have a problem with people who have iphones and dish network getting EBT (electronic benfit transfer)...those aren't the same in anyway.
Those who want large social safety nets are not we first by definition either....Many are me first and support those programs because they themselves benefit from them.
At any given time, dems and liberals make up about 45%-55% of the country give or take...If I am to believe what I am told on here by many of them...they are we first. Taking that into consideration, how could you classify that as me first based on assumption and observation alone.
democrats and liberals are often me-first because we have only ever understood me-first. if you are under the age of 45 or so, when neoliberalism first started taking hold, and particularly if you are a Reagan baby or younger (which makes up a majority of the liberal/democrat population) then you have not really lived in a society that had a social mission. the very crux of neoliberalism is me-first, so most contemporary american dems/liberals are we-first with a me-first twist (sounds like a food network recipe).
I don't think it is semantics though. police are there to protect me from you and you from me. That isn't at all the same as the gov't taking from me and giving to you, which is essentially what they do with a program like EBT in MN. so technically being ok with paying for police is selfish by definition. It is a side effect that others benefit from it. You qualify as much as anyone else does for police protection. I don't qualify for EBT. Some people might have a problem with people who have iphones and dish network getting EBT (electronic benfit transfer)...those aren't the same in anyway.
Those who want large social safety nets are not we first by definition either....Many are me first and support those programs because they themselves benefit from them.
At any given time, dems and liberals make up about 45%-55% of the country give or take...If I am to believe what I am told on here by many of them...they are we first. Taking that into consideration, how could you classify that as me first based on assumption and observation alone.
oh dear god ... this is painful... so, you don't qualify for EBT but didn't you say that the community should look after each other a few pages ago? ... a community looking after each other isn't based on the predication that each individual will equally require the same help ...
democrats and liberals in the US would be conservatives in Canada ... the political centre in the US is on the right of many so called socialist states ...
oh dear god ... this is painful... so, you don't qualify for EBT but didn't you say that the community should look after each other a few pages ago? ... a community looking after each other isn't based on the predication that each individual will equally require the same help ...
democrats and liberals in the US would be conservatives in Canada ... the political centre in the US is on the right of many so called socialist states ...
first off, no they wouldn't. The democratic party might be right of center, but the people who make it up, progressives and the like would not be and would probably be further to the left here if not for the restrictive two party system.
Don't hurt yourself, what I am telling you is why people get frustrated with being forced pay for social programs...I don't think that frustration is necessarily well placed, nor do I think that way myself, but I was responding to the assumption that being against those programs is strictly because of me first thought. I am against them in their current form for a very different reason.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
first off, no they wouldn't. The democratic party might be right of center, but the people who make it up, progressives and the like would not be and would probably be further to the left here if not for the restrictive two party system.
Don't hurt yourself, what I am telling you is why people get frustrated with being forced pay for social programs...I don't think that frustration is necessarily well placed, nor do I think that way myself, but I was responding to the assumption that being against those programs is strictly because of me first thought. I am against them in their current form for a very different reason.
i highly doubt it ... if that were the case, there would be more programs to reflect that ... and taxation would be much higher ...
it's hard not to feel pain when you re-iterate something over and over again and still get responses that clearly indicate that peeps aren't listening ...
first off, no they wouldn't. The democratic party might be right of center, but the people who make it up, progressives and the like would not be and would probably be further to the left here if not for the restrictive two party system.
Don't hurt yourself, what I am telling you is why people get frustrated with being forced pay for social programs...I don't think that frustration is necessarily well placed, nor do I think that way myself, but I was responding to the assumption that being against those programs is strictly because of me first thought. I am against them in their current form for a very different reason.
i highly doubt it ... if that were the case, there would be more programs to reflect that ... and taxation would be much higher ...
it's hard not to feel pain when you re-iterate something over and over again and still get responses that clearly indicate that peeps aren't listening ...
highly doubt what? I am not sure what you are referring to there
I have read everything you have written carefully and responded in kind. We disagree. Or do you think I would agree with you if I understood your point.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
highly doubt what? I am not sure what you are referring to there
I have read everything you have written carefully and responded in kind. We disagree. Or do you think I would agree with you if I understood your point.
i highly doubt dems/liberals (the majority) in the US would be more progressive if it weren't for the two party system ...
i have given up trying to make my point ... ... at least RW understands! ...
highly doubt what? I am not sure what you are referring to there
I have read everything you have written carefully and responded in kind. We disagree. Or do you think I would agree with you if I understood your point.
i highly doubt dems/liberals (the majority) in the US would be more progressive if it weren't for the two party system ...
i have given up trying to make my point ... ... at least RW understands! ...
