REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

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

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 13:40
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5434
PAGE 2 of 4

Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:11 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:
Originally posted by 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."


I had a legitimate question without snark....

The lack of response is telling.

"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  

Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:14 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I think Wulf is chewing on these and other questions. I believe he is still formulating his thoughts.

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:17 AM

RUE

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


Supposedly neither pigs nor parrots have hierarchies though they nearly exclusively spend their time in groups. Apparently behaviorists figured this out b/c they have no dominance/ submissive routines.

Bonobos have interpersonal disputes and fluid hierarchies with short, non-violent display disputes (between males, females don't do this) that (generally) end in mutual sex - without dominace/ submissive routines.

Dogs are at the other end of the spectrum when it comes to social animals. They have elaborate dominance/ submission routines and strong hierarchies.

Cats OTOH are not social for the most part. Littermates sometimes hang together until they get older. Queens will sometimes band together to mutually care for young to protect them from males. (Aside from lions, housecats are the only other species of cat that does this.) While they have disputes, cats don't engage in any dominance/ submission routines that indicate hierarchies.

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

ETA: SignyM, reading your post, I interpret submission routines as guilt.

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:45 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So, to refresh some of the questions which have been asked, and place them away from the cat versus dog discussion:
-------------
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?-Niki2

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?- Story

What if "the people" want MORE GOVERNMENT than what the Constitution allows? The Constitution 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.- Signy

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?-Kwicko

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?-Kwicko

It confuses me when you say "freedom should be a commandment". Isn't that a contradiction? How can you "command" people to be free??? Signy

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?- SignyM

{is it} "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?- SignyM

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:52 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


For me, the concept of freedom is a two sided issue.

You must have the ability to do as you wish, while at the same time, having the morality of notion to know what NOT to do.

Does that make sense?

For example: Yes, you have the right to scream "Fire" in a movie theater, but you must also have the morality to NOT do that.

Laws cannot make a person good. They barely even punish the guilty. Laws cannot define morality either.

At BEST, they can give you a moment of pause before you go ahead and do it anyway.

As an example: The law sets the speed limit at 55mph. Has anyone ever gone 56mph? Then you broke the law.

And if those in power had their druthers, you would be made to pay for that each and every time.

So freedom? Its being able to do whatever you want, whenever you want... but NOT doing anything to harm another person, because you CHOOSE not to. Because you have been taught by family and friends NOT to do certain things.

The government has no business in morality, the judgment of it or its execution. It doesnt stop them from trying tho.... look at Prohibition, and the Drug War.

Freedom is a gift you take, one that cannot be given to you. But its also one that you must use rightly, and morally.



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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:59 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


"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?-Niki2"

Any way I can.. (yeah thats a copout). Voting? I do. Right to the papers, and to my reps, do that to. Organize with others, trying to.

"What if "the people" want MORE GOVERNMENT than what the Constitution allows? The Constitution 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.- Signy"

The loaded question aside, the American people have ALWAYS been fiercely independent. I am of the opinion that those who want more government, are trying to make the government their "parents". Usually people who want more government are of 2 types. 1. Cannot cope on their own or 2. See in someone imposing rules on them as a parental figure, and had something lacking in their childhood.

"{is it} "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?- SignyM"

Yes, the "strong" picking on the "weak" sets my teeth on edge, but its also the justifications for it, that they use. The whole idea of "its for their own good". I am a grown man, I don't need someone else telling me whats for my own good.

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:01 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"... 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.


... :(

*Throws away CAT-alyzer Ray*

*Tears*

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
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.


I know that was directed to Wulf, but Ima hafta go with A, B, and C. Not Civil War, but other.

Doin' okay on the snark.

Quote:
But cats generally respond to fear, not guilt.


Oh, they respond to guilt. But it's more that they know how to guilt YOU than it is the other way around. If I ever solve that code, fear my army of cats.

They do, however, have empathy enough to recognize pain, sadness, or illness, and they also exhibit rudimentary compassion.

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:07 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


As to what should we do about it, how can we change things... I don't know.

I don't think our representatives represent the will of the people. Its not because they make decisions I dont agree with, but rather its because they make decisions that big conglomerates want.

