Here is where you are wrong. How can any 1 candidate be the only 1 for the people? Can't be and certainly isn't.
I agree with you. Whoever becomes President will be the right person for the people. And the people will own the choice of who they decide to vote in to represent them, including what choices this leader makes on their behalf, good, bad and indifferent. Just like the American people have owned their choices and representation that has reflected on them thus far.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I agree with you. Whoever becomes President will be the right person for the people. And the people will own the choice of who they decide to vote in to represent them, including what choices this leader makes on their behalf, good, bad and indifferent. Just like the American people have owned their choices and representation that has reflected on them thus far.
i disagree... if the will of the people were truly in control we would have already pulled out of iraq...
the only candidate out of this current field of corporate whores that would actually serve the interests of the american/world people is dennis kucinich. please make an argument for any other candidate you feel that about?
i can say with minimal doubt that dennis kucinich would represent you and your needs better than any other current mainstream candidate... whether you realize it or not
i can say with minimal doubt that dennis kucinich would represent you and your needs better than any other current mainstream candidate... whether you realize it or not
Hahahaha!!!
I 'm worried that if Dennis Kucinich was elected president that other world leaders would take turns making him their bitch.
I 'm worried that if Dennis Kucinich was elected president that other world leaders would take turns making him their bitch.
um, just because you pretend to be a cowboy and send children off to die doesnt make you a tough guy...and just because you believe in the cause of peace does not make you a pussy my friend... i actually see it quite the opposite
besides, he isnt the one with 7 deferments or an AWOL from the air gaurd
um, just because you pretend to be a cowboy and send children off to die doesnt make you a tough guy...and just because you believe in the cause of peace does not make you a pussy my friend... i actually see it quite the opposite
besides, he isnt the one with 7 deferments or an AWOL from the air gaurd
i knew you would skip my response... with your little tough guy cowboy president.... oh shit, that's right, he was a fucking cheerleader at Yale...which ranks you quite high on the all time pussy list
edit: good to see you didnt skip it... the cheerleader remark still stands
maybe...though I think he'd be more successful trying to tax them to death...that's a very real possibility.
Sheesh...you guys and your money. You'd rather live in a war torn world than have taxes raised or give everyone healthcare. Nobody's gonna die from higher taxes....and that's a good point. I don't mind sharing even if I earned it and Sammy down the street didn't. Unity and harmony are a bigger goals for me than material possessions and ownership. I know you won't agree but that's how I see it.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Sheesh...you guys and your money. You'd rather live in a war torn world than have taxes raised or give everyone healthcare. Nobody's gonna die from higher taxes....and that's a good point. I don't mind sharing even if I earned it and Sammy down the street didn't. Unity and harmony are a bigger goals for me than material possessions and ownership. I know you won't agree but that's how I see it.
No, I'd rather live in a world of peace and where others didn't abuse their power to steal from other people.
You're right I don't agree. It does no good to give a man a fish if you know what I mean. Though a revised health care system is needed with certainly guaranteed coverage for children.
No, I'd rather live in a world of peace and where others didn't abuse their power to steal from other people.
You're right I don't agree. It does no good to give a man a fish if you know what I mean. Though a revised health care system is needed with certainly guaranteed coverage for children.
I hate fishing.
But I see where you're coming from.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I'll give you and Dk a lot of credit for actually taking stands and sticking to them though....despite looking like a reject from Inner Earth or the last Harry Potter movie, he certainly is a man of principles.
I wish I could take part of his platform and mix it with some other candidates.
Sheesh...you guys and your money. You'd rather live in a war torn world than have taxes raised or give everyone healthcare. Nobody's gonna die from higher taxes....and that's a good point. I don't mind sharing even if I earned it and Sammy down the street didn't. Unity and harmony are a bigger goals for me than material possessions and ownership. I know you won't agree but that's how I see it.
and i know you won't agree..so i'll say it the way i see it...
conservatives aren't all about material possessions, and ownership. this is the point where we agree. greed corrupts regardless of ideology. conservatism is about individualism, allowing the individual to achieve beyond their expectations. conservatism is about giving individuals INCENTIVES to achieve because without incentives, human nature is to be dependent....fear those who want others to be dependent.
give everyone free health care...ok...how much? do we pay for hypochondriacs like me (:)) for every trip to the doc? health care is not free...so how can you possibly give people free health care?
and raising taxes...is that going to reall accomplish anything, besides running the economy into the ground, or make you feel better? knowing that rich people are bending over and grabbing their ankles? are there any unintended consequences there? unemployment, health care benefits, etc.
you are correct in saying the us vs. them schtick is getting old...but this entire framework of your argument goes against that....so let's start where we agree...unity is more important that material possessions....and personal power and self-serving ambition. this is the point where we should focus.
And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
knowing that rich people are bending over and grabbing their ankles?
as opposed to average joe who has been grabbing his ankles forever?
i think Bill Gates, Shaquile Oneal, and Eddie Vedder would do just fine if they had to kick in a few more $ towards the country that helped them get wealthy
single payer health care has been quite succesful in other industrial countries...and the fact is they provide a higher level of health care at ultimately a lower price...
the insurance and pharm lobbies have people believing all the wrong shit... for obvious reasons
i disagree... if the will of the people were truly in control we would have already pulled out of iraq...
Don't kid yourself, the will of the people is in control. It may not be their conscious will. It may be their unconscious will, representing their true selves, including their ugly fear beneath the surface. Just like how people question the idea of a new president who is for peace rather than war. They don't trust such ideals--they are scared by that--it's not "safe". When the people are really willing to support peace, they will. I don't see that in the near future.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
as opposed to average joe who has been grabbing his ankles forever?
that's the point...liberalism views everyone as "average joes" who can't succeed and have to be dependent....while conservatism views "average joes" as individuals who can achieve greatness....
government programs that encourage dependence on the nanny state don't encourage people to achieve their potential.
regardless, don't you agree that raising taxes on those greedy bastards...those damned oil fuckers, et al., would have unintended harmful consequenses? how about raising taxes on people that make more than $250,000? sounds like a lot of small business owners...do you think the average joes working for them wouldn't face negative consequences?
And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Don't kid yourself, the will of the people is in control.
indeed...this will of the people crap is just that...can't someone ressurect the classic evenkat post about how it doesn't matter what democrats stand for, as long as you elect them. dems won in 2006 because they ran conservative dems who were supposedly strong on immigration and defense. if that's not the case, they wouldn't have run san fran grand nan into hiding along with dingy harry.
And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
I say you can tell how advanced a country is by how good it's social programs are.
totally agree...but i bet we disagree on the definition of "good" though actually, maybe not....we might even agree on that...
but government doesn't work efficiently, that's obvious....and the amount of money you pump into a program has zero correlation to it's effectiveness. that's my problem...ok...so education sucks...pump more money into it..to hell with accountability.
just a band-aid approach.
And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
totally agree...but i bet we disagree on the definition of "strong" though actually, maybe not....we might even agree on that...
but government doesn't work efficiently, that's obvious....and the amount of money you pump into a program has zero correlation to it's effectiveness. that's my problem...ok...so education sucks...pump more money into it..to hell with accountability.
just a band-aid approach.
I agree that there are huge problems with efficiency, and people being completely unknowledgeable on how to solve problems so they throw money at it. That does not work. Accountability is huge.
People who have trouble meeting their base safety, security and health needs and who need some support, is a part of individuals and people meeting their potential. I don't see a correlation between the meeting of base human needs and mismanagement of financial irresponsibility in government. I see them as very separate issues.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I agree that there are huge problems with efficiency, and people being completely unknowledgeable on how to solve problems so they throw money at it. That does not work. Accountability is huge.
People who have trouble meeting their base safety, security and health needs and who need some support, is a part of individuals and people meeting their potential. I don't see a correlation between the meeting of base human needs and mismanagement of financial irresponsibility in government. I see them as very separate issues.
how are they separate when one choice is to give the power to the government to "help" people? point me to an effective government agency, and i'll be with ya...
dependence on anyone does not help anyone achieve safety, security, or health needs...when that anyone is as inefficient and corrupt as our government agencies are, that only breeds more dependence.
my point of view is that people sell themselves short...and the lure of dependence feeds into that.
And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
how are they separate when one choice is to give the power to the government to "help" people? point me to an effective government agency, and i'll be with ya...
dependence on anyone does not help anyone achieve safety, security, or health needs...when that anyone is as inefficient and corrupt as our government agencies are, that only breeds more dependence.
my point of view is that people sell themselves short...and the lure of dependence feeds into that.
We're talking about human potential and correlation with social programs. I've probably utilized more social programs than anyone on this board. I've done so more than anyone I know personally in my life. According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and study of human potential, I'm also more deeply connected to and operating from my potential, more than anyone I personally know.
Supports do not equal dependency. Supports 100% do help people achieve safety, security, and health needs.
When we are talking base safety, security and health needs, that is fundamental, and it precedes people "selling themselves short". When people can't meet their basic needs, they cannot generate the mental basics for effective problem solving, much less for flourishing. It's interactive, between the individual and society.
If your government agencies are failing, or inefficient or corrupt, that is independent of the social needs and causes/effects with individuals and potential within society. And although independent on one level, it is also very interdependent in terms of practicality, meaning when the system has degenerated, it is toxic to individuals within the system, and conversely, if it is healthy it constructively supports individuals. Ultimately because the system is corrupt, that needs to be addressed separately from the benefits/costs of the social programs themselves since they are very separate issues.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
indeed...this will of the people crap is just that...can't someone ressurect the classic evenkat post about how it doesn't matter what democrats stand for, as long as you elect them. dems won in 2006 because they ran conservative dems who were supposedly strong on immigration and defense. if that's not the case, they wouldn't have run san fran grand nan into hiding along with dingy harry.
Are you saying that the American population is too stupid to have known who the Speaker of the House would be when the Democrats took over?
And if the reason the Democrats took over is because they appeared more "conservative" than they really are, then why is it that the more conciliatory they are with conservatives and the Bush administration the more their poll numbers drop?
Starting with Reagan, and solidified in the 1994 election, the government has been largely run by people who hate government - or at least claim too. Consequently, the government has been doing terrible as far as social programs are concerned. It's a self fullfilling prophecy - and it will change as soon as people realize that the government can do things effectively just as it has done things effectively in the past.
Starting with Reagan, and solidified in the 1994 election, the government has been largely run by people who hate government - or at least claim too. Consequently, the government has been doing terrible as far as social programs are concerned. It's a self fullfilling prophecy - and it will change as soon as people realize that the government can do things effectively just as it has done things effectively in the past.
Not hate government.....hate some of what it has become. There is obviously a need for governement involvment in many cases, just not every case.
The Dems have gone wrong by claiming that the government can solve everyone's problems...it can't and it shouldn't.
The Reps have gone wrong by allow government involvment in matters that certainly should be left up to individuals and in other cases allowing federal governement involvement in what shoulkd clearly be a State issue.
They both have expanded the government in their own way, and as it is extremely difficult to get rid of something once it has started the gov't got very large. Well, that's how I see it anyhow. I certainly don't share you sentiment that the government will work efficiently again if it is run by people that like big government.
Not hate government.....hate some of what it has become. There is obviously a need for governement involvment in many cases, just not every case.
The Dems have gone wrong by claiming that the government can solve everyone's problems...it can't and it shouldn't.
The Reps have gone wrong by allow government involvment in matters that certainly should be left up to individuals and in other cases allowing federal governement involvement in what shoulkd clearly be a State issue.
They both have expanded the government in their own way, and as it is extremely difficult to get rid of something once it has started the gov't got very large. Well, that's how I see it anyhow. I certainly don't share you sentiment that the government will work efficiently again if it is run by people that like big government.
Well said, Cincy. Neither party has shown any ability to "efficiently" run the government. And the notion of believing government can be run "efficiently again" presupposes that there was a time when it did. I am not aware of that time, so the notion makes no sense to me.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
They both have expanded the government in their own way, and as it is extremely difficult to get rid of something once it has started the gov't got very large. Well, that's how I see it anyhow. I certainly don't share you sentiment that the government will work efficiently again if it is run by people that like big government.
I never said "big" government, I said effective government. We do need an understanding of where government can work and where it can't. However, I don't think we're getting a clear picture right now - mainly because we've had years in which people are trying to push government into areas where it can't work (regulating individual's personal lives, religiosity, nation building, etc.) and hamstringing it in areas where it can (social safety nets, environmental/corporate regulations, etc.).
I never said "big" government, I said effective government. We do need an understanding of where government can work and where it can't. However, I don't think we're getting a clear picture right now - mainly because we've had years in which people are trying to push government into areas where it can't work (regulating individual's personal lives, religiosity, nation building, etc.) and hamstringing it in areas where it can (social safety nets, environmental/corporate regulations, etc.).
I agree with RainDog ...in an Obama thread! :eek:
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Comments
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
i disagree... if the will of the people were truly in control we would have already pulled out of iraq...
He's not my candidate, so can't be for all.
i can say with minimal doubt that dennis kucinich would represent you and your needs better than any other current mainstream candidate... whether you realize it or not
Hahahaha!!!
I 'm worried that if Dennis Kucinich was elected president that other world leaders would take turns making him their bitch.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
um, just because you pretend to be a cowboy and send children off to die doesnt make you a tough guy...and just because you believe in the cause of peace does not make you a pussy my friend... i actually see it quite the opposite
besides, he isnt the one with 7 deferments or an AWOL from the air gaurd
maybe...though I think he'd be more successful trying to tax them to death...that's a very real possibility.
Certainly, it stillworries me though.
edit: good to see you didnt skip it... the cheerleader remark still stands
Sheesh...you guys and your money.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
No, I'd rather live in a world of peace and where others didn't abuse their power to steal from other people.
You're right I don't agree. It does no good to give a man a fish if you know what I mean. Though a revised health care system is needed with certainly guaranteed coverage for children.
I hate fishing.
But I see where you're coming from.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I'll give you and Dk a lot of credit for actually taking stands and sticking to them though....despite looking like a reject from Inner Earth or the last Harry Potter movie, he certainly is a man of principles.
I wish I could take part of his platform and mix it with some other candidates.
and i know you won't agree..so i'll say it the way i see it...
conservatives aren't all about material possessions, and ownership. this is the point where we agree. greed corrupts regardless of ideology. conservatism is about individualism, allowing the individual to achieve beyond their expectations. conservatism is about giving individuals INCENTIVES to achieve because without incentives, human nature is to be dependent....fear those who want others to be dependent.
give everyone free health care...ok...how much? do we pay for hypochondriacs like me (:)) for every trip to the doc? health care is not free...so how can you possibly give people free health care?
and raising taxes...is that going to reall accomplish anything, besides running the economy into the ground, or make you feel better? knowing that rich people are bending over and grabbing their ankles? are there any unintended consequences there? unemployment, health care benefits, etc.
you are correct in saying the us vs. them schtick is getting old...but this entire framework of your argument goes against that....so let's start where we agree...unity is more important that material possessions....and personal power and self-serving ambition. this is the point where we should focus.
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
as opposed to average joe who has been grabbing his ankles forever?
i think Bill Gates, Shaquile Oneal, and Eddie Vedder would do just fine if they had to kick in a few more $ towards the country that helped them get wealthy
single payer health care has been quite succesful in other industrial countries...and the fact is they provide a higher level of health care at ultimately a lower price...
the insurance and pharm lobbies have people believing all the wrong shit... for obvious reasons
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
that's the point...liberalism views everyone as "average joes" who can't succeed and have to be dependent....while conservatism views "average joes" as individuals who can achieve greatness....
government programs that encourage dependence on the nanny state don't encourage people to achieve their potential.
regardless, don't you agree that raising taxes on those greedy bastards...those damned oil fuckers, et al., would have unintended harmful consequenses? how about raising taxes on people that make more than $250,000? sounds like a lot of small business owners...do you think the average joes working for them wouldn't face negative consequences?
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
indeed...this will of the people crap is just that...can't someone ressurect the classic evenkat post about how it doesn't matter what democrats stand for, as long as you elect them. dems won in 2006 because they ran conservative dems who were supposedly strong on immigration and defense. if that's not the case, they wouldn't have run san fran grand nan into hiding along with dingy harry.
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
totally agree...but i bet we disagree on the definition of "good" though
but government doesn't work efficiently, that's obvious....and the amount of money you pump into a program has zero correlation to it's effectiveness. that's my problem...ok...so education sucks...pump more money into it..to hell with accountability.
just a band-aid approach.
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
People who have trouble meeting their base safety, security and health needs and who need some support, is a part of individuals and people meeting their potential. I don't see a correlation between the meeting of base human needs and mismanagement of financial irresponsibility in government. I see them as very separate issues.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
how are they separate when one choice is to give the power to the government to "help" people? point me to an effective government agency, and i'll be with ya...
dependence on anyone does not help anyone achieve safety, security, or health needs...when that anyone is as inefficient and corrupt as our government agencies are, that only breeds more dependence.
my point of view is that people sell themselves short...and the lure of dependence feeds into that.
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
We're talking about human potential and correlation with social programs. I've probably utilized more social programs than anyone on this board. I've done so more than anyone I know personally in my life. According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and study of human potential, I'm also more deeply connected to and operating from my potential, more than anyone I personally know.
Supports do not equal dependency. Supports 100% do help people achieve safety, security, and health needs.
When we are talking base safety, security and health needs, that is fundamental, and it precedes people "selling themselves short". When people can't meet their basic needs, they cannot generate the mental basics for effective problem solving, much less for flourishing. It's interactive, between the individual and society.
If your government agencies are failing, or inefficient or corrupt, that is independent of the social needs and causes/effects with individuals and potential within society. And although independent on one level, it is also very interdependent in terms of practicality, meaning when the system has degenerated, it is toxic to individuals within the system, and conversely, if it is healthy it constructively supports individuals. Ultimately because the system is corrupt, that needs to be addressed separately from the benefits/costs of the social programs themselves since they are very separate issues.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
And if the reason the Democrats took over is because they appeared more "conservative" than they really are, then why is it that the more conciliatory they are with conservatives and the Bush administration the more their poll numbers drop?
Starting with Reagan, and solidified in the 1994 election, the government has been largely run by people who hate government - or at least claim too. Consequently, the government has been doing terrible as far as social programs are concerned. It's a self fullfilling prophecy - and it will change as soon as people realize that the government can do things effectively just as it has done things effectively in the past.
Not hate government.....hate some of what it has become. There is obviously a need for governement involvment in many cases, just not every case.
The Dems have gone wrong by claiming that the government can solve everyone's problems...it can't and it shouldn't.
The Reps have gone wrong by allow government involvment in matters that certainly should be left up to individuals and in other cases allowing federal governement involvement in what shoulkd clearly be a State issue.
They both have expanded the government in their own way, and as it is extremely difficult to get rid of something once it has started the gov't got very large. Well, that's how I see it anyhow. I certainly don't share you sentiment that the government will work efficiently again if it is run by people that like big government.
Well said, Cincy. Neither party has shown any ability to "efficiently" run the government. And the notion of believing government can be run "efficiently again" presupposes that there was a time when it did. I am not aware of that time, so the notion makes no sense to me.
I agree with RainDog
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde