114 posts
Charger, I said what Sheep said was a more elegant way to say what I thought. And that I simply would say "homey don't play that." What I said later was not me saying it more elegantly. Sheep said it in a nicer way. I was being a bit sarcastic.
If the direction the moral compass of our country is headed, is something you want to say I'm lost on, and getting left behind, I fully endorse your position. It will move on. Without me! ;)
I blather on about my unique perspective on sports? Who do I even talk to about sports here? If you are talking about my "runners aren't necessarily athletes" debates with Kevin, you weren't listening too carefully. And besides, that was 10 years ago.
You have taken my simple remarks that the presidents wife shouldn't use the term "proud" when discussing the coming out of a man sex dude, and turned them into my blathering about sports and PRS guitars. Perhaps a bit off topic...
But I will say this. I was wrong to call her names. Truth is, she has done more than one thing I didn't like in the past so this was just piling on my already less than stellar opinion of her. But I don't hate her. ;) I dislike her actions. However, if it's going to come between you and I, I promise to vote for her husband at the next election just to make peace. 8-)
Back to the Royal Baby...
"YER GRAMPS IZ A TAMPON!!!!"
Well, if nothing else, at William and Kate have proved they are not gay, and done their part to procreate to save the human race.
Thass not proof (like gay people can't have and don't have kids), over here lotza people seem to think that just about any cat from the other side of the pond goes gay in a sec... heh heh
p.s. Sheep is trying to help me here with some suggested reading material (that looks very good, btw). I did rant a bit. I didn't like that she was proud of that. Hit a nerve coming form someone who said they weren't proud to be an American.
I should be better than that though. Acknowledged already. Even apologized for saying it. I will say this again for the record. I do not think we are all the same, but I do think we are all equal. At least at the starting gate. What you make of yourself from there on is up to you. If you decide to be a murderer, or thief or whatever, you did something wrong. Those or the good things you do, are what defines YOU. Not what color you are or how much money you have or if you are the President of the United States, the Queen of England, or the Grand Poobah of the Redneck American society (sorry if I got the title wrong Hookie!) And as always, this is MY OPINION only. Your mileage may vary. You answer to yourself and your god or God. And as always, consult your physician for erections lasting over 4 hours.
I get all that, and I think you are a good guy, but I still can't get over you not thinking that what Jason Collins did was a huge step for gay athletes, and worthy of a friggin tweet from anyone who felt inclined to tweet about it. Someone always has to go first.
whether I agree with the life style or not, you're still not acknowledging... I didn't say ANYTHING about him. I said I didn't like her saying she was "proud" of him for it. I will say it took some stones for him to admit it. I acknowledge that there are many (probably many in his world, the NBA) who would not take kindly to it. Probably some haters. I get all that. Just don't get the "I'm proud of you." That's all.
Why? I mean, all she did was send a nice, brief, supportive tweet... like about a hundred other very noteworthy people. Hell, Bill Clinton not only sent a tweet, but put up a press release on his Clinton Foundation site! And I just skimmed the tweets again, almost everyone said they were "proud" of him.
BINGEWOOD — Jul 30, 2013"We (humanity) like your work, but could you change yourself for us (humanity)?"
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/07/uk-to-finally-pardon-famed-code-breaker-convicted-homosexual-alan-turing/
I still can't believe the way his country treated Turing. That story always makes me cringe.
I think dtr revealed his dislike of the obamas and gay people, as if they were some alien or different form of animal or something. I think it's pretty sad that a person spends an entire day watching a bunch of adults play a baseball game, adults hit a ball with a wooden stick basically, knowing what they get paid, yet bitch about paying taxes that in part help out the less fortunate.
I don't understand fully how a person could be gay, choice or not. But they are human beings. Gay only has context when it concerns the gendar of the person they have sex with and want to spend time with. That's it. And believe me, the extreme gay people, for a lack of better words, are no more strange than a whole bunch of straight folks. How in the world would her being proud of this person affect you in the least? I think she has the right to be proud of whatever, and whoever she wants to be proud of.
I don't have a book to suggest, but a loving, caring human being should go to the net and read some of the true horror stories that have occurred over the simple fact that a person was found to be gay. Then read about some horror stories about people that "came out". Then you might have a better understanding of how another person could be proud of a person admitting or announcing that fact.