But lets say we did get people in who arn't there to fill their pockets or gain political traction. Then what would they do?

If it were me in office? I would take out a big red pen and start crossing out laws.

I would lower the income taxes down to 5% for my state. A flat tax. Of that, 25% would go to the school system, 25% to the maintenance of roads ect, 25% to cops, Emts, and firemen, 10% to the government, and the rest to paying off whatever debt was owed.

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:18 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


And, by the way guys... I can't answer everyone at once.

I kind of have to juggle a lot of things to even be able to spend as much time as I do here.

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:21 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


But I will do my best.

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:22 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So, if you can't legislate morality, how do you feel about abortion being legal?

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:28 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Good point.

I think its a good thing abortion is legal.

The morality of it, is up to the people having the procedure.

AND, just because you have some people who use abortion as a means of birth control... (knew a girl who had 4 abortions before she turned 23) DOESN't mean anyone gets to take the option away from EVERYBODY else.

Its a personal, moral issue that the government, AGAIN, has nothing to do with.

Same thing with guns. Just cause some douchebags use them to terrorize neighborhoods, or to go on killing sprees, doesnt meant you get to take the option of self protection away from everyone else.

In the same way that just because someone yells "Fire" in the movie theater... you dont get to say that freedom of speech is now limited.


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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:34 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


(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.)

I don't know if that was directed towards me...

But, I havn't given up hope. Thats the whole point of me trying to figure things out and what we can actually do.

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:42 AM

NIKI2

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


Late, as usual. Fascinating discussion. Are you learning anything from it, Wulf? I hope so, because your arguments have been countered really well in many cases.

Wulf, you have ideas many of us would like to see, but I think you're forgetting a few very important things. First, that we and people like us are probably in about as small a minority as the right-wing base. MOST Americans go about their daily lives, ignorant of all the stuff we talk about, led by what they're told, lied to in order to believe what those in power want them to believe, ignorant of anything under the surface and quite happy to be so. You are NOT going to galvanize this vast majority...they don't want to be educated, they don't want to deal with more than the day-to-day struggles to live.
Quote:
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.
Mangolo's got it.

If you can grasp that, then many, many of your suggestions depend on the majority of Americans making the decisions. So second, given the majority can be so easily manipulated, how do you GET a "good", minimum government in the first place? Your suggestions also mean, for the most part, that people have to want to do what's RIGHT, not what serves their immediate interests.
Quote:
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?
Surely you're not THAT naive? Surely you don't really believe that's feasible, do you? Depend on peoples' conciences??? That's a helluva blanket statement! Others have argued about that one, tho' I don't know if you're hearing them. Without government, we have chaos. TRULY a case where the strongest are in power...something always fills a vaccuum...and gets power. So what do you propose that isn't "government?
Quote:
And a declaration of war is only called when the people CALL for it.
But how do you get the people to call for it? The same way Bush did; with lies, manipulation, propaganda...in essence by brainwashing the "people" in every way possible until they do what you want? That's a lot of how it works now...so, what's the option? Again: Do you really think the majority of people in America are going to take a good, hard look at whether we should go to war or not before calling for one?

That goes for just about everything else you propose. People, on the whole, don't want to THINK about it. They want the thinking done for them. We WERE attacked on 9/11, but not by Afghanistan OR Iraq. We were attacked by a bunch of terrorists--a non-nationalistic GROUP, not a country. So we went after Afghanistan, which was easy 'cuz Pakistan is our ally, even tho' they were as much in Pakistan as in Afghanistan--hell, Pakistan GAVE them power, helped make them strong, for it's own nationalistic purposes.

Then our Prez had his own agenda and we went after Iraq, where the people who attacked us weren't even THERE. We got manipulated into two wars with two countries, when neither "country" had attacked us. The American people were sold a bill of goods, and bought it hook, line and sinker. Even IF they understood what really happened, do you think they'd not have wanted to go after SOME country...the concept of a countryless organization attacking us didn't compute; and we'd have had to go after Pakistan too, if we really wanted to get to al Qaeda. So?
Quote:
You want something mandatory? Instead of healthcare... make it voting.
I like the idea, but again; how do you enforce it? What enforcement do you use: fine? Jail? How do you give people freedom by compelling them to vote?

