WULF'S IDEAS ON FREEDOM AND CHANGE: SNARK FREE ZONE by SignyM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Thanks Sig.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:33 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Now.

What can we do? What can we REALLY DO? To make the world a BETTER place?

TO CHANGE things for THE BETTER?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:36 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I dunno....

I have my own ideas, but you have the floor. Go for it. (When you have the time. Your job is more important than this thread, I guarantee it. Thread can wait!)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:37 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

1. Freedom is TAKEN by those willing to fight for it.

Notice, I didn't say GIVEN. You must be willing to take, and fight for, freedom. Because it is human nature, for those who climb to the tops of power, to TAKE it from YOU.

Freedom must be taken, and held. It must be an ideal, and made into a commandment. Because there are ALWAYS going to be those that wish to take it from you.

So take it, and hold it, and never give it up.

Because, once you lose it... what is a slave but a man without freedom?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:40 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

But, as I asked elsewhere (when you said you couldn't debate 'cuz you had a J-O-B), what would you DO. You specifically...what actions would/will you take in your life to bring about what you believe in? How would you go about "taking" this freedom you speak of?

Fancy phrases mean no more than posted videos--we all have things we believe in, but words don't count. What we DO about them is what counts: So?

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:41 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

And to this I add...

A government has no more right to tell you what to do than a blade of grass.

You give power to others.

I say, you take that power unto yourself.

Yes. We must live together. But how do we do it? Do we suffer under the indignities of those that came before?

Or do we chose, each and every one of us, each and every generation, to live for ourselves? To live free, while also knowing that we cannot BE without serving with our neighbors?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:43 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

I need a ruling... what do you mean by FREEDOM?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:43 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Okay, but what IS freedom? You use the word, but it didn't define it. So it sounds like to me like

Quote:
Fr!zz*le$hicks is TAKEN by those willing to fight for it. Notice, I didn't say GIVEN. You must be willing to take, and fight for, fr!zz*le$hicks. Because it is human nature, for those who climb to the tops of power, to TAKE it from YOU. Fr!zz*le$hicks must be taken, and held. It must be an ideal, and made into a commandment. Because there are ALWAYS going to be those that wish to take it from you. So take it, and hold it, and never give it up. Because, once you lose it... what is a slave but a man without fr!zz*le$hicks?

Kinda muffled. Not clear. Clarify, please?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:47 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

So.

TO do this, to live free and whole.... I say we follow the Constitution....

Specific issues tho...

1. Taxes. I say we give no more than 10%. Thats 5% to state, and 5% to federal. Why?

Because if they can't do what needs to be done with that amount, then they dont need to be in charge of diversifying the money coming in.

And guess what? 10% of 10 grand is 1,000 dollars. 10% of 100 grand is 10,000 dollars. The rich will be taxed more, and the poor less.

And if an elected person cannot make the roads run with over 10 grand in taxes... what the fuck is he in office for?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
TO do this, to live fr!zzle*shicks and whole

Um... there's that word again. Still not defined.

So you don't like taxes. But is that the entire definition of freedom? Don't think so, bc if that were the case, you wouldn't even stand for 10% taxes. So clearly you think SOME form of taxation is useful and acceptable. What happens if an emergency (natural disaster or war, for example) makes a higher taxation rate necessary? How is it decided how much taxes are required? Is this done by vote?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:57 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Yes. Its done by vote.

War for example, should only be allowed when a declaration of war is called.

And a declaration of war is only called when the people CALL for it.

For example: TO my way of thinking. Iraq/Afghanistan.. had there been a vote taken after 9/11... would we have attacked? Yes.

We were attacked.

But the point is, you have to have the majority of citizens behind it. And by citizens, I mean those who are in the country legally.

Now how do you figure out who is in the country legally... who is a citizen?

Who is worthy of voting... without compromising the security and privacy of the citizen?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 10:00 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So, should everything be done by direct vote? Or should we have politicians (**swishes mouth with whisky, spits**) deciding for us?

{"Damnit, Wulf", she growled "That was waste of good whisky. Don't make me do it agin!")

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 10:05 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

And "freedom" is obtained when the people are free.

"Freedom is the soul's right to breathe, and when it cannot take a long breath, laws are girdled too tight."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 10:07 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Politicians who do NOT represent the will of the people.. should be kicked out.

You want something mandatory? Instead of healthcare... make it voting.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 10:07 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Politicians = Huh choo-shang tza-jiao duh tzang-huo (harder than spitting whiskey, but no nearly the waste

)

But back to the topic; I ask again, Wulf, rather than railing against what IS as opposed to what you believe SHOULD BE...what would you DO to make things how you think they should be, exactly?

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 10:08 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Niki,

We need a purging. We need to get folks who represent the people, within a Constitutional basis.

Most of all... we need to reduce the government.

How do we do that? By reducing the amount of money they receive.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 10:11 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

And we reduce the amount of money they receive by reducing the amount of laws we have.

The truth about laws, is that only those who care about order follow them.

The rest just see them for what they are. Words on a piece of paper.

(ETA: This is not a promotion of anarchy btw...)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 10:19 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

So. We are faced with a cross roads. We can choose to believe that the government and strangers know and want whats best for us.

Or.

We can choose that which is best for each of us.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 10:20 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Btw. Im working on an ideal, Constitutionally correct ideal for government.

Its just noone has asked me for it before.

:)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 10:27 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

And guess what, we can all do this.

Black, white, red, ect.

We are a country that has had EVERY SINGLE race and religion in it.

All peoples, all religions, every good idea that had ever worked in every corner of the globe...

We can do this.

And we can do this without resorting to subjugating people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 10:36 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

and yes... I gave up my duty of work to answer your questions.

Think on my "cryptic talk". I will add a u-tube video to back my speech. Lol Forgive me for feeling dramatic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 10:52 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Politicians who do NOT represent the will of the people.. should be kicked out.

Which people? Hard to find anything everyone agrees on these days.

Attendees at Tea Parties would obviously say he is not representing them, but there are plenty of others who think he is.

So, who decides?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:06 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"We need a purging. We need to get folks who represent the people, within a Constitutional basis."

It's called the V-O-T-E. Just b/c you don't like the way most people voted doesn't make it wrong.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:08 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Ok.

Then each politician should ask the question. Put it to a vote.

The response will guide his opinion/vote. He breaks from the people, he better be able to explain it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:10 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Rue. Grow up.

"Just b/c you don't like the way most people voted doesn't make it wrong."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:10 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Rue. Grow up.

"Just b/c you don't like the way most people voted doesn't make it wrong."

I have no problem, if the representatives vote against how I feel, but they better have a reason for it.

More so than "I got better paid by the other side".

But, the problem, is I doubt our "representatives" actually represent us.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:15 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Then you keep voting them out of office till they get the message.

By and large, we HAVE the system most people think they want.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:17 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

The problem being... We scream and yell... both left and right... and our "representatives" DO NOT REPRESENT the people.

They represent their interests. They pretend to care for those ideas that will keep them in power.

I say no more.

Our servants, the peoples servants, need to remember for WHOM they serve.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:35 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Our servants, the peoples servants, need to remember for WHOM they serve."

Every time they have to get re-elected - or elected - they get reminded.

I do think we would have a MORE representative govenment if we had a parliamentary system - if the dudes and dudettes could be voted out at any time. I think it would keep them on their toes. And it would be more representative if we didn't have for-profit news - b/c that's just letting the F*x guard the hen-house.

But all in all we have the government we want and deserve.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:35 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Yeah, no answer to what I've said.

Enough for now. I have an opera to go see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:40 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Yeah, no answer to what I've said."

Eh, this IS supposed to be snark-free, remember ? But seeing as YOU started it ...

I've answered you several times already. If the people were really that upset, things would change. Because as 'nominal' (remember that word ? - you didn't know what it was the last time I used it) as our democracy is, we have a real tool in our hands. It's called the vote. (gee .... how MANY times have I made that point ? Can you count that high ?)