Your revolution is over, Mr. polaris_x. Condolences. The bums lost.
highly doubt what? I am not sure what you are referring to there
I have read everything you have written carefully and responded in kind. We disagree. Or do you think I would agree with you if I understood your point.
i highly doubt dems/liberals (the majority) in the US would be more progressive if it weren't for the two party system ...
i have given up trying to make my point ... ... at least RW understands! ...
but that is the thing, you can't know. That is an assumption, whatever you base it on is up to you, but you don't know that because they are in the two party system. Probability and possibility are two different things and we make assumptions but that doesn't mean we are right. That doesn't mean with a certainty that the country wouldn't be different if it weren't bound by the two party system...I don't think that is a reflection of our politics, I think it is a choice that the parties have worked hard and abused election law to keep. But then again, maybe I think that way because I don't understand. Maybe you are right maybe I am, but I am not the one assuming that an entire culture/country/whatever you want to call american society is me first...
Again I understand, I am not stupid, I just don't agree with your assessment that we are dominantly a me first culture when it counts...making assumptions about large groups and applying those assumptions to individuals is a stereotype isn't it? I don't like those any more than you do.
also, if you dare tell me water is wet and the sky is blue I will fight you until the day i die.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
highly doubt what? I am not sure what you are referring to there
I have read everything you have written carefully and responded in kind. We disagree. Or do you think I would agree with you if I understood your point.
i highly doubt dems/liberals (the majority) in the US would be more progressive if it weren't for the two party system ...
i have given up trying to make my point ... ... at least RW understands! ...
Your revolution is over, Mr. polaris_x. Condolences. The bums lost.
I had written out
"well....that is like... your... opinion man" and erased it. strange
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
but that is the thing, you can't know. That is an assumption, whatever you base it on is up to you, but you don't know that because they are in the two party system. Probability and possibility are two different things and we make assumptions but that doesn't mean we are right. That doesn't mean with a certainty that the country wouldn't be different if it weren't bound by the two party system...I don't think that is a reflection of our politics, I think it is a choice that the parties have worked hard and abused election law to keep. But then again, maybe I think that way because I don't understand. Maybe you are right maybe I am, but I am not the one assuming that an entire culture/country/whatever you want to call american society is me first...
Again I understand, I am not stupid, I just don't agree with your assessment that we are dominantly a me first culture when it counts...making assumptions about large groups and applying those assumptions to individuals is a stereotype isn't it? I don't like those any more than you do.
also, if you dare tell me water is wet and the sky is blue I will fight you until the day i die.
obviously, i am generalizing ... just because americans go to war everywhere doesn't mean all americans love war ... i honestly can't believe you just posted the obvious of obvious ... i was under the assumption that this sort of understanding was a given ... i guess not! ...
now, i hope you understand why this has been most painful ...
Comments
nope. Sorry, but the use of force is the piece that can add resentment, it has nothing to do with not supporting "giving". That is kind of a grandiose assumption.
but you, and others, will make your assumptions about those that don't like the social safety net system in place right now, I can't stop that.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
dude ... do you believe in a police force or a fire department? ... do you feel forced to have to pay for services such as those? ...
haha ... not sure why you have your back up over this ... i pretty much said that your particular belief in the libertarian model would probably work so long as everyone believed in it ... and i completely understand why many people do not like the social safety net system in place ... because its a clustercuss of epic proportions with inefficient spending and entitlement programs ... but that in it of itself does not make it a failed system ...
Here in Canada we have socialized medicine...just a few weeks ago the Ontario government rewarded the 2nd in command with a new contract paying 460 grand even though his department is responsible for a billion wasted on e health, the air ambulance is under scrutiny for lost lost lives and costing a fortune and wait times continue to be a problem.
Sorry highly doubt socialism will work in selfish, greedy, NA.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I wasn't referring to police fire or any of that. Social safety net, social welfare programs. That is where the problems come in. What should the gov't provide and what shouldn't it I guess is what it boils down to...
I don't have my back up over it at all. Just don't like the assumptions that people make about those that don't want a socialist system of gov't being all about themselves.
And you are right. To make any society work we need to work together to some extent. Probably why ours isn't working well at the moment.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
but they are social services ... and because we all agree that there should be police no one ever claims to feel forced to pay for it ... so, if we all agree that the community should look after each other - then there should be social programs put in place and we shouldn't feel forced to pay for that as well ...
what assumptions are you referring to? ... i am guessing you are referring to me as i seem to be the primary person responding in this thread ...
contrary to what you may think, I do talk to people in real life too
I have read it in multiple threads over the years...Police aren't a social service by the way...they are a civil service. Protection from someone infringing on my rights is much different than giving someone who is down on their luck help. also, technically paying for police is just as selfish as anything else.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
really!? ... i thought you were a BOT paid for by the Ron Paul campaign!? ...
well ... that's really semantics ... civil or social ... they are put in place for the greater good of society ...
that would be a poor inference from my posts ... let me clarify:
america is a "me" society ... i feel very comfortable in saying that and I think many people would agree to that so long as they don't take unnecessary offense to the term ... as a me-first society - socialism wouldn't work ... for obvious reasons ... people who disagree with socialism are not necessarily "me-first" people ... like i've said ... you could be a "we-first" person and believe that a more conservative or libertarian approach is best to organize society ...
I think it is better for EVERYONE for people in the US to be independent of gov't help. That isn't self serving, in fact I probably would have to look for other work if that happened, public health... Just consider me Ron Swanson. That isn't me motivated, and that is putting myself out so that others may have a better chance to succeed.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
dude ... i really think you've missed the point or perhaps i am simply not communicating it properly ... i just reiterated that just because you don't believe in a socialist system doesn't make you a "me-first" person ... all i said was america in general is a "me-first" populace and therefore a socialist system would never work there ...
I don't think it is semantics though. police are there to protect me from you and you from me. That isn't at all the same as the gov't taking from me and giving to you, which is essentially what they do with a program like EBT in MN. so technically being ok with paying for police is selfish by definition. It is a side effect that others benefit from it. You qualify as much as anyone else does for police protection. I don't qualify for EBT. Some people might have a problem with people who have iphones and dish network getting EBT (electronic benfit transfer)...those aren't the same in anyway.
Those who want large social safety nets are not we first by definition either....Many are me first and support those programs because they themselves benefit from them.
At any given time, dems and liberals make up about 45%-55% of the country give or take...If I am to believe what I am told on here by many of them...they are we first. Taking that into consideration, how could you classify that as me first based on assumption and observation alone.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
oh dear god ... this is painful... so, you don't qualify for EBT but didn't you say that the community should look after each other a few pages ago? ... a community looking after each other isn't based on the predication that each individual will equally require the same help ...
democrats and liberals in the US would be conservatives in Canada ... the political centre in the US is on the right of many so called socialist states ...
first off, no they wouldn't. The democratic party might be right of center, but the people who make it up, progressives and the like would not be and would probably be further to the left here if not for the restrictive two party system.
Don't hurt yourself, what I am telling you is why people get frustrated with being forced pay for social programs...I don't think that frustration is necessarily well placed, nor do I think that way myself, but I was responding to the assumption that being against those programs is strictly because of me first thought. I am against them in their current form for a very different reason.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
i highly doubt it ... if that were the case, there would be more programs to reflect that ... and taxation would be much higher ...
it's hard not to feel pain when you re-iterate something over and over again and still get responses that clearly indicate that peeps aren't listening ...
highly doubt what? I am not sure what you are referring to there
I have read everything you have written carefully and responded in kind. We disagree.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
i highly doubt dems/liberals (the majority) in the US would be more progressive if it weren't for the two party system ...
but that is the thing, you can't know. That is an assumption, whatever you base it on is up to you, but you don't know that because they are in the two party system. Probability and possibility are two different things and we make assumptions but that doesn't mean we are right. That doesn't mean with a certainty that the country wouldn't be different if it weren't bound by the two party system...I don't think that is a reflection of our politics, I think it is a choice that the parties have worked hard and abused election law to keep. But then again, maybe I think that way because I don't understand. Maybe you are right maybe I am, but I am not the one assuming that an entire culture/country/whatever you want to call american society is me first...
Again I understand, I am not stupid, I just don't agree with your assessment that we are dominantly a me first culture when it counts...making assumptions about large groups and applying those assumptions to individuals is a stereotype isn't it? I don't like those any more than you do.
also, if you dare tell me water is wet and the sky is blue I will fight you until the day i die.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I had written out
"well....that is like... your... opinion man" and erased it. strange
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
this was never a revolution ... i empathize with you lot ... you don't even know you are getting screwed ...
obviously, i am generalizing ... just because americans go to war everywhere doesn't mean all americans love war ... i honestly can't believe you just posted the obvious of obvious ... i was under the assumption that this sort of understanding was a given ... i guess not! ...
now, i hope you understand why this has been most painful ...
But really, I know I'm getting screwed. It's itemized by category for me on my weekly pay stub.
yet when push comes to shove ... you'd rather defend the people that are screwing you over because you just don't want to hear it ..
"With our thoughts we make the world"