Quote:
We need to get folks who represent the people, within a Constitutional basis
The first, and I think biggest, problem with that is that elected representatives have to get elected, which costs enormous amounts of money. If it didn't, they wouldn't need special interests and lobbyists so much, maybe they'd represent US better. You get that one out of the way, you've got a really good beginning, in my opinion. But you're not going to get it out of the way.

That's the whole basic fallacy in all your arguments. You want to depend on The People, not the Government.
Quote:
The truth about laws, is that only those who care about order follow them.
Not true. The vast majority of people follow them because they're TOLD to follow them, because there are penalties if they don't. Those who don't follow them do so knowing there are penalties--usually too stupid to think they'll get caught, or in groups that get enough power and are bright enough to use that power to get money, use the money to manipulate, etc. It's not about caring about order; it's about human nature.

Storymark had it:
Quote:
Which people? Hard to find anything everyone agrees on these days.
If you go by representative democracy, the representatives will find ways to convince enough of a majority of people that they'll do what those people want to get elected. And the above, the money thing, means they'll get elected by those with the money to GET them elected, and will at the very least bear what THOSE interests want represented. And for the most part, Rue's right:
Quote:
By and large, we HAVE the system most people think they want.
"Think" they want...again it comes down to convincing the majority of the people, and what you want, if you're in the minority, isn't gonna happen.

You said it yourself:
Quote:
They represent their interests. They pretend to care for those ideas that will keep them in power.
So how do you change that? How do you GET people elected who will represent our interests? Yeah, you can talk about changing the way people get elected by eliminating the money part of it...guess who tried? Guess, actually, who in part at least made it happen? But it was a fluke; the pendulum was so ready to swing, people were so outraged, that they were willing to send money to change things. How often does that happen, and do you REALLY believe you can change it so people get elected only by the people? HOW?

I, too, feel
Quote:
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.
I've long thought the Brit "vote of no confidence" would be a good thing to have--not sure if it would work here, but I'd sure like to try! At least it might mean that, aside from needing to protect the interests of the money people, maybe those seeking election would know they'd better represent us MORE, or they're gone. Maybe. I'm sure there are ways around it.

Rue
Quote:
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.
I think it's more along the lines of "they want what they want at the time, until they realize what they wanted wasn't what they got, then they grouse about it." Complaining about government is like complaining in the Army--it's a way of life. But I don't think people think about, learn enough about, or care enough about thinking beyond the surface to KNOW what they really want and vote to get it.

Sign,
Quote:
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.
You got it perfectly. Government HAS to evolve, societies evolve, so going "strictly" by the Constitution doesn't fit society as it evolves. And we've evolved a helluva lot...in some ways...

Quote:
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.
Hee, hee, hee, Mike; right on. One of my bumpberstickers (which I removed after Bush was out) reads "How could 52 million people be so stupid? "Majority rules" has considerable flaws in it, and what you said
Quote:
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...
is, sadly, what I believe to. It's flawed as hell, and I don't know how we fix the flaws--lord knows we've been trying for a long long time, but it seems each change only presents new problems. But at least we CAN change things, to a degree, and I think it's an improvement over other forms. Pure democracy is "mob rule" in a way, and mobs aren't particularly bright, much of the time.
Quote:
We need to find a way to slip in a more streamlined impeachment/recall/no-confidence process
How 'ya gonna do that? Like I said, I like that idea too--but it's directly against the interests of the politicians, so how do you get them to vote for such a thing??
Quote:
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
Gino, I'd like to know more about it, too. But bear in mind that, despite having several different groups, they are almost all white, European, and with much in common. Would it work with the kind of diversity we have? I dunno.

Frem, I agree with DT. Your immediate thought when it comes to changing things goes to either violence or infiltration or some other way of bringing things down, it seems to me. While I think that works really great on a small scale, I don't think it would work on a nationwide one.
Quote:
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.
Nevvvver gonna happen. Each side is all too well aware that whatever it does to the other, it may end up facing when it's out of power. Some things can be gotten away with, but to that extreme extent...nahh. One reason so many want Bush dealt with for the power he put in place...Obama or any future President may use that power.