Sure don't EVER here a conservative complain about 2 women being together. ;D why is that? ;D
If you are talking about my "runners aren't necessarily athletes" debates with Kevin
I'm glad I missed that one...I would've been 100% on Kev's side of the debate...the horror, lol.
Gay subject - (and I say this as a conservative at heart), I'm personally of the belief (like many) that nature just spits you out as you are, you obviously don't get a say in it. Tall, short, heavy, thin, pretty, ugly, pretty ugly :P, gay, straight, other (folks who alter nature and have ops to be something else?), etc. I tend to go with science on these things - which has been pointing to the animal kingdom for eons: dogs, dolphins, goats, horses, lions, monkeys, etc, etc, all have random subjects that display serious homosexuality. They didn't learn this from their two moms/dads, or by getting lit up and experimenting while on a long weekend at the beach during spring break, or because it seems hip, etc. They just do it naturally. It doesn't really make sense to me, but whatever, it doesn't have to, not my concern (mostly because I don't care what some book says is right or wrong behavior). FWIW I've very rarely even witnessed same sex relations on display in person. But when I did I'll admit it was kinda unnerving, even when I believe in my heart it's just a chemical/nature thing. I'm just not accustomed to seeing it, it can sure make you cringe and feel uneasy...but I guess that's our cultures fault, Hollywood conditioned me for something better...and it was NOTHING like what I've seen in the movies, lol. So yeah, it is kinda a shame society still frowns on natures little 'oops' here and there. IMO. (=
EDIT: Just to clarify after reading sheeps/below post - seeing two men displaying homo acts of affection gives me the heebie geebies, but two or more attractive woman doing this definitely has a pleasing effect! Weird. ;)
I'm not seeing the contradiction re: lesbians.
it's not the homo- part that drives attraction/repulsion... it's the -sexuality part.
women turn me on, men don't. one woman, two, forty... all good. no quantity of sausage will get me going.
but, even so, in the regrettable example of the "one cup"... even with two women, when feces are involved it turns me off immediately. lol.
since I haven't said this yet, I probably should... no matter what my own preferences happen to be, whatever consenting adults want to do voluntarily between or among themselves is just fine by me - but if you're going to involve me, you'll need to get my consent as well (if you're doing it in public, you need to have the consent of the public... and since there are individuals in "the public" who cannot give consent but retain rights (children/those who do not posses a "sound mind") most sex acts should occur in a private setting). I don't seek the imposition of my morality on anyone but I absolutely want to impose my principle of consent. the only time I'd entertain the violation of this principle is in the defense or protection of my ability to give consent = my liberty... in other words and for example, I support denying an individual (or corporation) the right to possess so much wealth that they effectively buy government/law even though that individual would surely not give their voluntary consent to reducing their assets to a non-threatening (but still enormous) level - extreme concentration of wealth is a threat to the liberty of all that should not be tolerated.
Grand Poobah, you aren't listening! LOL I disclosed my dislike for the Obamas ONLY. I said NOTHING about disliking gays. I clearly stated that I have clients and friends who are gay.
ironsheep — Jul 31, 2013I support denying an individual (or corporation) the right to possess so much wealth that they effectively buy government/law even though that individual would surely not give their voluntary consent to reducing their assets to a non-threatening (but still enormous) level - extreme concentration of wealth is a threat to the liberty of all that should not be tolerated.
Gotta agree, but the idea doesn't seem to get much traction here due to the concept of success not being success unless it's unbridled...
yeah, I agree with Sheep on that as well. I believe that big money runs govt. Oil companies are running/ruining our country. Seriously? Yes, I believe that if gas was $1.75/gallon our economy wouldn't be in the shape it's in, and in fact would be doing well! Groceries are more expensive, seemingly every time I go to the store. My friend who is a store manager at Kroger says point blank "the goods aren't costing more, it's the cost of getting the goods to market." We have enough oil/gas in this country to last us for ever and we won't even use it. Yet they govt does nothing when the price sits over $3/gallon all year this year, and the economy gets worse and worse, prices on food go higher and higher.
I have to tell you, I don't know how lower income people make it. Amy tells me that groceries cost TWICE what they did 3 years ago. Packages get smaller and smaller (and I think the morons think we don't realize this) yet the prices keep going up. The oil companies make multi billion dollar profits, buy the govt. and the whole rest of the country suffers.
Where's Rex when I need an "End of the world!"
if someone appealed to my sense of fairness or inequality on wealth, they would fail to persuade me - but my sense of personal liberty? winner. "right" and "left" don't know how to talk to each other anymore... we're too busy thinking the other side is stupid/emotional/inbred/hysterical/cruel/etc. it's necessary to construct arguments that appeal to the people you're trying to persuade but neither side bothers with that when the "parties" are more than happy to peddle promises of majoritarian rule to their side to get votes... it's "because we say so, you moron, fuck you" non-stop these days. while this is going on, while the people are diverted into hating each other because of some phony "team" they think they're on, over the last century we've been steamrolled by an authoritarian corporate/political/academic/military/stasi machine that doesn't give a shit about anyone's rights or liberty... and we all lose.
the thing about right/left (among the people) is that we need to be open to ideas and critiques from both (or more) sides - the societies we create when one side has a power monopoly really suck!
but we also need everyone to recognize that it is in their interests to be uniform and unanimous in opposition to authoritarian tyranny, fraud, theft, murder, denial of rights, corruption... no matter which side of the aisle we believe ourselves to be on.. we're not in the group that benefits in that society.
it's not "profit" or oil companies at the root of that problem - it's the fed. you're paying more today because we bailed out the banks... again. more dollars exist - your quantity of dollars is worth relatively less now and can't buy as much. every dollar that exists has essentially been taxed to pay for the bailout of the banks, and that was the design from the beginning. every day since 1913, with a brief respite in the 30's, the banks have been taxing the public through inflation. that's the purpose of faith-based currency: bank profits are private and losses are public.
citibank should send your wife a thank-you note every time she goes to the grocery store.
DreamTheaterRules — Jul 31, 2013Grand Poobah, you aren't listening! LOL I disclosed my dislike for the Obamas ONLY. I said NOTHING about disliking gays. I clearly stated that I have clients and friends who are gay.
If you have friends that are gay, you should understand her comment, as that would suggest your level of understanding and intelligence would be above average...... your post suggested the opposite result.
Have you ever been proud of one of your gay friends? I just don't get how that could bother anyone? If one of your gay friends hit 4 home runs would you be proud of him? Or, just shocked that a gay person could hit.... at all? I'm sure you'd be proud of him. I simply wouldn't care, just for the record. That emotion would be no different than the emotion she felt when she said she was proud of him.
And from reading your post, my opinion hasn't changed. Thats just my take. No big deal.
You could call me the Grand Hook-ben- dahhhhhhhhhhhh. ;D
ironsheep — Jul 31, 2013it's not "profit" or oil companies at the root of that problem - it's the fed. you're paying more today because we bailed out the banks... again. more dollars exist - your quantity of dollars is worth relatively less now and can't buy as much. every dollar that exists has essentially been taxed to pay for the bailout of the banks, and that was the design from the beginning. every day since 1913, with a brief respite in the 30's, the banks have been taxing the public through inflation. that's the purpose of faith-based currency: bank profits are private and losses are public.
citibank should send your wife a thank-you note every time she goes to the grocery store.
Every modern economy in the western world is built on false currency. If we had a gold standard we'd all have $15 to our name.
Nonetheless, I agree with almost everything you say. I think the corporations have so much money invested in the dogfight that now goes on in Congress and the public--essentially, in "nothing getting done"--that I have no doubt there are companies funding both sides of any debate, even through shadow organizations, just to preserve the current stasis, and prevent any legislation or change that would put a chink in their ability to continue to rape the average consumer. And the banks are a joke. The idea that companies take money and then use it to wildly increase money... it's insane.
And yet, we continue to add people to the planet, thus adding consumers, thus requiring more money so more people can pay other people more money so people can continue to make a living wage, and then make more than that. That to me is the essential quandary of humanity... matter can neither be created or destroyed... but money seemingly must constantly be created, in order for people to have enough of it to be happy, since we keep adding so many people... half a billion people in the last 7 years...