Since the people - with real power in their hands - have not elected (pun intended) to change things - they must not want them changed all that much.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:09 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think what Rue is asking is a general question: What if "the people" want MORE GOVERNMENT than what the Constitution allows? (Anyway, if Rue isn't asking the question, I sure am!) The Constituion was just what some people wanted that summer, 220+ years ago. And it wasn't even a representative group at that: All men, all white, and mostly rich.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:27 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Okay, just because you call for it to be "snark-free", doesn't necessarily mean I have to oblige, but I'll try. I really will...

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Yes. Its done by vote.

How do you think we got to the taxation rates we're under at the current time, then? Do you think Congress DIDN'T vote on these things?

Quote:

War for example, should only be allowed when a declaration of war is called.

I thought you wanted to follow the Constitution! That's where so many of the "problems" you complain about come from, you know. The Constitution clearly states that the President is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces - yet it ALSO paradoxically states that only the Congress shall have the power to declare war. So which part of that is right? That's an issue that has been wrangled over for generations.

Quote:

And a declaration of war is only called when the people CALL for it.

For example: TO my way of thinking. Iraq/Afghanistan.. had there been a vote taken after 9/11... would we have attacked? Yes.

We were attacked.

By neither of those nations.

You're calling for an absolute democracy - one man, one vote, everything by referendum. California does that on some stuff, and it hasn't always worked to advantage. The term "Mob Rule" wasn't coined for no reason, y'know... Remember, a vocal group of "patriots" were also heavily in favor of outlawing anything too "French" in the lead-up to the Iraq War. The fact that half the people in the country are the stupidest 50% of the people in the country is a great reason to NOT have an absolute democracy.

What we have is supposed to be a REPRESENTATIVE democracy, in which our elected representatives (Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the federal level) are supposed to vote our best interests. Note I didn't say they're supposed to vote the way we tell them. If they did, you'd have places like "Lousy-ana" that would still have segregation because that's what those brain-dead backwoods idiots wanted, and their representatives would be forced to vote that way. So we have representatives who are SUPPOSED to vote for what is actually the best for all concerned. Is it a perfect system? Hardly. It's the worst system ever, except for all those that came before or since...

Quote:

But the point is, you have to have the majority of citizens behind it. And by citizens, I mean those who are in the country legally.

Wrong again! You can be in this country legally, and not be a citizen. And you can be in this country ILLEGALLY, and BE a citizen! For instance, I'm a U.S. citizen. By law I'm required to show my passport or birth certificate if I go to Mexico and then try to come back into the country. If I *don't* do that, I'm technically here illegally - and yet I'm a citizen!

Quote:

Now how do you figure out who is in the country legally... who is a citizen?

Who is worthy of voting... without compromising the security and privacy of the citizen?

I'm all ears...

Mike

Old friend charity
Cruel twisted smile
And the smile signals emptiness
For me
Starless and Bible black

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
and yes... I gave up my duty of work to answer your questions.

Think on my "cryptic talk". I will add a u-tube video to back my speech. Lol Forgive me for feeling dramatic.

How'd that work out for them?

Oh, and just to keep it in character with the vid:

"THIS. ISN'T. SPARTA!!!!"

[Kicks Wulfie into The Pit]

Mike

Old friend charity
Cruel twisted smile
And the smile signals emptiness
For me
Starless and Bible black

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
And guess what, we can all do this.

Black, white, red, ect.

We are a country that has had EVERY SINGLE race and religion in it.

All peoples, all religions, every good idea that had ever worked in every corner of the globe...

We can do this.

And we can do this without resorting to subjugating people.

Just as long as we don't try to incorporate any IDEAS from any of those other races, religions, peoples, or places, huh?

If you outlaw murder, you "subjugate" sociopaths, do you not? So "freedom" definitely wouldn't apply to EVERYBODY in your "Constitutional Utopia". Everybody would be free... within limits. Which would be strictly enforced. So nobody would truly be "free"...

Ya see where this always goes?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 3:50 PM

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=86085840444

Quote:
We need a purging. We need to get folks who represent the people, within a Constitutional basis.

Most of all... we need to reduce the government.

How do we do that? By reducing the amount of money they receive.

And we reduce the amount of money they receive by reducing the amount of laws we have.

The truth about laws, is that only those who care about order follow them.

The rest just see them for what they are. Words on a piece of paper.

(ETA: This is not a promotion of anarchy btw...)