Currently is a weird example, and it's only in an atmosphere such as today's that it's possible to this extreme extent. All the hue and cry about "czars", when Bush made more of them (and they backed him) than anyone else, I believe? That can only be effective when you have a situation where you base is SO fired up that it doesn't matter what anyone says, they'll grab whatever you say and run with it.


Sig makes a great point
Quote:
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.
States have, do and will be more abusive in their power in different ways; admittedly the government doesn't always do things that is good for every state, but it's a compromise which works more than it doesn't, to me.

By the way, dogs don't grasp "guilt" either. They fake it--look at a pack, when reprimanded the subservient dog does and looks what appears to be contrition--but he does it just to avoid further punishment, not because he thinks whatever he did was wrong.

As to putting crazies in the government (and I DO mean crazies, not mentally ill, but ignorant, stupid, short-sighted and gullible), hey, we've already got PLENTY of them, Bachman is only one tiny example (tho' I admit, she's a pretty overtly amusing one).

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:44 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
And, by the way guys... I can't answer everyone at once.

I kind of have to juggle a lot of things to even be able to spend as much time as I do here.


Fair enough. My apologies for jumping the gun.

"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  

Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:51 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


So Niki, your answer is that people are stupid, they are relatively easy to manipulate, and that we just need to make sure the ones tending the sheep are at least not going to lead the herd off a cliff?

I cannot, hell, I will not, believe that.

Call me naive, and maybe I am, but I refuse to believe that. Yes, you make a really good argument, about people being dumb and all the rest. But no.

I have to hope for more than that.

Because, otherwise, whats the point?

In that analogy, you are either the shepherd, the sheep, or the wolf.

But we are more than that. We have to be.


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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:57 AM

NIKI2

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


Oh, dear, you guys move too fast:

Quote:
but NOT doing anything to harm another person, because you CHOOSE not to. Because you have been taught by family and friends NOT to do certain things.
You put a lot of faith in people behaving according to moral standards. And moral standards are different for different people. It's what buddhism is based on, and works better in my opinion than religion, which is ALSO based on the same concept, but is abused because, just as you and I both said, the majority of people want a parental figure to tell them what to do. Like I said, the average person just wants to deal with their small lives and let the government figure out the rest.
Quote:
Any way I can.. (yeah thats a copout). Voting? I do. Right to the papers, and to my reps, do that to. Organize with others, trying to.
Good on YOU! That's our best chance of at least AFFECTING what our government does. Bear in mind, tho', that for everyone one of us, there are ten who just want to bitch and moan to their reps and the ppers, just to let off steam about things they're uneducated on but have visceral feelings about.
Quote:
I am a grown man, I don't need someone else telling me whats for my own good.
But many DO. Should we do away with laws because everyone thinks they're adult and can choose for themselves? Wouldn't work, you know that, and you've expressed the reasons yourself.

And yeah, Wulf, I think that comment about "throwing in the towel" was aimed at you, thought that when I read it. If not, clarification is needed.

But I don't think you've thrown in the towel, I do think you're trying to work it out for yourself. What I think is that many of your ideas are good, but they're based too much on personal morals, which doesn't work; they're idealistic, maybe that's why so many disagree with you. My moto of "Harm none, do as ye will" works for some, but not for all. There will always be those who want to force their value on others at any cost, rationalizing it as doing "what's best", and there will always be those who are quite willing to do what the want, whether it harms others or not.

So your answers need to be based on what is possible, not what is the ideal, and I think that's the major problem others have with what you postulate. Most of it is RIGHT, but not realistic. IMHO

---Augh! I can't keep up! No, I'm not saying
Quote:
people are stupid, they are relatively easy to manipulate, and that we just need to make sure the ones tending the sheep are at least not going to lead the herd off a cliff?
I'm saying that MOST people have enough to do to deal with the problems in their own lives, so they don't bother to deal with bigger issues. As such, those who DO bother need to take responsibility to learn and understand as much as they can, then be active in fighting (via all the methods you mentioned, and more) to bring about change, better things, and be responsible for themselves. I didn't mean "elites", I meant those willing to take the step beyond their own lives. I don't blame people for not dealing with the bigger issues--life IS hard, takes most of our time...but those of us who CAN, should educate ourselves, not take what we hear on the surface, and do our best to make things better.