Hookbender — Jul 31, 2013I think dtr revealed his dislike of the obamas and gay people, as if they were some alien or different form of animal or something. I think it's pretty sad that a person spends an entire day watching a bunch of adults play a baseball game, adults hit a ball with a wooden stick basically, knowing what they get paid, yet bitch about paying taxes that in part help out the less fortunate.
I don't understand fully how a person could be gay, choice or not. But they are human beings. Gay only has context when it concerns the gendar of the person they have sex with and want to spend time with. That's it. And believe me, the extreme gay people, for a lack of better words, are no more strange than a whole bunch of straight folks. How in the world would her being proud of this person affect you in the least? I think she has the right to be proud of whatever, and whoever she wants to be proud of.
I don't have a book to suggest, but a loving, caring human being should go to the net and read some of the true horror stories that have occurred over the simple fact that a person was found to be gay. Then read about some horror stories about people that "came out". Then you might have a better understanding of how another person could be proud of a person admitting or announcing that fact.
Sure don't EVER here a conservative complain about 2 women being together. ;D why is that? ;D
I just gotta say, I bet we would get along swimmingly in person, passing the peace pipe back and forth.
Maybe over time, the pipe has enlightened me a bit. ;D
Yes, I agree. Maybe one day we'll get together at one of our sessions. If we can get FB to get his stuff straight. Amazing, I think that's another thing we have come to terms over. Damn.
Although, I think even Stratman would be fun after the pipe in person, whether he smoked or not. Can you imagine how funny he'd be after you and I had peace? ;D
Of course, you'd have to get over that Alabama twang I have. I don't twang slow though, so no worries there. ;D
charger — Jul 31, 2013
Every modern economy in the western world is built on false currency. If we had a gold standard we'd all have $15 to our name.
Nonetheless, I agree with almost everything you say. [<cheer> but snipping this for length!]
And yet, we continue to add people to the planet, thus adding consumers, thus requiring more money so more people can pay other people more money so people can continue to make a living wage, and then make more than that. That to me is the essential quandary of humanity... matter can neither be created or destroyed... but money seemingly must constantly be created, in order for people to have enough of it to be happy, since we keep adding so many people... half a billion people in the last 7 years...
on the first item: absolutely! it's a winning formula for the money/politician class worldwide - a losing one for everyone else (literally... it's a tax). if we had a metal (silver preferred for currency - gold for store of value but value determined by market price relative to silver, not a fixed ratio) standard tomorrow, yes, we'd have the dreaded $15 to our names... but $15 dollars that could purchase the equivalent in goods and services that the $previousnumber could the day before in the other currency. it's just a measurement of the value of your wealth. if I measure a cable in inches and get 144... but then measure it in feet and get 12... I haven't lost anything. similarly, if I measure my wealth in fiat and get $10,000... but then measure it in silver and get 500oz. @ $20/oz.... I haven't lost anything there either, in fact I've gained an honest measure of my wealth that isn't based on how much debt the government decides to issue. in twenty years of 3% inflation per year, that original $10,000 will only be able to buy 250oz. of silver. my 500oz. would be convertible to $20,000 at that point but that's not a $10,000 profit... it would still only buy the quantity of goods and services equivalent to 500oz. of silver (prices went up on everything else too). with the $10,000 in fiat, I lost half my purchasing power in 20 years and I'm that much poorer.
I think the answer to your quandary is "market equilibrium"... but, sadly, that's a cruel master when it comes to something like population vs. food supply.
also, I'd just point out that adding more people doesn't mean that you need to add more money for them to use. purchasing power can rise when there is increased demand for money (from all the new people - possibly deflationary)... but they're creating wealth at the same time... they're market participants - the market for money will find equilibrium. if a penny bought a cup of coffee but now buys two... introduce the half-penny. quarter penny... etc. the denominations are divisible. there's also a lot of silver out there to be mined... that could be mildly inflationary so long as it exceeds the amount consumed by industry. in any event, the main attraction of this currency idea for me is that it's honest and controlled by markets of real people using it. not banks and governments. that's also why it's so unlikely to ever be a reality again - the present system is such a sweet deal for banks and politicians. but I'll remain in favor of going back to honest money... there can be no worthwhile dialectic without someone proposing the antithesis! heh.