Yeah it is, although not to the full extension - simply a desire to return a certain amount of Autonomy to the States and People, respectively, as the Tenth Amendment so requires.

For me Constitutional Compliance is also the minimum standard, the floor, not the ceiling.

One thing we most CERTAINLY need to do is put a little fear and fire under the ass of our so called reps - and violence and threats are downright foolish in the face of someone who outguns you, so you come at em sideways, sidle up and smile..

We need to find a way to slip in a more streamlined impeachment/recall/no-confidence process - and by playing one against the other I think we could very well manage to pull that off, so long as we keep the ones voting for it focused on how THEY can use it on their political opponents and never let em get to thinkin about how that boomerang is eventually gonna come back...
As short-sighted as our political factors have become, that shouldn't be too hard.

That's one edge local politics has here in the dead zone between Detroit and Ann Arbor - we're DAMN quick with a recall when someone fucks it up, and given that we know we'll be replacing em with someone just about as corrupt, if you've screwed the pooch bad enough to GET a recall called against you, it's almost guaranteed that more folks are gonna show up to throw you OUT than did to vote you IN.

Elmer Parraghi (Supervisor) learned that, as did Dwayne Seals (Finance Director) - more folks showed up to kick them out elect em in the first place, and their long standing feud is local legend as it involved drawn blades at one point, and restraining orders at another, despite the fact that they worked in the same fregmekkin building.

Hell, we used to call him Elmer FUD, cause just speaking his NAME sparked Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt. (FUD)

Bringing that swift-recall "big stick" to the table would cut short a lot of political abuses, I think.

As for Wulf's concept of "Freedom" - despite mockery and snark thrown at him about it cause he's currently workin it out HIMSELF and thus having trouble expressing it, lemme see if I can clarify where he's at with it and he can correct me if I got it wrong.

There's a REASON folks say "Cat Herding" with a twitch - really, you ever tried to MAKE a cat do something against it's will ?

Not only is the little bastard gonna ignore you, shrug off your attempts to plead, bait or otherwise coerce it, because the little bastard is quite effectively armed for its size* - if you DO lay hands to it with intent to force its behavior you're GOING to pay heavy for it, strong men quail at the concept, despite being much larger, stronger, having opposable thumbs and being debateably smarter, cause those little claws and the will to use em levels the playing field quite a bit.

And yet, there's little of malice in a cat, all it wants to do is have its own personhood respected, really - they're natural Anarchists, is what they are.

And so this concept applied by humans is simple - ignore the bastards, don't let them pick the field or set the rules, comply ONLY when they're right there with superior firepower forcing you to, and half-ass it as much as you can even then - soon as they're not lookin, get outta dodge, meanwhile you sandbag them in any way you can get away with.

It's FAR easier to break a machine with 200 pounds of sand than a single 200 pound boulder, lots of peoples petty little defiances add up, and they'll break it good and proper - it broke Prohibition, it broke the 55mph speed limit, and it'll eventually break the War on (some) Drugs.

Despite my fervent defense of the Second Amendment, personal defense is just that, personal, equivalent to a cats claws - which in the above example despite being viewed with horror by the human potentially facing them, isn't exactly a dire and life threatening thing to said human - it's simply a method by which to discourage aggression and protect an individual when some other nimrod has decided to aggress upon them, Cats don't make "war", wouldn't even understand the concept.

But they damn sure understand the concept of noncompliance, oh yes!
That's really all there is to it - failure to comply, in any way you can possibly get away with.

Quit thinkin like a human, start thinkin like a cat.

Mind you, if this is less than coherent, it's cause my little escapade with the dog n pony show we call the "justice" system handed me a badass case of the flu - which is currently in a guns blazin war with my immune system and not quite losing quickly enough for my liking - gah, one more reason I dislike being around people, yick.

-Frem
*PS- There are a great many individuals today, both in government and in the think-tanks and foundations that constitute their intellectual bodyguard, who look down on you and me and our families as livestock. The only thing they want from us is silent, compliant labor, so that they can take whatever we earn away from us and use it as they desire. Some of it they use against us in various ways to keep us silent and compliant.

Listen to them closely and you'll hear that we might as well be different species. They are an elite -- near demigods who are above everything, including the law. We are less than nothing, of no concern to them except for the tasks we perform and the wealth we create for them to steal. If some of us can play the violin, create beautiful paintings or sculptures, or bring audiences to tears with our singing or acting, those are just "stupid pet tricks" without real value or significance.

If some of us are attacked by others, what difference does guilt or innocence make when you're talking about livestock? Animals that defend themselves are no different from the animals being defended against -- unruly cattle are unruly cattle. Any ability we may develop to protect ourselves from predators simply isn't worth the risk it poses to our "owners"
http://www.jpfo.org/smith/smith-herefords.htm

While not of itself a solution, those little claws are quite the discouragement against laying hands to a cat, aren't they ?
One reason I am really NOT fond of declawing.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:07 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
But they damn sure understand the concept of noncompliance, oh yes!

My two cats scratch me every time I clip thier claws (to save my screen door), and I don't blame them a bit.

All's fair & all.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:33 PM

MANGOLO

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Freedom is TAKEN by those willing to fight for it.

Notice, I didn't say GIVEN. You must be willing to take, and fight for, freedom. Because it is human nature, for those who climb to the tops of power, to TAKE it from YOU.

Freedom must be taken, and held. It must be an ideal, and made into a commandment. Because there are ALWAYS going to be those that wish to take it from you.

Never truer words spoken. Unfortunately, we are country that is full of people that are complacent. Maybe they raise their voices or go to a march, but they rarely DO anything to ensure their freedom.

I'm sure that you and I are on some very different pages politically, but I think we are in total agreement on the idea that freedom involves a constant, never ending struggle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 5:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
My two cats scratch me every time I clip thier claws (to save my screen door), and I don't blame them a bit.

A good scratchin post will work wonders on that front provided you can convince em to use it.
Puppy (the black&white one my ex has) uses them rope around cardboard type, and goes at em with such fervor that she eventually slashes the ropes, hacks through the cardboard and "kills" the stupid thing (this being when she's sawed through enough of it that the top half heels over, and takes about four months) requiring us to replace it.

But it saves wear and tear on everything else, it does.

I've many a time been tempted to leave the destroyed ones on the doorstep as a warning to potentive intruders that their ankles are GONE if they decide to try something, but she never did let me, heh heh heh.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 5:53 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

I like alot of things about the Swiss system of government...

considering they have 6 or 7 ethnic groups speaking four official languages... and the can still get things done without the infighting we see all the time.... well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#Politics

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:27 PM

DREAMTROVE

Freedom belongs to the people who have been forgotten. I think the way to control our representatives is to clone them, create reps that act even more corrupt, spend more money, and bow to even more absurd demands. The hitch: They secretly work for us, and their real goal is to create chaos. The union is done, stick a fork in it. Call it a day. tenth amendment needs a ratification of a final states rights amendment which clarifies the intent of the founding fathers and dissolves the empire of DC. How much money they get is irrelevant. Money only has the meaning that they assign to it, we should stop trading in it. If left to themselves, DC would borrow and spend so much that the dollar would go the way of the ZWD. The only thing we have to do is let TPTB be trading dollars at that time, and dollar-tied currencies, and have us be trading something else.

Wulf, I think you have some bead on some of the problems, but in the real world, your solutions would result in you getting mowed down in a blaze of glory which lasts 30 seconds or so, and then you spend the last 30 seconds thinking "well, that was fucking dumb"

Frem, I think the scare tactics would just lead to our reps travelling around in armored vehicles with full security. We could vote them out, but only to vote in their handpicked successor in the opposition party. We would never get a vote of no confidence system, but we can exploit the one we have: We need to hijack the primary.

Also, I always thought it would be fun to plant some people in there who were just fucking nuts, just to screw with the whole govt..

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 7:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Also, I always thought it would be fun to plant some people in there who were just fucking nuts, just to screw with the whole govt..

How does Michele Bachmann not qualify ?

Also,

Quote:
Frem, I think the scare tactics would just lead to our reps travelling around in armored vehicles with full security.

Ah yes, the ever so easily exploitable palace guard, open APC door, toss in molotov, LOCK APC door, no problem, no more.

Simple history would show what a bad idea that is, but no one today seems to understand it's value in predicting future events.

Scared people get stupid, stupid people make mistakes, mistakes are exploitable.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 17, 2009 1:36 AM

Quote:

As for Wulf's concept of "Freedom" - despite mockery and snark thrown at him about it cause he's currently workin it out HIMSELF and thus having trouble expressing it, lemme see if I can clarify where he's at with it and he can correct me if I got it wrong.

Oh, don't get me wrong - I've no problem with Wulfie searching for his "freedom". My problem lies with him apparently spending all his time asking US what WE believe, searching YouTube for bad movie clips, etc. "Freedom" also means the freedom to think for yourself, follow your own path, and NOT follow blindly.

Hey, if it was easy, everyone would do it!

Mike

Old friend charity
Cruel twisted smile
And the smile signals emptiness
For me
Starless and Bible black

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 17, 2009 5:21 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"... really, you ever tried to MAKE a cat do something against it's will ?"

One leeeetle problem with that - people aren't cats. Hoping, wanting, expecting them to be cats will only end in tears.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 17, 2009 5:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Wulf, I'm still at step zero of your concept of freedom. (BTW- logic says you cannot define a word by using the same word or its derivative, so you can't define freedom by using the word "free".) It confuses me when you say "freedom should be a commandment". Isn't that a contradiction? How can you "command" people to be free???

SO to get to the nub of what you mean by "freedom"- It sounds to me like you define freedom as the opposite of government. What is it about "government" that you find so appalling? Is it the fact that "government" has the "approved" force of arms to enforce laws? If that's the case: How do you feel about the death penalty, which (IMHO) along with war is the greatest handover of power to "the state"?

Would you feel the same about ANY OTHER entity which enforced its will on the people through force of arms? For example, in the past there were "company goons" who shot and killed anyone daring to meet "the company" with a just smidgen of power to bargain with. What about them? As bad as government?

What about states and their rights? What would happen if a state turned out to be even more abusive in it power than the Feds?

Then you get to gangs. Kinda the same problem as government: a group of violent people holding entire neighborhoods hostage. Both accepted AND feared by their neighborhoods.

Is a husband, with superior (or perhaps sole) earning power and access to the larger world, free to beat his wife?

Are parents free to beat their children, who are entirely dependent on them for survival?

As you can see, I'm applying the notion of freedom to smaller scales and different (potentially abusive) entities... ANYWHERE there is a difference in power, really. Trying to get a handle on whether or not it is "the strong picking on the weak" that sets your teeth on edge (no matter what the entity), or the perceived moral authority of the government, problems with the Fed specifically (eg Civil war issues) or some other factor.

PS: Snark comes to me as naturally as breathing. I'm doing my best to dial it down. Hope the post is OK.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 17, 2009 5:46 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Rue: I agree. While cats may be natural anarchists, people are not cats. The difference is that cats are not a social species, so pecking order, guilt, cooperation, empathy... all those things that social animals do in order to live with one another.. don't apply to cats. Expecting most people to behave like cats, basing a proposed society on cat-like behavior, is doomed to failure.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 17, 2009 5:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
One leeeetle problem with that - people aren't cats.

On the internet, no one knows you're a cat.

Seriously though, of course not, humans have a better vocabulary, opposable thumbs, and arguably more brains - though oft times I wonder..

And that should make us BETTER at noncompliance than a Felidae, shouldn't it now ?

I'm also concerned that someone I know seems to have thrown in the towel and given up on hope, all the while continuing to express bitterness and sorrow at how inevitably doomed we are, as if dragging others down is gonna plug the drain we're circling or something - you want folk to listen to you at all, it's a right good idea to bring something other than chicken littles gambit to the table to work with.

Just sayin.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
pecking order, guilt, cooperation, empathy... all those things that social animals do in order to live with one another.. don't apply to cats.

Whattt?!!

Seriously, I don't think you know a lot about cats to say such a thing, cause they most certainly DO have such things, despite their differences - I suggest doing your homework before making such blanket statements which show you've not invested even thirty seconds in verifying such a statement.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:08 AM