Yes, we CAN be more than that, it's up to us to choose to be. Most people don't. That's just a fact of life. It's up to those who care and want to make the effort out of their own moral standards to try and keep things in check and to do what we can to improve things.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 8:02 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Reality is what you make of it.

Optomistic? Maybe. Realistic. Yeah, I am. I know that people need a goal to reach. Not just band-aids to fix what is NOW, but something to strive for. Something that CAN be reached.

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 8:05 AM

NIKI2

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


Not if you want to live in the real world around you and change it. Living in one's own reality then grousing about the way things really are is futile.

And I edited the last part of my post to answer your question--the responses come too fast for me to keep up; I gotta back out. Have been at this since I got up, and it's 11:00, which is ridiculous and I have to deal with that very reality I spoke about: my own little life.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 8:15 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


But thats part of the problem.

While everyone is running around dealing with their own lives... those who are in "power" are creating situations that make the cage a little smaller.

Which, btw, is why Ive said its good that Obama was elected... Hes black. It makes people notice when something new and different happens. When they notice whats going on, when they start paying attention, things can be done.

Some might say people are just paying attention because they are racist. Ok. SOME might, but its still paying attention.

People sat around, and ignored things while Bush trampled our rights with the Patriot Act... cause it was just the same -ol-same-old... but now its different. Its new. And if there is anything Americans pay attention to, its the new and the different.

I say we can use this window of opportunity, while people are paying attention... Mold it, make things better.

Its why I keep saying that people are waking up. They are looking at what is happening, and they don't like it. Good. Lets do something with that. Lets make it better.

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 8:26 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Also, by the by... yes there are whack jobs.

Not saying there arn't. Give those of us who want the good things a bad name...

It pisses me off, but what are you going to do?

Even Patton, right after WW2, wanted to invade Russia.

Was he wrong? Maybe. He was passionate, and driven.

I say we show these folks a better way of being. Take that passion, show how that faith, rage and belief can be made to help everyone.

Notice, I said SHOW, not force. Big difference.


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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 8:56 AM

KWICKO

"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)


Quote:
We WERE attacked on 9/11, but not by Afghanistan OR Iraq. We were attacked by a bunch of terrorists--a non-nationalistic GROUP, not a country. So we went after Afghanistan, which was easy 'cuz Pakistan is our ally, even tho' they were as much in Pakistan as in Afghanistan--hell, Pakistan GAVE them power, helped make them strong, for it's own nationalistic purposes.


Very long post, Niks, and I'm not even close to done with it, but I wanted to address this part first, because it's even worse than you know. Much worse. Not only did we attack Afghanistan for basically no good reason at all (other than "we don't like them", which is apparently a valid reason in this day and age), but we did so AFTER Afghanistan AND the Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over, to be tried in a Muslim nation. They didn't specify that it had to be a Muslim nation friendly to the Taliban - it could have been our ally Egypt, our ally Saudi Arabia, our ally Pakistan, our ally Jordan, it could have been Iran, Iraq (where Bin Laden would be vilified by Saddam because he was a zealot and Saddam was very much an "occasional" Muslim).

The message was sent to the Bush administration, who didn't even bother to reply. In essence, they said, "Nuts" to the idea of Bin Laden being turned over by the Taliban, because then we'd have no reason to attack the Taliban or invade and occupy Afghanistan.

Pretty freaking sad, huh?

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 9:11 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


If its true then I can only imagine it this way...

Someone comes into my home, and kills my wife and children.

The family of my families murderer, realizes that they made a huge mistake.

Offer to take their child, and punish/kill him.

I say "Nuts" to that. You ALL are going to die. And when/if I catch the animal who did this... he will die by inches.

Of course, Im not thinking too straight, cus I can still feel the warm blood of my children on my hands.


NOW, I know this is not the way to be...

BUT, its like I've said before...

It might not be "right", but I can understand it.