I'm reminded of the scene from the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy where these settlers decide to use leaves as their currency. LOL!
Let's ask the real owners.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
Sheep, the problem with a metal, especially a useful metal, is that it can be hoarded. Have you heard about what Goldman Sachs has done with aluminum?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/goldman-sachss-aluminum-pile.html?_r=0
I'm pretty confident that once a metal is used as legal tender, hoarding won't be an issue. if you have 300+ million people active in a market, it will work -- metal markets today are, by comparison, thinly traded and much more subject to manipulation. there would be saving (micro-hoards? heh), sure... but that's healthy - almost an alien concept in america today but saving is a very good thing. detrimental hoarding would be pretty hard to pull off since the currency would be backed by silver coming into circulation from the stockpile presently owned by the government(s), initially - the hoarder would have to acquire it all and just sit on it... possible, but even the most wicked businessman wants to get a return on his money over time and the mattress just doesn't offer it. besides... we'll still have a government and if it becomes necessary to break up a hoard because it's stifling commerce (along the lines of my wealth cap argument... too much is a threat to the liberty of all), they're good at that sort of thing - no reason to reclaim the whole legacy of laissez-faire here. still, it shouldn't be necessary to intervene... but government protecting our ability engage in commerce freely in this scenario almost gives me the warm fuzzies for government!
that story about goldman... bankers never cease providing reasons to loathe them, do they? what a bunch of a-holes. sounds like a great opportunity for someone, who isn't a dick, to get into the warehousing business... though it's possible goldman thought of that and bought a law against it beforehand...
Here's another article on it... basically by buying a shitload of aluminum warehouses in one city, they've found a convenient loophole in the law that requires them to only release 1500 tons of aluminum per day, out of their 1.1 million tons. Basically, give a company or a bank enough money and they will find a way to use it to make shitloads of money and fuck the average Joe all at once, and a corporation has no soul or conscience, so they're never going to feel remorse.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/29/us-lme-warehousing-idUSTRE76R3YZ20110729
charger — Aug 01, 2013Let's ask the real owners.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
that's awesome!
at this point, do you think it's possible to change it peacefully?
often I think I'm just wasting my time thinking about this stuff... trying to understand what's what... having ideas about how to fix something... working on my own philosophy... then realizing my vision will never happen and I wasted another few hours/days. but it all pisses me off so much I can't leave it alone... then, thinking that it would take so much misery and suffering to overturn this establishment, maybe it's better to leave the fantasy alone, do my part to keep it alive for everyone and muddle through this brave new world combined with 1984... (man, I didn't see that coming - I thought they were remote scenarios... but it could be one or the other, not both!).
In the year to June 30 Metro warehouses in Detroit took in 364,175 tonnes of aluminum and delivered out 171,350 tonnes.
very interesting indeed...
ironsheep — Aug 01, 2013[quote author=charger link=1374867480/50#74 date=1375375708]Let's ask the real owners.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
that's awesome!
at this point, do you think it's possible to change it peacefully?
often I think I'm just wasting my time thinking about this stuff... trying to understand what's what... having ideas about how to fix something... working on my own philosophy... then realizing my vision will never happen and I wasted another few hours/days. but it all pisses me off so much I can't leave it alone... then, thinking that it would take so much misery and suffering to overturn this establishment, maybe it's better to leave the fantasy alone, do my part to keep it alive for everyone and muddle through this brave new world combined with 1984... (man, I didn't see that coming - I thought they were remote scenarios... but it could be one or the other, not both!).
No, not peacefully. The problem is those who control the money can throw endless amounts of it at the problem. It's kind of amazing to watch. My prime example is the BP Horizon oil spill. People who've seen the relentless advertising BPs been throwing at cleaning up their public image now have a 51% favorable view of the company... compared to a 32% favorable for those who hadn't seen the ads. For a company that through their admitted fault, spilled hundreds of millions of gallons of oil all over the gulf.
And just look at how well the banks, the gun companies, the you-name-the-special-interest, has managed not only to deflect interest from any legislation that might affect them, but how spectacularly they have turned us against each other. I had Chase, whom I considered a friend, tell me to unfriend him on social media, if I disagreed with his views. We can't even talk.
I reserve the right to say "fuck you" to anybody, but that doesn't mean I hate that person... it means, hey, we're pretty good friends and I can tell you to go fuck yourself. But there's a whole other level of discourse out there, where people are refusing to talk anymore, threatening each other, shutting down their avenues to other ideas, reducing their channels to the ones they agree with. We have more information than ever, and less ability to use it than ever. Social media has ironically made it a lot easier to listen to only what we want to listen to. When I engage people about their views on social media, I generally get called an idiot, or, politically correct, or just to shut up. That's not "social", that's anti-social. Should we be a nation so divided? What's the good in it?
ironsheep — Aug 01, 2013[quote author=charger link=1374867480/50#74 date=1375375708]Let's ask the real owners.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
that's awesome!
at this point, do you think it's possible to change it peacefully?
often I think I'm just wasting my time thinking about this stuff... trying to understand what's what... having ideas about how to fix something... working on my own philosophy... then realizing my vision will never happen and I wasted another few hours/days. but it all pisses me off so much I can't leave it alone... then, thinking that it would take so much misery and suffering to overturn this establishment, maybe it's better to leave the fantasy alone, do my part to keep it alive for everyone and muddle through this brave new world combined with 1984... (man, I didn't see that coming - I thought they were remote scenarios... but it could be one or the other, not both!).
No matter what you think of their politics, the Occupy movement was as good as it may ever get. Just look at the things they did, not through the filter of the media, but through what they were. It's ironic because everything that made them great also made them completely ineffective and marginal. And look at how we were feed them by the media. I still think the original Occupy Wall Street poster is the single most effective piece of advertising I've ever seen. And their system of meetings, based on the Quaker meeting idea, was ridiculously cool, as was their refusal to choose leaders or to state explicit goals. But those things were also disempowering. It's inherently weak and unpopular to call for less power and less money and less corporate control. That is peaceful revolution, and how it gets marginalized.
If we switch to a metal based currency, Hook will be the richest person here. Have you SEEN that boys belt buckle???
I'm just sayin', if you ever get in a gun fight, aim for his head because anything below that is shielded by the belt buckle!
DreamTheaterRules — Aug 01, 2013If we switch to a metal based currency, Hook will be the richest person here. Have you SEEN that boys belt buckle???
I'm just sayin', if you ever get in a gun fight, aim for his head because anything below that is shielded by the belt buckle!
Hell, my whole house is made of tin and the frame on that bad boy is steel. Damn right I'd like it. ;D ;D
ironsheep — Aug 01, 2013[quote author=charger link=1374867480/50#74 date=1375375708]Let's ask the real owners.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
that's awesome!
at this point, do you think it's possible to change it peacefully?
often I think I'm just wasting my time thinking about this stuff... trying to understand what's what... having ideas about how to fix something... working on my own philosophy... then realizing my vision will never happen and I wasted another few hours/days. but it all pisses me off so much I can't leave it alone... then, thinking that it would take so much misery and suffering to overturn this establishment, maybe it's better to leave the fantasy alone, do my part to keep it alive for everyone and muddle through this brave new world combined with 1984... (man, I didn't see that coming - I thought they were remote scenarios... but it could be one or the other, not both!).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2111440/Aldous-Huxley-letter-George-Orwell-1984-sheds-light-different-ideas.html
BW: that's interesting! seems like they're both right to me... but it played out a little differently -- we get huxley unless we resist, then it's orwell. looking like there's more orwell in our future though.
---
I'll confess that I was not instinctively drawn to occupy. that occurred before I was completely out of my previous mind, so to speak. I had only really started to question everything in earnest around the time after Lehman in 2008 - it's taken a while to see things more clearly and even so, there's always more to see - I was naturally sympathetic to the tea party.