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:11 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg



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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:23 AM

NIKI2

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


Yeah, I'd heard about that long ago, wasn't sure whether to believe it or not.
Quote:
say "Nuts" to that. You ALL are going to die. And when/if I catch the animal who did this... he will die by inches.
Jeezus, glad you don't have power! To punish an entire country for a group that only used that country and had no national involvement to speak of; AND to send our soldiers over to suffer and die to do it, rather than take the person/people in charge handed to you...WOW!

That's giving in to the very WORST human urges, and no, that's not why Dumby did it, betcha dollars to donuts. If he'd done that, we'd not have had to have ANY wars, and he could TASTE devastating Iraq more than he ever wanted to go after bin Laden!

Damn, I GOTTA get out of here...for one thing, I have a rat I have to "relocate" up in the hills, and the day's a-wastin'...

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:26 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Just trying to point out the national feeling at the time...

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:26 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Just trying to point out the national feeling at the time...

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:28 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Wulf, I'm with you on everything but the "rage" part. How can a "show of rage" be anything except intimidation and force? Because when you show "rage"- whether it is punching your fist through a wall to make your point, or "killing the enemy to protect the weak", executing a mass murderer as a deterrent, or invading a bystander nation (or two) - the point you are inevitably making is I am STRONG! I am stronger than you! You need me for protection. Be grateful that I'm a good guy! You've just become what you claim to despise.

I admit, I'm a pushover. I like everyone to be happy. Raised voices and threatening gestures make me nervous, and I don't think people should treat ANYONE that way: you shouldn't do that to your kids, your spouse, your colleagues, or your employees. Killing people to make a point about laws, threatening people with fire and brimstone to "keep them in line", making up fictitious enemies (ditto), holding people to impossible standards or making them bear the burden of something that is not their fault, threatening people with a long fall into unemployment, homelessness and despair... it doesn't make things better, it makes things WORSE.

Teen Birth Rates Higher in Highly Religious States
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090916/sc_livescience/teenbirthr
ateshigherinhighlyreligiousstates

Spanking detrimental to children, study says
www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/16/spanking.children.parenting/index.html
NOTE:
Quote:
At all three ages, African-American children were spanked significantly more frequently than those from white and Mexican-American families, and verbally punished more than the other children at ages 2 and 3, the study said.
(Doesn't seem to help later behavior, does it?)

Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience
www.bayridgetalk.com/comments.php?discussionID=11273

'John schools' try to change attitudes about paid sex
www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/27/tennessee.john.school

I know from past conversations, Wulf, that you are a very angry man, and that rage seems to be your preferred solution to everything.... even to finding freedom. But my feeling is that rage simply re-creates the same problems that caused it in the first place, and one of the things that "rage" creates is tyranny.

Oh, and BTW- in Sparta, EVERYTHING was subject to state control.

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:37 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


You make some good point Sig.

But "rage" in the way I think, is like gunfire.

Its destructive, its scary, its voice refutes any argument.

Its HOW you use it tho, which makes it right or wrong.

Put it this way:

When you are in a fight, and are outnumbered, 3-10, against one... you HAVE to get mad. You have to get so mad that nothing matters. You have to drop into "rage". Where pain and hurt mean nothing.

Its hard to explain.

When your back is against the wall, it might be the only thing left you have.

But this, again is a specific, self-defensive situation

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:43 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Hehe, and cause it wouldn't be me NOT to do this...


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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:43 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Hehe, and cause it wouldn't be me NOT to do this...


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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:52 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I get it, Wulf. That, BTW, is the very argument Serena made for her outburst on the tennis court: "Anger can be motivating".

The problem is that rage is like the one ring: First you start using it for good... then you use it to feel good... then it starts using you. Anger makes people feel strong. It gives them a sense of control, which is better than being anxious, helpless, depressed, or suffering from PTSD. So people get angry to re-achieve that feeling of control. They start looking for reasons to get angry, foster that anger by telling themselves how justified they are, rehearsing incident after incident in their minds about when it would be justified... anyway, its a sad story. It usually a response to something bad that happened in the past.

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:57 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Ok, we are getting off topic here....

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 10:04 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


However... sorry I post so many of these... maybe I dont have the words to explain the emotion.


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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 10:18 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


"The problem is that rage is like the one ring: First you start using it for good... then you use it to feel good... then it starts using you. Anger makes people feel strong. It gives them a sense of control, which is better than being anxious, helpless, depressed, or suffering from PTSD. So people get angry to re-achieve that feeling of control. They start looking for reasons to get angry, foster that anger by telling themselves how justified they are, rehearsing incident after incident in their minds about when it would be justified... anyway, its a sad story. It usually a response to something bad that happened in the past."

But anger at injustice, at loss of liberty, at any of these things is RIGHT.

You HAVE to get mad.

And, btw... NOT accept that its a pendulum that swings back and forth... from one side to the next. You need to see that the pendulum is attached to a giant saw... something that is slowly cutting you in half.

What does it matter if it swings left or right. Its still cutting you each time it goes by.

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 10:24 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


"I admit, I'm a pushover. I like everyone to be happy. Raised voices and threatening gestures make me nervous, and I don't think people should treat ANYONE that way: you shouldn't do that to your kids, your spouse, your colleagues, or your employees. Killing people to make a point about laws, threatening people with fire and brimstone to "keep them in line", making up fictitious enemies (ditto), holding people to impossible standards or making them bear the burden of something that is not their fault, threatening people with a long fall into unemployment, homelessness and despair... it doesn't make things better, it makes things WORSE."

You know the answer to raised voices, and threatening gestures?

YOUR raised voice, YOUR threatening gesture.

Someone pulls a knife on you, you pull YOUR knife.

Yeah, its ugly, its not pretty.

But you meet force with force.

"Thats the Chicago way" lol sorry...

But its still the truth.





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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 10:33 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


and for Frem... cause I know he likes anime


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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 10:44 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
But anger at injustice, at loss of liberty, at any of these things is RIGHT. You HAVE to get mad.
No, you don't. Anger is counterproductive to clear thought and effective action.
Quote:
You know the answer to raised voices, and threatening gestures?
YOUR raised voice, YOUR threatening gesture.

Someone pulls a knife on you, you pull YOUR knife.
Yeah, its ugly, its not pretty. But you meet force with force.
I do, sometimes. It's not my first option tho, so mostly not. Dealt with a close friend who was PTSD and when things started going bad in his life he got a little strange. Scared me for a while, but I screwed up my courage and talked to him. KEPT talking to him. Things worked out.

The other point tho, Wulf, is that you keep bringing guns to wars of words. Total overkill. Yes, SOMETIMES force must be met with force, but (1) not NEARLY as often as you seem to think (You waaay overestimate situations, on purpose I think) and (2) not necessarily individually.

ETA: It may seem like we're getting far afield of freedom, but I think not. (Your results may vary.) An angry person is a controlling person. Your anger reduces the freedom of others around you. At best, it makes you a "leader"... accepted as such by those who would follow. At worst, it makes you a bully or a tyrant.

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 10:49 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


"I do, sometimes. It's not my first option tho, so mostly not. Dealt with a close friend who was PTSD and when things started going bad in his life he got a little strange. Scared me for a while, but I screwed up my courage and talked to him. KEPT talking to him. Things worked out.

The other point tho, Wulf, is that you keep bringing guns to wars of words. Total overkill. Yes, SOMETIMES force must be met with force, but (1) not NEARLY as often as you seem to think and (2)not necessarily individually."

Its always my first option.

Words, those spoken in anger, are the preamble to war.

Better to draw first.

Hell, better not to ever have to draw at all.

But when you need to, draw first, fire fast, and never regret it.

PTSD... lol. What is that, other than not forgetting what you've seen?

Anyways... far off topic here...

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 10:54 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


As a courtesy Sig....

If you are going to change your post, after you make it... put "ETA" in front of it.

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 10:55 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Wulf, see above, I added. Also
Quote:
PTSD... lol. What is that, other than not forgetting what you've seen?
It means carrying a mode of behavior that you learned in ONE context into an area where it doesn't belong... for example, among friends, family, neighbors, ETA online discussion groups, different religions, and politicians. Inability to learn. Being "brain stuck" in a rut of responses not functional for the situation. Being unaware of self, out of control of your responses, and therefore controlled by them.

ETA
Quote:
If you are going to change your post, after you make it... put "ETA" in front of it.
Sorry. It's my style to edit online. Will try to remember.

Back to work for me. Later!