I'm still partial to the tea party, as an idea - I still like the constitution and they seem to be originalists... but who knows, they might just be a phony mob of fools. I'm totally turned off by the organizations they've set up since the early days. I have this sense that a new party (occupy the tea party) would be wonderful... but there's no way that's happening. the people who have an affinity for one would be outraged if they were even associated with "those people" in the other. there is a lot more common ground there than most would admit, though. or, I could be projecting what I like about what I believe to be both groups' ideas and thinking that they actually have those ideas when, in truth, they're just mine.
when I undertook this latest self-questioning process, I started reading economics, philosophy, psychology, finally read the whole bible... etc. I wanted to know what the hell was going on. I wanted to know why I reacted to things. why would a comment about something really infuriate me? is it ok to believe in God but not religion? why did I distrust the state and not corporations? any time something would come up that got me flummoxed, I'd scrutinize it. anyway, I still don't really have many answers for sure but I'm satisfied with some things... and through all that I found many ways to go about understanding why I think the way I do... why I do the things I do... why I buy the things I buy... etc. the shocking part, to me, was the realization that other people studied this same material before I did and their epiphany had nothing to do with introspection... it was "hey, forget what I'm thinking... how do I make him do what I want? I could control people with this shit, couldn't I?" so that period of contemplation ended in outrage, dismay and a bit of enlightenment... sigh. the point of this ramble... well, not much other than thinking about how much time and effort was required to get myself (mostly) out of the mental prison and I wasn't much more than a barely affiliated libertarian leaning republican... how unrealistic it is to think that many other people are going to do that... not much hope for peaceful change from my perspective either.
anyway, sorry to hear that about chase. I'm totally with you on what's happened to discourse. it's disheartening. I don't think we should be a nation so divided, at all... but, what to do about it? I'm trying every day to improve my listening and (emotional/moral) understanding abilities. I've had some success, I think, but still - that's all I can really do as one guy on the internet.
and I'll remember, should I ever earn one, that there is life after a "fuck you"! heh.
Hookbender — Aug 01, 2013[quote author=DreamTheaterRules link=1374867480/75#82 date=1375391129]If we switch to a metal based currency, Hook will be the richest person here. Have you SEEN that boys belt buckle???
I'm just sayin', if you ever get in a gun fight, aim for his head because anything below that is shielded by the belt buckle!
Hell, my whole house is made of tin and the frame on that bad boy is steel. Damn right I'd like it. ;D ;D
That place would be an instant mansion! Plus, you can pull it wherever you want! ;D ;D
I don't buy the Tea Party. That comes from my inherent gut feeling that if Obama hadn't been elected, they would never have formed, regardless of the fact that the US economy was pretty much going to do what it was going to do, whether McCain was elected or Obama. The die was already cast with the bankers by Bush, and the corporations by our economy for the last 80+ years.
What I found so great about Occupy was their willingness to just sit down and form a new way, just kind of "split off" from society, forgo the corporations and the banks and just change over to something else. You can see similar things in some towns and counties now, for example, my town has an economy called "downtown dollars" where you can just buy or barter into this other system of token-based currency and use it all over the downtown, or the farmer's markets, etc... trading them for goods and services, and then trading them back for goods and services, it keeps the community's earning power in a small circle.
The Tea Party doesn't seem interested in that, they seem to want to remove regulations, shrink the government, and replace the whole apparatus with lower taxes and more personal income. Where's the new society? What's new about increasing personal gain? I feel like we've done that, we've seen the society of personal gain flourish now for 80+ years, and for a certain select few, it just keeps on getting better.
If you look at where the Tea Party originated, it originated with corporations, with the Koch Brothers, specifically, and even more strangely, with the tobacco industry. It's ostensibly about personal freedom, but see if you can find a negative word about corporations in any Tea Party literature. It elevates the corporations to new heights... and banks are corporations, they just buy and sell money instead of other goods.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/02/20/tobaccocontrol-2012-050815.full
I'm not a tea party advocate, member or anything - not by any means. I associated with that group more than the occupy group at the time... but I was likely projecting anyway. what I was getting at was how, in retrospect, there were two large audiences for ideas outside the status quo in 2010. whether the banners were fake or not, there were a lot of people who were associating with what they perceived as the ideals of change movements. a glimmer of hope that dissipated after republicans took the house - and it was quite clearly the tea party from there... and occupy kinda faded away. I'm interesting in understanding the views of the audience occupy attracted better so I can get a sense of whether there really is as much common ground as I suspect. this theory could be totally wrong but since I have a pretty good sense of the attitudes among self-identifying tea partiers, more fully understanding the other side is the best way to test it out. not that anything will come of it, I'm just curious.
one thing about the origin of the tea party, from my perspective as an erstwhile sympathizer - before it was dubbed "the tea party" by santelli, it was people who were pissed off about TARP. "abandoning free market principles to save the free market" was the dagger in the philosophical back. everything after that could have been manipulated and co-opted, I really don't know, but I know the reaction to TARP got the ball rolling and was definitely real.
DreamTheaterRules — Aug 02, 2013[quote author=Hookbender link=1374867480/75#84 date=1375399151][quote author=DreamTheaterRules link=1374867480/75#82 date=1375391129]If we switch to a metal based currency, Hook will be the richest person here. Have you SEEN that boys belt buckle???
I'm just sayin', if you ever get in a gun fight, aim for his head because anything below that is shielded by the belt buckle!
Hell, my whole house is made of tin and the frame on that bad boy is steel. Damn right I'd like it. ;D ;D
That place would be an instant mansion! Plus, you can pull it wherever you want! ;D ;D
A mansion??? Oh yeah. Like a double wide baby. Heaven on earth. ;D ;D
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0801/How-tea-party-and-its-unlikely-allies-nixed-Atlanta-s-transit-tax
one story doesn't prove anything, I know, but it's encouraging.
and it seems occupy was 2011, not 2010. my bad.
I kinda find it amazing that Bush just disappeared after leaving office. He showed up a few times, but has been pretty much quiet as a church mouse. Don't think I've ever seen a President do that unless he was killed. ;D
I never bought all this crap about everything being Bush's fault, but his silence kinda makes me wonder.
The tea party was created simply because it could be at the time and was the only string the republicans had left after losing the election. It was a timing thing that was formed in part, because it was good timing. Good timing meaning simply that the pubs have lost all credibility and needed a diversion to give things time to be forgotten. Pretty much a steamy hot pile of shit that dried up. What the republicans did with John boy and Palin was just sick. I would have loved to see Clinton wipe the floor with those two idiots. That would have been priceless. ;D
I hate politics.
I can't say you're wrong. I don't know if republicans hatched the tea party as some kind of covert operation - it's hard for me to give them enough credit to think they could come up with it but I don't know. if they did, it blew up in their faces - millions of people who thought they were republicans found out otherwise... ironically, that's evidence in your favor. RNC = barney fife + wile e. coyote.
they built the surveillance state - they were on board for repealing glass-steagall - they like wars, a lot - on and on ... there isn't much I'd dismiss out of hand when it comes to accusations about republicans.
Just don't bury your head in the sand and think democrats are any better. ;)
there's zero chance of that. I'm not looking for a new source of dogma... I'm making my own. :)
well, I think I am... hell, it's almost impossible to have a truly original idea at this point in human history!
We don't, at this point, need ideas. We need common sense, honesty, and money out of politics. Mainly, we need the lifers out of the congress and senate. That would help a great deal.
but.. those are ideas. changing the context, this is the logic of your statement:
we don't, at this point, need fruit. we need apples, grapes and tangerines. mainly, we need a pineapple. that would help a great deal.
or did you mean that we don't need certain ideas... other than the ones you like. the ones you don't think are important, we don't need. sound about right?
is this why you hate politics? ;D
ironsheep — Aug 04, 2013but.. those are ideas. changing the context, this is the logic of your statement:
we don't, at this point, need fruit. we need apples, grapes and tangerines. mainly, we need a pineapple. that would help a great deal.
or did you mean that we don't need certain ideas... other than the ones you like. the ones you don't think are important, we don't need. sound about right?
is this why you hate politics? ;D
No. One reason is in politics, you have to argue common sense points with idiots.
Those aren't ideas, those are important traits taken from the constitution. The part about the lifers anyway. That isn't the logic of my statement at all. Thats your "idea" about what I said. The logic of my statement are points we all know, and history has proven, is that these are big problems in our government. Common sense is fixing something we know is broken. Insanity is doing something over and over expecting a different result.
Maybe I should have said we don't new "new" ideas at this point, we need to find the ability to fix problems that are very easy, and needed, fixes. And one known fix is to go back to the basics of the constitution and set term limits on these people I mentioned so that we keep new, fresh thoughts and yes, ideas, coming in all the time. Maybe we don't no term limits is a fix ..... that kinda proves my point doesn't it?