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 10:59 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


You forgot to put ETA in front of:

" (You waaay overestimate situations, on purpose I think)"


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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 11:01 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Roger that. Lost track.

Back later!

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 11:11 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Sure thing Sig.

Just watch that. Folks might think you change your posts to change their meaning after other people post their responses.

In order to manipulate people to think you meant something other than what you said in the first place.




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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 11:30 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


In any case.. time for me to sign off for the night.

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 11:30 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


In any case.. time for me to sign off for the night.

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 11:45 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Before I go tho...

Because of a weakling and a woman....

So get up Princess of Troy.... I won't let some misstep take my glory.


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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 12:56 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


For balance, here's another website
Quote:
Anger addiction is biochemical problem.Like victims of alcohol or substance abuse, the "angerholic" is hostage to a host of body reactions, one of which is an upsurge of adrenalin that generates a sense of invincibility. According to James C. Tanner,rage addiction produces a "Superman" scenario, in which one feels powerful, galvanized for action. Anger can bring on a "rush" that feels "so strong and good" that many "want to experience it again and again." Rage releases biochemical and neural changes in the body that can become self-consuming with repetition. Such is the nature of addiction.

What are the Symptoms of Anger Addiction?

easy arousal to anger... gets angry over trivialities...excited by the adrenalin rush of rage.

obsession with past episodes of anger... dwells on what happened a few weeks or months ago...these memories are self stimulating.

compulsion to rage ... cannot entertain any other responses except hostility and destructiveness

denial ...the problems is always with the other person

vindictiveness ...seems to derive particular pleasure in micromanaging revenge


ETA: Wulf, your ideas of freedom seem to be wrapped up MAINLY in images of men brandishing weapons. I think you're confusing freedom with rage. In fact, you might be using "freedom" as an excuse to rage. And, as I said before, in my experience "rage" almost always takes away others' freedoms. It's always about control: the opposite of freedom.


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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 2:32 PM

KWICKO

"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)


Dang, now it's MY turn to play catch-up again...

I'll start with a little thing Niki said in regards to Frem's idea of constantly voting the bums out:

Quote:
Nevvvver gonna happen. Each side is all too well aware that whatever it does to the other, it may end up facing when it's out of power. Some things can be gotten away with, but to that extreme extent...nahh. One reason so many want Bush dealt with for the power he put in place...Obama or any future President may use that power.


No offense intended, but I find that a bit naive. Each side IS aware that what goes around comes around, but they also have a tendency to think it's never going to come around ON THEM. You know why we have term limits on the Presidency? Because the Republicans rammed that through after FDR's four terms. And you know who got screwed by that new rule they rammed through? The Republicans. Eisenhower could have easily gotten a third term, or more. Ditto Reagan. But nope - the Republicans just HAD TO make sure that no damned Democrat ever again got a shot at more than two terms. And they got their wish, good and hard, as Frem said.

And it's pretty much always been this way.

Hopefully more later, barring any distractions.

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 3:50 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Sorry folks, i'm juts too wasted, too sick, to intelligently dscuss the matter right now, k?

That and my stump has split at the bottom and it's bleedin eevrywhere and I still gotta do rounds tonite cause no one else TO do it and i cant leave em hangin.

2 things, on way out, both from outlaw josey wales.

first, the rage wulfie means is this
JW Now remember, things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. 'Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That's just the way it is.

but also, did not josey also know when negotiation was the better solution, life to life ?



best scene in any western EVER, and not a shot fired.

and i MUST go, back maybe in a while, might need to go to clinic.

-f

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:56 - 44 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:51 - 48 posts
Where Will The American Exodus Go?
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:25 - 1 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, November 27, 2024 23:34 - 4775 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:47 - 7510 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:06 - 21 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:05 - 238 posts
Bald F*ck MAGICALLY "Fixes" Del Rio Migrant Invasion... By Releasing All Of Them Into The U.S.
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:03 - 41 posts
Why does THUGR shit up the board by bumping his pointless threads?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:43 - 32 posts
Joe Rogan: Bro, do I have to sue CNN?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:41 - 7 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:36 - 4845 posts
Biden will be replaced
Wed, November 27, 2024 15:06 - 13 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL