It's not all about Trump. Or, at least, it shouldn't be.
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, October 16, 2021 19:18
VIEWED: 8479
PAGE 1 of 2
People STILL are slagging Trump, and others are STILL predicting he's going to be President, again.
But instead of focusing on "Trump", I think we should be focusing on what he stood for: Make America Great Again.
IMHO Trump was stunningly unsuccessful implementing his vision. His early success was to back out of international "free trade' ageements. And he did manage, eventually, to control the flow of illegal immigrants across our borders (two of the three things I voted for.)
But he wiil eventually be remembered for what he COULDN'T do, not for what he accomplished.
He never did corral the military, CIA, and the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex.
Bolton wrecked negotiations with N Korea.
Troops were still in the mideast/central Asia, and the CIA was still smuggling heroin out of Afghanistan.
He never restored relations with Russia
Nor did he bring manufacturing back to the USA or even blunt our trade deficit with China.
He let BLM/Antifa rampage across the USA.
The NATO nations that were supposed to front more of NATO costs, for the most part, never did.
And I thought his policy towards Iran and Israel was just nutty.
He trusted the wrong people (establishment Senate Republicans).
His DOJ never rooted out the malefactors in the FBI, State Dept, and CIA.
His DOJ didn't even protect Epstein, and instead seems to be intent on throwing a few small fish to the press and covering up the rest.
The budget deficit ballooned.
He thought he was The Boss - that people would not only do as they were told but would anticipate his needs and further his agenda.
And when he thought he was negotiating in good faith, he never counted on the perfidy of Congress and the nameless, faceless, legion permanent state, M$M, and Big Tech.
He was too disorganied, too naive, and too egocentric to build the kind of organization that he needed to in order to accomplish the lofty goals that he spoke of.
So. I hope that someone will come forward who is BETTER THAN Trump. Not libertarian-streaked idiot governors, not weasely Congressional GOPers, not even Trump himself, but someone who can truly Make America Great Again. It doesn't matter whether they are a Dem or Repub or something else, but someone who has a long-term vision and the smarts to carry it out.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Even if that "someone" existed, the Constitution doesn't have a place, an office, a position for that someone. Congress can do what you want, Signym, but that's 535 people, not one person, who would have to come to an agreement about the tiny details of what MAGA shall be. And since Congress is naturally divided into 50 states that all have different versions of what is great, it is a structural problem getting a veto proof majority of Congress to agree on what MAGA really should be.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
. . . someone who can truly Make America Great Again.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
it is a structural problem getting a veto proof majority of Congress to agree on what MAGA really should be.
I dunno. Democrats seem to be working really hard to make sure that a veto proof majority replaces them in 2022.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There has only been a veto proof majority, where the President is also crosswise with Congress, once. That was after Lincoln was assassinated. The other times when there were veto proof majorities, the President more or less agreed with Congress: after Herbert Hoover got booted out of the White House and after JFK was assassinated. But given enough time, Congress and the White House will get crosswise, even when both are controlled by the same party because the Congressmen from states that were once part of the Confederacy or almost joined the Confederacy (Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Missouri) have distinctly different beliefs about what MAGA means compared to the beliefs of Congressmen from other states.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by second:
it is a structural problem getting a veto proof majority of Congress to agree on what MAGA really should be.
I dunno. Democrats seem to be working really hard to make sure that a veto proof majority replaces them in 2022.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We'll all be much better off when California makes good on its promises and secedes.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You won't be better off if Texas, which talks about seceding, becomes a nation once again. With Pantex building H-bombs in Texas and SpaceX building rockets in Texas, Texas could have its own foreign policy much like North Korea, with its rockets and nukes, has a very different foreign policy than South Korea. America can't get a handle on North Korea and won't be able to get a handle on Texas, once it is a nation.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
We'll all be much better off when California makes good on its promises and secedes.
https://pantex.energy.gov/mission
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If Trump wasn't in the picture, how many Americans would respond to the idea of Make America Great Again?
We already know that 75 million adults like the idea, WITH Trump in the picture.
If the vast majority of Americans are swept up by the idea, the nest of snakes in DC would be cleaned out. (And that includes nearly all Repubs and nearly all Dems. Tulsi Gabbard and Rand Paul are the only exceptions I can think of.)
Now, all we need to do is agree on a limited set of essential policies that most people can agree on.
Some fall under the purview of the President (foreign policy, military policy). Some fall under the purview of Congress (budgeting, taxes, national affairs). Some require both. A few policies might require the involvement of the Supreme Court.
Being a registered Dem, I often get polls/questionnaires about my "priorities". And out of the 15 or so topics that they list, they almost never hit my top 3 or 4.
How can they get it so wrong??
They DO spend a lot of time hand-wringing about "social justice" and "the poor illegal immgrant", tho!
So, how about tossing up some ideas and see which ones survive the withering fire of the hyper-partisanship of this board?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, fellow posters, what are YOUR ideas on how to Make America Great Again?
Please. DON'T MENTION TRUMP. This is about policies, not people.
SECONDRATE: If you can get off your anti-Trump, anti-Republican soapbox for a bit, how about posting some of YOUR recommendations for change? PLEASE, DON'T POST ANYONE ELSE'S OPINION. You hide behind that way too much.
*******
Everyone:
What would it take to Make America Great Again?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I want a mandatory death penalty for a federal official evading more than $100 million in taxes and also for a federal official inciting insurrection while either in or out of office, but I don't think that will get a veto proof majority in Congress because some Congressmen might see that as targeting a specific individual.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECONDRATE: If you can get off your anti-Trump, anti-Republican soapbox for a bit, how about posting some of YOUR recommendations for change? PLEASE, DON'T POST ANYONE ELSE'S OPINION. You hide behind that way too much.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Biden*?
SIGNYM:
SECONDRATE: If you can get off your anti-Trump, anti-Republican soapbox for a bit, how about posting some of YOUR recommendations for change? PLEASE, DON'T POST ANYONE ELSE'S OPINION. You hide behind that way too much.
SECOND: I want a mandatory death penalty for a federal official evading more than $100 million in taxes
Quote:Never happened
and also for a federal official inciting insurrection
Quote:
while either in or out of office, but I don't think that will get a veto proof majority in Congress because some Congressmen might see that as targeting a specific individual.
Well, I guess you don't want a great, united America!
You just can't leave your hate behind, can you?
Maybe you should move someplace else, if you hate America so much.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, what would it take to Make American Great Again?
Anybody here love America enough to set aside their partisanship and hazard a few ideas?
I'll start:
Equal opportunity for everyone. Not "women's rights" or "BLM" or "white rights" ... just EQUAL rights. Because who could NOT be for equal rights, unless you're seeking a position of PRIVILEGE?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
THGR- With your recent flurry of posts, you seem anxious to bury a nonpartisan Make American Great Again movement ...
Obviously, you have a lot of opinions. Do you have any that DON'T involve Trump?
What do YOU think it would take to make America great again?
Any thoughts?
*****
JO753 - you have a whole website of ideas. I've been there and looked at it. Many fine thoughts. Which ones do you think would find support across parties and in the large "independent" group?
*****
SIX, if you can stop thinking about Trump for a bit, what policies does America need to implement that would find broad support?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, what would it take to Make American Great Again?
Anybody here love America enough to set aside their partisanship and hazard a few ideas?
I'll start:
Equal opportunity for everyone. Not "women's rights" or "BLM" or "white rights" ... just EQUAL rights. Because who could NOT be for equal rights, unless you're seeking a position of PRIVILEGE?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
I agree with equal rights for all.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's a good start. It's too bad that it takes a Canadian to stand up for America.
*****
Folks, I don't know what your problem is. This not a trap or grand conspiracy, it's an attempt to find common ground. Unless you see finding common ground as a problem itself?
When Linus Torvalds write the Linux kernel, which was meant to be a non-proprietary version of the various forms of Unix, he gathered up ALL of the commands written for the various kernels, and sifted out any command that did not appear in ALL versions ... no matter how useful they might appear ... as being NON ESSENTIAL. Basically, (for those New Math graduates out there) he generated an INTERSECTING SET, the area where all of the versions overlapped.
If we toss up a number of goals against a wall, we might see where they overlap. It's a brainstorming technique.
Anyone up for brainstorming?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The first version of Linux was Linus Torvalds' work, all alone. Thirty years later, he retains the highest authority to decide which new code is incorporated into the standard Linux kernel. Torvalds holds the "Linux" trademark and monitors the use of it, chiefly through the Linux Mark Institute.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
That's a good start. It's too bad that it takes a Canadian to stand up for America.
*****
Folks, I don't know what your problem is. This not a trap or grand conspiracy, it's an attempt to find common ground. Unless you see finding common ground as a problem itself?
When Linus Torvalds write the Linux kernel, which was meant to be a non-proprietary version of the various forms of Unix, he gathered up ALL of the commands written for the various kernels, and sifted out any command that did not appear in ALL versions ... no matter how useful they might appear ... as being NON ESSENTIAL. Basically, (for those New Math graduates out there) he generated an INTERSECTING SET, the area where all of the versions overlapped.
If we toss up a number of goals against a wall, we might see where they overlap. It's a brainstorming technique.
Anyone up for brainstorming?
A computer operating system is NOT remotely like how the Federal government was built, has operated, could ever function. But if you want to make a list of functions you want government to perform and another list of what you don't want performed, go ahead. Make many lists and file them in a dusty cabinet or dump into a trashcan or post them on the internet. It is all the same, but nothing like Linus Torvalds' Linux, even if you're talking abstractly, not literally.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
WAY TO TROLL! SLOPPY!
Do you not know that Signy's not trying to build a government, or run a government, but trying to DISCUSS IDEAS?
SLOPPY - why do you never start any threads of your own but instead spend 100% of your time crapping up everyone else's? Is it because you really have NOTHING you want to discuss and are only here to troll?
Anyway, that already too much time wasted on you ...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Remove all Innocent people from incarceration. Leave the guilty drug dealers in.
Balance the budget. Spend less than we confiscate in revenue. Then pay down the debt.
Build the wall to end Illegal Alien Invasion, child, drug, and sex trafficking.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signy, I have 2 priorities as you know, because to me they're existential - in other words, related to maintaining our continued existence, or not. One is global warming, the other is nuclear weapons.
I'd say that we need very badly to reform our economic basis, as codified by our laws. From that mutant parent comes a multitude of deformed progeny. IMO principally they are the built-in need for excess, which is environmentally unsustainable; and the social division into the few humongously wealthy and the many economically stunted. Of course there's also government capture by the oligarchs and other vested interests, along with other issues. But, of course that economic reform isn't going to happen.
So, primarily, after the 2 big priorities, I'd say the biggest priority needs to be equality of education. First of all, making sure that everyone knows how to read and write ENGLISH and do basic arithmetic at appropriate grade level; which imo means also MAKING ENGLISH THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE.
But I see this as not just making all the schools offer the same things, but sometimes taking an active role to make up for environments that stunt learning - lack of or poor food, safe places for kids to be when not in class like afterschool care while parents are at work; safe transportation so kids don't have to traverse homeless encampments or gangs; taking away kids phones at the beginning of the day; monitoring their communication to make sure there's no cyber-bullying; of course monitoring their behavior while on the grounds to stop rl bullying; classes in things they NEED to know like how to cook, how to save money, how to do laundry, how to take care of yourself, and so on; and TRADE AND SKILLS SCHOOLS FOR THOSE NOT GOING ON TO COLLEGE, AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE OR 4-YEAR COLLEGE FOR THOSE GOING FURTHER.
Of course better education means better opportunities. But IMO real education will help everyone understand their world better. Once you can read and write and do basic math you have the tools to learn and do more. Once you do that you can see better what's wrong with the country and be a better citizen in this democracy.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Apparently, SECONDRATE is against discussing issues on a discussion board, which he feels should be merely an outlet for his incessant propaganda war, and is afraid of brainstorming because he doesn't want people to think.
Originally posted by second:Quote:The first version of Linux was Linus Torvalds' work, all alone. Thirty years later, he retains the highest authority to decide which new code is incorporated into the standard Linux kernel. Torvalds holds the "Linux" trademark and monitors the use of it, chiefly through the Linux Mark Institute.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
That's a good start. It's too bad that it takes a Canadian to stand up for America.
*****
Folks, I don't know what your problem is. This not a trap or grand conspiracy, it's an attempt to find common ground. Unless you see finding common ground as a problem itself?
When Linus Torvalds write the Linux kernel, which was meant to be a non-proprietary version of the various forms of Unix, he gathered up ALL of the commands written for the various kernels, and sifted out any command that did not appear in ALL versions ... no matter how useful they might appear ... as being NON ESSENTIAL. Basically, (for those New Math graduates out there) he generated an INTERSECTING SET, the area where all of the versions overlapped.
If we toss up a number of goals against a wall, we might see where they overlap. It's a brainstorming technique.
Anyone up for brainstorming?
A computer operating system is NOT remotely like how the Federal government was built, has operated, could ever function. But if you want to make a list of functions you want government to perform and another list of what you don't want performed, go ahead. Make many lists and file them in a dusty cabinet or dump into a trashcan or post them on the internet. It is all the same, but nothing like Linus Torvalds' Linux, even if you're talking abstractly, not literally.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, fellow posters, what are YOUR ideas on how to Make America Great Again?
Please. DON'T MENTION TRUMP. This is about policies, not people.
SECONDRATE: If you can get off your anti-Trump, anti-Republican soapbox for a bit, how about posting some of YOUR recommendations for change? PLEASE, DON'T POST ANYONE ELSE'S OPINION. You hide behind that way too much.
*******
Everyone:
What would it take to Make America Great Again?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
1. Close off the border. 100%. Not necessarily with a wall, but by letting everyone know there is NOTHING here for you if you aren't a citizen. No money, no food, no healthcare, no school. Nothing for any kids either. If you don't have a Social Security Number you are going to starve to death and be solely responsible for your children starving to death if you cross our border.
2. Put a 12 year moratorium on legal immigration, including any and all refugees, until we have time to deport every illegal invader. In 12 years we can revisit the idea of legal immigration.
3. Enforce Section 230 to the full extent. Facebook, Google, YouTube, ect. have until the end of 2021 to decide whether they are a platform or a publisher. Any further breaches and stifling of free speech will be dealt with swiftly and harshly.
4. If you're not a pedophile, rapist, murderer or dealer of hard core drugs that are still illegal, you get discharged from prison immediately. If you spent time for dealing weed, you get back pay for all the years you lost paid for with tax dollars that hypocrites are raking in now with weed sales.
5. STOP rewarding people for their fuck trophies. We should be rewarding people for NOT having kids or only having one or two.
6. Allow every individual to opt out of certain things the Federal Government spends our income taxes on, and put that money in something they are behind. Every single person in America resents where some or most of that money goes. It will be a much easier pill to swallow if they have a say in where it is and isn't spent. (This would almost certainly have the additional benefit of divesting many people from the political turmoil we find ourselves in daily, knowing that even when the assholes you don't agree with are in office, your still contributing to things you agree with and you're not contributing to things you don't agree with... Then the other people can feel the same way about their income taxes when the assholes they don't agree with are running the show).
7. Speaking of money. Show some fucking intelligence before spending it. There is nothing more wasteful of resources in the entire history of the world than the American Government.
That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there's a lot more I could come up with.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Convicts are in jail because they've been found (or pled) guilty of SOMETHING. On what grounds would you release some convicts?
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Remove all Innocent people from incarceration. Leave the guilty drug dealers in.
This is especially difficult bc prosecutors will often reduce a charge in order to get a conviction, so someone guilty of (say) murder will be charged with manslaughter, and some guilty of dealing will be charged with possession.
Quote:what spending would you reduce? Or would you raise taxes? If so, on who? Or both?
Balance the budget. Spend less than we confiscate in revenue. Then pay down the debt.
Quote:Seems simple enough. What about those already here? Mass deportations?
Build the wall to end Illegal Alien Invasion, child, drug, and sex trafficking.
Interesting thoughts, curious how you would implement them
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Women cross the border to have children here, who then - by grace of the 14th Amendment - automatically become citizens. Then the cry becomes to "unite the family" = "chained migration".
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
1. Close off the border. 100%. Not necessarily with a wall, but by letting everyone know there is NOTHING here for you if you aren't a citizen. No money, no food, no healthcare, no school. Nothing for any kids either. If you don't have a Social Security Number you are going to starve to death and be solely responsible for your children starving to death if you cross our border.
No border is SO tight that you will prevent that. What do you do about that, if anything?
Also, it's apparently very easy to illegally obtain a SSN.
And what kind of penalties would you have on businesses and individuals who hire illegals? Because you say "no money", which must mean "no jobs".
Quote:Immigration quotas were very low from 1924-1965.
2. Put a 12 year moratorium on legal immigration, including any and all refugees, until we have time to deport every illegal invader. In 12 years we can revisit the idea of legal immigration.
Quote:Yes, but ... what if social media decides to forgo section 230 safety net and declare itself as publisher? There goes a lot of the current platform that people can access... POOF! The google, FB, Twitter etc will all be like CNN, MSNBC, NYT etc. And I don't see THEM sticking to the truth, so there's no penalty for being extremely biased AND being a publisher at the same time.
3. Enforce Section 230 to the full extent. Facebook, Google, YouTube, ect. have until the end of 2021 to decide whether they are a platform or a publisher. Any further breaches and stifling of free speech will be dealt with swiftly and harshly.
Quote:I guess "drug crimes" is where you and JSF agree.
4. If you're not a pedophile, rapist, murderer or dealer of hard core drugs that are still illegal, you get discharged from prison immediately. If you spent time for dealing weed, you get back pay for all the years you lost paid for with tax dollars that hypocrites are raking in now with weed sales.
So OOC, what is the thinking behind this?
Plus, having worked in the "regulatory" arena, writing a law that would separate "hard core" from other drugs and "dealers" from users would be difficult. It could be done, but it's complicated. For example, Andeans used to chew coca leaves as a stimulant to counteract the altitude and cold. You might get a somewhat bigger buzz than a couple cups of espresso, but it's not something to get addicted to. But concentrate the same chemical, make it volatile by adding a base, and then breathing it in all at once and your brain gets an enormous "hit" that it often continues to crave. So "hardcore" isn't just defined by chemistry but also by concentration and form: injectables and inhalables are more potent than forms taken by mouth. And then separating "dealers" from users would have to be by both quantity AND concentration.
Quote:No more tax breaks, welfare, EIC etc for more than one or two children, correct?
5. STOP rewarding people for their fuck trophies. We should be rewarding people for NOT having kids or only having one or two.
Quote:
6. Allow every individual to opt out of certain things the Federal Government spends our income taxes on, and put that money in something they are behind. Every single person in America resents where some or most of that money goes. It will be a much easier pill to swallow if they have a say in where it is and isn't spent. (This would almost certainly have the additional benefit of divesting many people from the political turmoil we find ourselves in daily, knowing that even when the assholes you don't agree with are in office, your still contributing to things you agree with and you're not contriNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, this is a brainstorming session, so don't let "never gonna happen" stop you from posting it as a goalbc, frankly, NONE of what we posit is going to happen!
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Signy, I have 2 priorities as you know, because to me they're existential - in other words, related to maintaining our continued existence, or not. One is global warming, the other is nuclear weapons.
I'd say that we need very badly to reform our economic basis, as codified by our laws. From that mutant parent comes a multitude of deformed progeny. IMO principally they are the built-in need for excess, which is environmentally unsustainable; and the social division into the few humongously wealthy and the many economically stunted. Of course there's also government capture by the oligarchs and other vested interests, along with other issues. But, of course that economic reform isn't going to happen.
Quote:You see schools stepping in an acting "in loco parentis", especially when parents are falling down on the job. Seen bad parenting often as a result of poverty, alcoholism (or other drug addiction) and mental illness.
So, primarily, after the 2 big priorities, I'd say the biggest priority needs to be equality of education. First of all, making sure that everyone knows how to read and write ENGLISH and do basic arithmetic at appropriate grade level; which imo means also MAKING ENGLISH THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE.
But I see this as not just making all the schools offer the same things, but sometimes taking an active role to make up for environments that stunt learning - lack of or poor food, safe places for kids to be when not in class like afterschool care while parents are at work; safe transportation so kids don't have to traverse homeless encampments or gangs; taking away kids phones at the beginning of the day; monitoring their communication to make sure there's no cyber-bullying; of course monitoring their behavior while on the grounds to stop rl bullying; classes in things they NEED to know like how to cook, how to save money, how to do laundry, how to take care of yourself, and so on; and TRADE AND SKILLS SCHOOLS FOR THOSE NOT GOING ON TO COLLEGE, AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE OR 4-YEAR COLLEGE FOR THOSE GOING FURTHER.
Of course better education means better opportunities. But IMO real education will help everyone understand their world better. Once you can read and write and do basic math you have the tools to learn and do more. Once you do that you can see better what's wrong with the country and be a better citizen in this democracy.
The problem with putting government in charge of raising generations of children is that you risk government telling kids not only HOW to think but WHAT to think.
Ideally, students would become capable, thoughtful and independent actors who could navigate their way thru a complex economic, social and political environment, but you would more likely create Clean, Hardworking, Right-thinking Citizens, or Snowflake Social Justice Warriors, or whatever the meme of the day is.
There is no class that I know of called "How to think 101", but there should be. However, many students who've taken either debate or rhetoric have said it was transformative. Maybe something like that should be part of the curriculum, for those who have the mental chops to grasp it. (Not everyone does.)
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, I'm not really proposing in loco parentis - except maybe when it comes to good meals. But there are many environmental and situational things neither parents nor schools have control over - bad neighborhoods for example. Getting kids safely to and from school is an issue. It used to be kids were just dodging gangs, now it's also homeless encampments. And home neighborhoods are another situational difference. With schools ending WAY before a normal workday does, maybe schools could provide a safe place for kids to be until the parents come home. When it comes to cell phones, why should kids have them in school anyway? When it comes to on-campus behavior, why shouldn't schools have an enforced no-bullying behavior code? Maybe schools should also have uniforms and dress codes as well. And maybe segregated the sexes in classes.
Kids need to be able to come to school and learn.
There are big differences between let's say Pasadena schools and Compton schools. There are physical differences like AC and clean campuses; and educational differences like range and depth of classes, class size, learning opportunities, and so on. So, if we make the schools themselves equal, that's a really good start.
But there are other differences between the kids in one school system and the other like safe ways to get to school, good nutrition, safe places to play, and the presence or absence of an adult in the house when the kids are at home. That's something the schools COULD provide to help narrow the gap between one place and the other. They can help reduce the environmental stress and chaos so that kids can learn.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Women cross the border to have children here, who then - by grace of the 14th Amendment - automatically become citizens. Then the cry becomes to "unite the family" = "chained migration".
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
1. Close off the border. 100%. Not necessarily with a wall, but by letting everyone know there is NOTHING here for you if you aren't a citizen. No money, no food, no healthcare, no school. Nothing for any kids either. If you don't have a Social Security Number you are going to starve to death and be solely responsible for your children starving to death if you cross our border.
No border is SO tight that you will prevent that. What do you do about that, if anything?
Time to close that loophole. No anchor babies, period.
Quote:
Also, it's apparently very easy to illegally obtain a SSN.
And what kind of penalties would you have on businesses and individuals who hire illegals? Because you say "no money", which must mean "no jobs".
No money means no jobs. You get one slap on the wrist. After that, you're fined out of existence, no matter how big or small you are.
Quote:Quote:Immigration quotas were very low from 1924-1965.
2. Put a 12 year moratorium on legal immigration, including any and all refugees, until we have time to deport every illegal invader. In 12 years we can revisit the idea of legal immigration.
Full ban on it until we rid ourselves of the problem. We can blame it on the invaders and make people from other countries hate them too.
Quote:Quote:Yes, but ... what if social media decides to forgo section 230 safety net and declare itself as publisher? There goes a lot of the current platform that people can access... POOF! The google, FB, Twitter etc will all be like CNN, MSNBC, NYT etc. And I don't see THEM sticking to the truth, so there's no penalty for being extremely biased AND being a publisher at the same time.
3. Enforce Section 230 to the full extent. Facebook, Google, YouTube, ect. have until the end of 2021 to decide whether they are a platform or a publisher. Any further breaches and stifling of free speech will be dealt with swiftly and harshly.
I'm fine with them going publisher. They've already done that anyhow, but they're not being punished for it and they get the protections that should be reserved only for platforms.
There will be other platforms that grow up and take their place.
The worst thing we could ever do is repeal 230. We just need to enforce it.
Quote:Quote:I guess "drug crimes" is where you and JSF agree.
4. If you're not a pedophile, rapist, murderer or dealer of hard core drugs that are still illegal, you get discharged from prison immediately. If you spent time for dealing weed, you get back pay for all the years you lost paid for with tax dollars that hypocrites are raking in now with weed sales.
So OOC, what is the thinking behind this?
We disagree. He would love to see pot dealers in prison for the rest of their lives.
My stance is, if the government makes a drug legal to sell and use, than those people need to be taken out of prison and made whole. Both the dealers and the users.
Quote:
Plus, having worked in the "regulatory" arena, writing a law that would separate "hard core" from other drugs and "dealers" from users would be difficult. It could be done, but it's complicated. For example, Andeans used to chew coca leaves as a stimulant to counteract the altitude and cold. You might get a somewhat bigger buzz than a couple cups of espresso, but it's not something to get addicted to. But concentrate the same chemical, make it volatile by adding a base, and then breathing it in all at once and your brain gets an enormous "hit" that it often continues to crave. So "hardcore" isn't just defined by chemistry but alsoNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:The way this was brought up was to have a form on the end of your tax form in which you could specify what % of your tax dollar would go to what programs. I like the idea: vote with our dollars. Direct democracy.
6. Allow every individual to opt out of certain things the Federal Government spends our income taxes on, and put that money in something they are behind. Every single person in America resents where some or most of that money goes. It will be a much easier pill to swallow if they have a say in where it is and isn't spent. (This would almost certainly have the additional benefit of divesting many people from the political turmoil we find ourselves in daily, knowing that even when the assholes you don't agree with are in office, your still contributing to things you agree with and you're not contributing to things you don't agree with... Then the other people can feel the same way about their income taxes when the assholes they don't agree with are running the show).
Quote:That new tax schedule is an annual plebiscite which nullifies what government can do for people you do NOT like.
Yeah. A lot of people probably won't care enough to fill it out, so it could be a new schedule that can be attached to your 1040.
This idea probably shouldn't have been so far down the list. I think it might be the best one here.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You get to fill it out too, dipshit.
Feel free to give your money away to people who don't earn it.
I'll be putting it toward keeping illegal alien invaders out of the country.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How people fill in the form would certainly be a direct vote on how they view the essential functions of government.
Unfortunately, knowing how Congress and bureaucrats like to protect their turf, there would prolly not be such a finely-divided form that you could ask for (say) 100% of your tax dollar to go to border protection and deportation of aliens. It would prolly be listed as Homeland Security, and used to surveil "white nationalist" groups and to fund the FBI.
Unless, maybe, there were a fill-in-the-blank categories where you could name the department or division where your money would go to? But even then, tho, it wouldn't guarantee that the money would be spent in ways that you would approve. Let's say that you would name your preferred agency as "US Customs and Border Protection". The funds might be used to build posh temporary housing and "welecome" programs for illegal aliens.
Sigh.
I like the idea, but the only way to get the money spent in ways that you want is to twist Congress' and the President's arms.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
JSF, still hoping for more details on your ideas.
Quote:Seems simple enough. What about those already here? Mass deportations?
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Convicts are in jail because they've been found (or pled) guilty of SOMETHING. On what grounds would you release some convicts?
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Remove all Innocent people from incarceration. Leave the guilty drug dealers in.
This is especially difficult bc prosecutors will often reduce a charge in order to get a conviction, so someone guilty of (say) murder will be charged with manslaughter, and some guilty of dealing will be charged with possession.Quote:what spending would you reduce? Or would you raise taxes? If so, on who? Or both?
Balance the budget. Spend less than we confiscate in revenue. Then pay down the debt.Quote:
Build the wall to end Illegal Alien Invasion, child, drug, and sex trafficking.
Interesting thoughts, curious how you would implement them
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
How people fill in the form would certainly be a direct vote on how they view the essential functions of government.
Unfortunately, knowing how Congress and bureaucrats like to protect their turf, there would prolly not be such a finely-divided form that you could ask for (say) 100% of your tax dollar to go to border protection and deportation of aliens. It would prolly be listed as Homeland Security, and used to surveil "white nationalist" groups and to fund the FBI.
Unless, maybe, there were a fill-in-the-blank categories where you could name the department or division where your money would go to? But even then, tho, it wouldn't guarantee that the money would be spent in ways that you would approve. Let's say that you would name your preferred agency as "US Customs and Border Protection". The funds might be used to build posh temporary housing and "welecome" programs for illegal aliens.
Sigh.
I like the idea, but the only way to get the money spent in ways that you want is to twist Congress' and the President's arms.
Oh... We know this all would never happen. Just think of the red tape. You'd probably end up having 10 or 20 thousand different things after you put all the sub-categories in there to make everyone happy. It would end up being the most complex form most people would ever fill out in their lives.
And even if they did it, unless there was full transparency with government spending going forward, who would believe that they were even following your wishes anyhow?
I sure wouldn't trust them.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Some people distrust Congress enough to threaten Congress. The Capitol police expect to investigate 10,000 threats against Congress by the end of this year. Two years ago it was only 6,000 threats. A government function that has not been mentioned until now: protect the government from assassination. It's not just the President and V.P. needing protection nowadays.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
And even if they did it, unless there was full transparency with government spending going forward, who would believe that they were even following your wishes anyhow?
I sure wouldn't trust them.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/09/30/lawmakers-threats-capit
ol-norma-torres-todd-dnt-tsr-vpx.cnn
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SECOND:Quote:Some people distrust Congress enough to threaten Congress. The Capitol police expect to investigate 10,000 threats against Congress by the end of this year. Two years ago it was only 6,000 threats. A government function that has not been mentioned until now: protect the government from assassination. It's not just the President and V.P. needing protection nowadays.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
And even if they did it, unless there was full transparency with government spending going forward, who would believe that they were even following your wishes anyhow?
I sure wouldn't trust them.
I'm confused. Are you judging?
I'm just wondering because I have death threats from you to Donald Trump archived.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No money handouts from the government as soon as the complete their invasion across the border. No money handouts from the government for food stamps. No money handouts from the government for unemployment. No money handouts from the government for tax refunds and EIC. No money handouts from governemtn for medical care, or school programs, etc. No government money from government to Illegal Aliens - why so hard for you to understand?
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Women cross the border to have children here, who then - by grace of the 14th Amendment - automatically become citizens. Then the cry becomes to "unite the family" = "chained migration".
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
1. Close off the border. 100%. Not necessarily with a wall, but by letting everyone know there is NOTHING here for you if you aren't a citizen. No money, no food, no healthcare, no school. Nothing for any kids either. If you don't have a Social Security Number you are going to starve to death and be solely responsible for your children starving to death if you cross our border.
No border is SO tight that you will prevent that. What do you do about that, if anything?
Also, it's apparently very easy to illegally obtain a SSN.
And what kind of penalties would you have on businesses and individuals who hire illegals? Because you say "no money", which must mean "no jobs".
Quote:What kind of drugs are you high on?Quote:Immigration quotas were very low from 1924-1965.
2. Put a 12 year moratorium on legal immigration, including any and all refugees, until we have time to deport every illegal invader. In 12 years we can revisit the idea of legal immigration.Quote:Yes, but ... what if social media decides to forgo section 230 safety net and declare itself as publisher? There goes a lot of the current platform that people can access... POOF! The google, FB, Twitter etc will all be like CNN, MSNBC, NYT etc. And I don't see THEM sticking to the truth, so there's no penalty for being extremely biased AND being a publisher at the same time.
3. Enforce Section 230 to the full extent. Facebook, Google, YouTube, ect. have until the end of 2021 to decide whether they are a platform or a publisher. Any further breaches and stifling of free speech will be dealt with swiftly and harshly.Quote:I guess "drug crimes" is where you and JSF agree.
4. If you're not a pedophile, rapist, murderer or dealer of hard core drugs that are still illegal, you get discharged from prison immediately. If you spent time for dealing weed, you get back pay for all the years you lost paid for with tax dollars that hypocrites are raking in now with weed sales.
I fairly clearly stated to leave all of the drug criminals incarcerated - they belong there, whereas innocent people do not belong there.
6ix wants not only all drug criminals to walk free, but also for the government to encourage them to commit mor4 crimes, and also for the government to pay for them to commit more crimes, because of all of the criminal activity they have been missing out on.
Those are pretty much polar opposites on the subject.
Quote:
So OOC, what is the thinking behind this?
Plus, having worked in the "regulatory" arena, writing a law that would separate "hard core" from other drugs and "dealers" from users would be difficult. It could be done, but it's complicated. For example, Andeans used to chew coca leaves as a stimulant to counteract the altitude and cold. You might get a somewhat bigger buzz than a couple cups of espresso, but it's not something to get addicted to. But concentrate the same chemical, make it volatile by adding a base, and then breathing it in all at once and your brain gets an enormous "hit" that it often continues to crave. So "hardcore" isn't just defined by chemistry but also by concentration and form: injectables and inhalables are morNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The grounds of being proven innocent.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Convicts are in jail because they've been found (or pled) guilty of SOMETHING. On what grounds would you release some convicts?
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Remove all Innocent people from incarceration. Leave the guilty drug dealers in.
Why keep Joe Byran in Texas prison? Convicted in 1989.
Ben Spenser was released 8 years after being proven innocent. All of the innocent who are currently waiting that time can be released now. Today. No need for him to remain in prison an extra 8 years, nor others in the same boat.
Quote:Stop dividing. It is easier to get folk to agree to balance the budget. By dividing up the details, the coalition breaks up. Some want less spending. Some want more taxes, some want other things. just balance th4e budget first.Quote:what spending would you reduce? Or would you raise taxes? If so, on who? Or both?
Balance the budget. Spend less than we confiscate in revenue. Then pay down the debt.
My preference would be to cut spending, to the levels of the FY 2006 budget, more or less. That was the last unbloated budget.
Quote:Close the border first. Concentrate on that. Don't get distracted.Quote:Seems simple enough. What about those already here? Mass deportations?
Build the wall to end Illegal Alien Invasion, child, drug, and sex trafficking.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:1) Joe Bryan Released on Parole March 31, 2020
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The grounds of being proven innocent.
Why keep Joe Byran[sic] in Texas prison? Convicted in 1989.
Ben Spenser[sic] was released 8 years after being proven innocent. All of the innocent who are currently waiting that time can be released now. Today. No need for him to remain in prison an extra 8 years, nor others in the same boat.
https://innocencetexas.org/news/joe-bryan-released-on-parole-march-31-
2020
2) Ben Spencer was released on March 12, 2021. Now his case goes back to Texas’ Court of Criminal Appeals which will decide whether to vacate his conviction.
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/austin/news/2021/03/25/-they-knew-he-
didn-t-do-it---benjamine-spencer-s-mother-speaks-out
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
6IX4. If you're not a pedophile, rapist, murderer or dealer of hard core drugs that are still illegal, you get discharged from prison immediately. If you spent time for dealing weed, you get back pay for all the years you lost paid for with tax dollars that hypocrites are raking in now with weed sales.
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I guess "drug crimes" is where you and JSF agree.
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
What kind of drugs are you high on?
I fairly clearly stated to leave all of the drug criminals incarcerated - they belong there, whereas innocent people do not belong there.
6ix wants not only all drug criminals to walk free, but also for the government to encourage them to commit mor4 crimes, and also for the government to pay for them to commit more crimes, because of all of the criminal activity they have been missing out on.
Those are pretty much polar opposites on the subject.
Lie.
I want ONLY drug "criminals" to walk and be made whole for for either dealing or possession that the state they live in has now made legal, and for which they are making INSANE amounts of tax dollars on a product they wrongfully criminalized until they figured out they could stuff their pockets with cash by selling it themselves.
As far as I know, that's only weed. Has California legalized Meth yet?
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Make America great again by ending the War on Drugs. It has been done successfully elsewhere:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
As far as I know, that's only weed. Has California legalized Meth yet?
Want to Win the War on Drugs? Portugal Might Have the Answer. In 2001, Portugal took a radical step. It became the first country in the world to decriminalize the consumption of all drugs. Portugal has showed that, without spending significant sums, governments can give drug users the tools to put their lives back on track. But to do so, it will have to stop treating them like criminals.
https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalization/
Oregon Just Decriminalized All Drugs – Here's Why Voters Passed This Groundbreaking Reform. Possessing heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and other drugs for personal use is no longer a criminal offense in Oregon.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2020-12-10/oregon-jus
t-decriminalized-all-drugs-heres-why-voters-passed-this-groundbreaking-reform
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
lol
Good luck with that.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Fewer prisoners would be an improvement. Fewer nukes would also MAGA. Good luck with that.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
lol
Good luck with that.
As of July 2021, the United States had the highest number of incarcerated individuals worldwide, with almost 2.1 million people in prison.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/262961/countries-with-the-most-pri
soners/
Here are the 10 countries with the most nuclear weapons:
Russia (6,490)
United States (6,185)
France (300)
China (290)
United Kingdom (200)
Pakistan (160)
India (140)
Israel (90)
North Korea (30)
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nuclear-weapons-by-
country
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Unlike fewer prisoners and nukes, I don't agree that legalizing all drugs would be a good idea.
That's a dumb, white, Liberal stance.
You've obviously never been around meth or heroin addicts in your life. You should probably shut the fuck up because you don't know what you're talking about.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
JSF, I misunderstood your post. what threw me off was this ...
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN
Leave the guilty drug dealers in.
Since both dealing AND possession are a crime, I thought you were making that distinction and treating them separately. My bad.
Quote:This should be a no-brainer. But since there are very few proven innocent people currently in jail, is this really one of the big problems facing America? How would this Make America Great Again?
Remove all Innocent people from incarceration.
Quote:OK, maybe we should just start with a show of hands: How many people want to balance the budget?
Balance the budget. Spend less than we confiscate in revenue. Then pay down the debt.
And, since it is unlikely to happen all at once, how fast should this happen?
I suppose we can wrangle aferwards about how this should be done.
FWIW, in general I'm for balancing the the budget.
Quote:Maybe we don't need a wall everywhere, but we should definitley control our border.
Build the wall to end Illegal Alien Invasion, child, drug, and sex trafficking.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If a household "balanced the budget", it could NOT borrow for a house, which is a worthwhile project in my opinion. "Balancing the budget" also means a household could not get a payday loan for a Vegas vacation, a worthless project, maybe even harmful in my opinion.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:OK, maybe we should just start with a show of hands: How many people want to balance the budget?
Balance the budget. Spend less than we confiscate in revenue. Then pay down the debt.
And, since it is unlikely to happen all at once, how fast should this happen?
I suppose we can wrangle aferwards about how this should be done.
FWIW, in general I'm for balancing the the budget.
Switching from a household to the Federal level, if Congress will be borrowing for worthless projects, Congress needs a balanced budget. But if Congress is wise enough to fund mostly worthwhile projects, then Congress does NOT need a balanced budget.
If Congress can't distinguish between worthwhile v worthless projects, America has bigger problems than being for/against a balanced budget and zero National Debt.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Second's right about that one.
Like I said before, nothing in the history of the entire world has ever been as wasteful of resources than the American Government.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So while in general I think government should run a balanced budget, I think there should be exceptions.
And, no, not to protect the banks from their excesses and to make the rich richer.
So OOC when -if ever- should a government spend in deficit, and why? (If ever)
If not, why not?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think it's alright if it's in sound investments.
I'm not talking about the stock market or other speculatory bullshit.
I'm on board with debt for things like infrastructure and research and development for alternatives to petrol for energy. Not only are these things that would improve the lives of Americans for generations to come, but it would also kick back constant and predictable tax revenues.
The problem is all the earmarks and pork they pass.
Here's one I know I mentioned before, but forgot to put it on my list above...
Termination of bundling shit together. Every single thing that ever gets passed is voted on individually and on its own merit.
All they do now is barter for shit they want with OUR money. That's why nobody is happy with how the money is spent and why Congress always has approval ratings in the low double digits no matter who's in control.
P.S. Let's stop "fixing" the roads with the ancient bullshit we first built them with too. We have the technology to pave a road that wouldn't need to be fixed for 50 years, but we never use it because it would hurt the Unions.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To revisit a previously raised topic - I agree we need to control our borders, like every other country on the planet wants to control their own borders.
I also think that if you can't bothered to be a US citizen, then the governments at any level have no business treating you like one. That means no schools for your kids, no welfare, no healthcare, etc.
The first I think is maybe not the absolutely most vital thing to do (nuclear weapons and global warming are at the top of my list) but it's important.
The second is a matter of basic fairness to the people who are citizens.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not me. Every entity needs to take out loans for large but worthwhile investments. Another point - the government isn't a business and it shouldn't be thought of as if it was in the same category as one, needing to somehow show a profit, or at least not a loss. The government is the only entity that looks after the 'public good' (in theory, that's its job imo). That puts it in a category unlike any other category doing things not done by any other entity.
How many people want to balance the budget?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Write 50 bills, each bill very simple because the bill is targeting one state. Those 50 bills will get votes mainly from Congressmen of 1 state and the 50 bills will not pass. Write 1 bill, targeting 50 states, which will be a very long and complicated bill to write. That bill will get votes from Congressmen in many states, which might be enough to pass.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
The problem is all the earmarks and pork they pass.
Here's one I know I mentioned before, but forgot to put it on my list above...
Termination of bundling shit together. Every single thing that ever gets passed is voted on individually and on its own merit.
All they do now is barter for shit they want with OUR money. That's why nobody is happy with how the money is spent and why Congress always has approval ratings in the low double digits no matter who's in control.
Your choice is to make bills short, simple, easy to understand, and unlikely to pass because the other 49 states' Congressmen aren't interested in your dull problems or paying for your stupid solutions. Or write long and complicated bills that might have something another state's Congressmen want enough to give you what you want for your state.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The percentage of shit they read that they pass is even less than the Congressional approval rating.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:Quote:The government is the only entity that looks after the 'public good' (in theory, that's its job imo).
How many people want to balance the budget?
No. That's not it's job.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:SECOND. unfortunately your argument and SIX's "fix" to the budget process are easily gotten around, and it's called "logrolling", where individual Congresspeople simply trade votes: "You vote for my pork and Ill vote for yours".
6IXSTRINGJACK:
The problem is all the earmarks and pork they pass.
Here's one I know I mentioned before, but forgot to put it on my list above...
Termination of bundling shit together. Every single thing that ever gets passed is voted on individually and on its own merit.
All they do now is barter for shit they want with OUR money. That's why nobody is happy with how the money is spent and why Congress always has approval ratings in the low double digits no matter who's in control.
SECOND: Write 50 bills, each bill very simple because the bill is targeting one state. Those 50 bills will get votes mainly from Congressmen of 1 state and the 50 bills will not pass. Write 1 bill, targeting 50 states, which will be a very long and complicated bill to write. That bill will get votes from Congressmen in many states, which might be enough to pass.
Your choice is to make bills short, simple, easy to understand, and unlikely to pass because the other 49 states' Congressmen aren't interested in your dull problems or paying for your stupid solutions. Or write long and complicated bills that might have something another state's Congressmen want enough to give you what you want for your state.
Admittedly more difficult when talking about several hundred different individuals, but still do-able.
To some extent, Congresspeople are voting their district's/state's pocketbook, not for the general welfare of the country, so they can go back to their (wealthier) backers back home and say = "See, I brought six contracts for military weapons systems" or "See, I brought UBI for the next six months".
Nobody is thinking, or voting for, long-term national priorities. In this case, it's an issue with how Congress is constructed, since each Congressperson is beholden to their district's/ state's contributors.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:SECOND. unfortunately your argument and SIX's "fix" to the budget process are easily gotten around, and it's called "logrolling", where individual Congresspeople simply trade votes: "You vote for my pork and Ill vote for yours".
6IXSTRINGJACK:
The problem is all the earmarks and pork they pass.
Here's one I know I mentioned before, but forgot to put it on my list above...
Termination of bundling shit together. Every single thing that ever gets passed is voted on individually and on its own merit.
All they do now is barter for shit they want with OUR money. That's why nobody is happy with how the money is spent and why Congress always has approval ratings in the low double digits no matter who's in control.
SECOND: Write 50 bills, each bill very simple because the bill is targeting one state. Those 50 bills will get votes mainly from Congressmen of 1 state and the 50 bills will not pass. Write 1 bill, targeting 50 states, which will be a very long and complicated bill to write. That bill will get votes from Congressmen in many states, which might be enough to pass.
Your choice is to make bills short, simple, easy to understand, and unlikely to pass because the other 49 states' Congressmen aren't interested in your dull problems or paying for your stupid solutions. Or write long and complicated bills that might have something another state's Congressmen want enough to give you what you want for your state.
This would still be an improvement from the way it's currently done.
At least we'd know that people were reading the damn things before passing them.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Government's job as stated in the Constitution: ... form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity ...
I don't have a problem with that. The writers of the Constitution recognized that government had a job looking after the country as a whole, doing things that individuals, states, and businesses couldn't do. They seemed to intuitively grasp that there was a thing such as the common good, that Amartya Sen would later call the 'public good'.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You and Amartya Sen are wrong.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The purpose and function of Federal government is not "public good"
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So while in general I think government should run a balanced budget, I think there should be exceptions.
And, no, not to protect the banks from their excesses and to make the rich richer.
So OOC when -if ever- should a government spend in deficit, and why? (If ever)
If not, why not?
There is no excuse in the past 15 years for having any deficit.
To attempt to thwart the unstoppable Nazi war machine, and the Imperial Japanese, is a worthwhile reason. Of course, Sigs and kiki will object to
this, demanding nothing be spent until the gestapo are at their doorstep. And then they will merely want funding for everybody to speak German.
If 50 spending bills do not pass, that is not a problem. That is a good start.
Government needs to be reduced. Government is a parasite, a succubus on the economy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You claim lie, and then you repeat what I just posted.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
6IX4. If you're not a pedophile, rapist, murderer or dealer of hard core drugs that are still illegal, you get discharged from prison immediately. If you spent time for dealing weed, you get back pay for all the years you lost paid for with tax dollars that hypocrites are raking in now with weed sales.Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I guess "drug crimes" is where you and JSF agree.Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
What kind of drugs are you high on?
I fairly clearly stated to leave all of the drug criminals incarcerated - they belong there, whereas innocent people do not belong there.
6ix wants not only all drug criminals to walk free, but also for the government to encourage them to commit mor4 crimes, and also for the government to pay for them to commit more crimes, because of all of the criminal activity they have been missing out on.
Those are pretty much polar opposites on the subject.
Lie.
I want ONLY drug "criminals" to walk and be made whole for for either dealing or possession
Criminals saw a crime to commit. Criminals perpetrated those crimes. Criminals were convicted.
You stated that you want the criminals to roam free. And also, to be paid, by the state, for all of the lost time that they could have been committing more crimes. And also to now go forth and commit more crimes.
I don't agree with that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:You claim lie, and then you repeat what I just posted.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
6IX4. If you're not a pedophile, rapist, murderer or dealer of hard core drugs that are still illegal, you get discharged from prison immediately. If you spent time for dealing weed, you get back pay for all the years you lost paid for with tax dollars that hypocrites are raking in now with weed sales.Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I guess "drug crimes" is where you and JSF agree.Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
What kind of drugs are you high on?
I fairly clearly stated to leave all of the drug criminals incarcerated - they belong there, whereas innocent people do not belong there.
6ix wants not only all drug criminals to walk free, but also for the government to encourage them to commit mor4 crimes, and also for the government to pay for them to commit more crimes, because of all of the criminal activity they have been missing out on.
Those are pretty much polar opposites on the subject.
Lie.
I want ONLY drug "criminals" to walk and be made whole for for either dealing or possession that the state they live in has now made legal, and for which they are making INSANE amounts of tax dollars on a product they wrongfully criminalized until they figured out they could stuff their pockets with cash by selling it themselves.
As far as I know, that's only weed. Has California legalized Meth yet?
Criminals saw a crime to commit. Criminals perpetrated those crimes. Criminals were convicted.
You stated that you want the criminals to roam free. And also, to be paid, by the state, for all of the lost time that they could have been committing more crimes. And also to now go forth and commit more crimes.
I don't agree with that.
You're either lying by omission or you don't know how to read.
Care to try again?
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Government's job as stated in the Constitution: ... form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity ...
That is the function of the federal government, as envisioned by the writers of the Constitution.
... form a more perfect union is the reason to have a federal government at all, instead of a collections of independent states.
... establish justice is one reason to have a Constitution, to establish uniform justice across the country, because justice that isn't uniform isn't justice.
... insure domestic tranquility which is for states to interact peaceably with each other without border wars, and to quell rebellion.
... provide for the common defense is straightforward, which means to repel invaders.
... promote the general welfare can be stated in other terms as promote the common good.
... secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity ... should be self-evident.
The Constitution is more than just about having a national defense.
If the writers of the Constitution didn't think that the focus of the government was the benefit to the people as a whole, they would never have included this aim of the Constitution or written up the Bill of Rights. They would have merely set up a framework for independent states to negotiate defending against invaders, and left it at that. 95% of the Constitution would never have been written in the first place. Obviously looking at the Constitution as a whole, the goals for the Constitution were larger and more encompassing than coordinating repelling invaders.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Calling it "Public Good" is an intentional misnomer with incorrect connotations attached to it.
It makes stupid people believe that the Federal Government's role is beyond the scope of what it really is.
YOU might not be stupid enough to be manipulated by it, but perhaps you are stupid enough not to understand that.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
general welfare
general - not anyone or anything or any group particularity, but overall
accustomed
broad
commonplace
familiar
generic
humdrum
natural
normal
ordinary
prevailing
public
regular
routine
universal
conventional
customary
everyday
extensive
habitual
inclusive
matter-of-course
popular
prevalent
run-of-the-mill
typical
uneventful
usual
wide
widespread
wonted
welfare - benefit, good, well being
benefit
health
interest
progress
well-being
abundance
advantage
contentment
ease
euphoria
felicity
good
happiness
luck
pogey
profit
satisfaction
success
east street
good fortune
thriving
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think the issue is that we recognize that so much harm has been done with (stated) "good intentions". R2P. Human rights. BLM. Public good.
So one question is: what is the BEST way to "promote the general welfare"? Does it ... should it ... mean government stepping in to do for people what people should be able to do for themselves, while at the same time promoting a system of economic parasitism by monopolies and banks?
Or should it mean that government creates an environment where people are rewarded for production and service, and which steps in to create a robust infrastructure, and actively invests in its people and environment? (And takes care of those who can't take care of themselves.)
As you know, I'm not a libertarian or a "neo-liberal" (should be called "post-liberal) ideologue so that's not what I'm proposing.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think the equation needs to be broken 'corporate good = public good'.
ETA: that's the lie being used as a fig leaf a fair bit for what the government is doing, along with RUSSIA!!!CHINA!!!, RTP, and national security.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I think the issue is that we recognize that so much harm has been done with (stated) "good intentions". R2P. Human rights. BLM. Public good.
She gets it.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Intentions are like a compass. If they're truly good, then if one gets blown off course in implementing those good intentions - as demonstrated by poor results - one changes course to steer back in the right direction.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I think the issue is that we recognize that so much harm has been done with (stated) "good intentions". R2P. Human rights. BLM. Public good.
I believe one can judge intentions by results. And if the poor results aren't matching the stated good intentions over time, then the stated intentions were never the real intentions. They were just an PR stunt to cover up something else.
So "R2P. Human rights. BLM. Public good." Pfffft! They're not as claimed.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So does she.
SIGNYM:
I think the issue is that we recognize that so much harm has been done with (stated) "good intentions". R2P. Human rights. BLM. Public good.
SIX: She gets it.
KIKI: I think the equation needs to be broken 'corporate good = public good'.
Altho there is another dimension besides profit, and that is power. As business craves profit (and mind-fucking people) government craves authoritarianism (oh, and also mind-fucking people).
We may be a little fuzzy around the edges, but I think we're in substantial agreement here.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:So does she.
SIGNYM:
I think the issue is that we recognize that so much harm has been done with (stated) "good intentions". R2P. Human rights. BLM. Public good.
SIX: She gets it.
KIKI: I think the equation needs to be broken 'corporate good = public good'.
Altho there is another dimension besides profit, and that is power. As business craves profit (and mind-fucking people) government craves authoritarianism (oh, and also mind-fucking people).
We may be a little fuzzy around the edges, but I think we're in substantial agreement here.
After Kiki's post was wrapped up with the following, I do believe we are.
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
So "R2P. Human rights. BLM. Public good." Pfffft! They're not as claimed.
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Calling it "Public Good" is an intentional misnomer with incorrect connotations attached to it.
It makes stupid people believe that the Federal Government's role is beyond the scope of what it really is.
Seems like we finally got around to a consensus on an issue.
Yay!
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
General Welfare of 1776 was not the Libtard's WELFARE as used in slang today.
Health, sure. But also be sure to include the economy - without which, the nation would perish. Government excessive confiscation of the economic engine does not support the General Welfare.
Free handouts for every able-bodied slug to sit on the couch all week? no.
Paying Illegal Alien Infected Invaders as soon as they cross the Border, or get caught? no.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I can see your confusion. Why do you differentiate between dealers and possession? Of all the drug addicts I've known, not one who was in possession was not distributing, although the addicts describe it differently. They might call it sharing, or some other nonsense. But they always, every time, were distributing the weed to somebody else, whether that person wanted it or not. That it the point of pot - getting little girls to get high, so they can have sex.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JSF, I misunderstood your post. what threw me off was this ...Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN
Leave the guilty drug dealers in.
Since both dealing AND possession are a crime, I thought you were making that distinction and treating them separately. My bad.
Are you able to point out any law which specifies how much profit is required to be made, in which currency or barter value, before distribution is or is not legally called distribution? Most addicts think there is one, but I've never seen one, in any state.
Also, weed is still illegal Federally.
Quote:Methinks that6 the various different multitudes of Innocence Projects scattering the nation would disagree with your characterization of not a big enough problem. They have LISTS of folk who are proven innocent.Quote:This should be a no-brainer. But since there are very few proven innocent people currently in jail, is this really one of the big problems facing America? How would this Make America Great Again?
Remove all Innocent people from incarceration.
Liberty is a Right recognized in the Declaration, and in the Constitution.
There is no excuse for it being abridged in this way.
In some nations, the Police are the goons, working for the dictators.
In some cities in America, cops are also the bad people, the criminals wearing a badge. Examples might be NYC, LAPD, numerous other sh!thole cities.
To help rectify the knwoledge that innocent people are incarcerated, every effort should be made to free tham when the miscarriage of Justice is known.
Quote:Balance the Budget. Since this is the start of a new Fiscal Year, a new Fiscal Budget, today is a good day to start.Quote:OK, maybe we should just start with a show of hands: How many people want to balance the budget?
Balance the budget. Spend less than we confiscate in revenue. Then pay down the debt.
And, since it is unlikely to happen all at once, how fast should this happen?
I suppose we can wrangle aferwards about how this should be done.
FWIW, in general I'm for balancing the the budget.
Quote:OK, control the Border starting right now. Building the wall will make it easier, and cheaper, and more effective.Quote:Maybe we don't need a wall everywhere, but we should definitley control our border.
Build the wall to end Illegal Alien Invasion, child, drug, and sex trafficking.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
lol
Your 1930's cartoonish view of weed smokers is hilarious.
You're the dick at the family parties that everybody else hides the weed from.
My god, you'd end up having to cut off more than half your family if you ever knew the truth.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I believe there's a legitimate role written into the Constitution for a legitimate government.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Altho there is another dimension besides profit, and that is power. As business craves profit (and mind-fucking people) government craves authoritarianism (oh, and also mind-fucking people).
But what's advertised as legitimate "good intentions" by the government - and many administrations both D and R along the way - aren't.
Some of them fail at first blush - R2P for example. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the US is responsible for the well being of people in any other country but this one. In fact the founders envisioned an isolationist country, uninvolved in international pacts that could lead to endless wars. They'd seen hundreds of years of Europe having been there, and done that (Hundred Years War, anyone?). R2P is an unConstitutional fantasy.
Another that fails right off the bat is 'Human Rights'. It's a feel-good sound-bite fantasy, an amorphous blob of camouflage the government and the Deep State hide behind. Our rights are spelled out in the Constitution, and the US government is enshrined with protecting them. 'Human Rights' has no meaning in Constitutional America, let alone around the globe. But we make war all everywhere foreign in the name of 'Human Rights', while gutting our Constitutional Rights at home with the Surveillance State.
BLM is a front for - in the very kindest interpretation - a poorly thought out response to over-policing. But its mayhem and destruction betray the real motivation behind it. As I've mentioned, I do believe one can judge intentions by results.
Public good - there really is such a thing as the public good, found in other countries, where governments really do govern at times with the overall, long term benefit of their people in mind. In the US, though - and judging intentions by results - we see 80 years of not enough good-paying, productive jobs; the decline of vital, national-interest productive capacity; the marginalization of self-organization (unions and farm cooperatives are a form of self-organization), the common grounds of the environment being despoiled, and so on. Basically, we see a country being imploded to benefit corporations.
Anyway, while I don't see the government performing its legitimate functions, I do think they exist, as stated in the Constitution.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bottom line is that, specifically in a society where it is necessary to flourish, Individuals themselves are generally, more often than not, "good", and even have the capacity to rise above and be great.
It's groups, movements and governments that are terrible, no matter how good the intentions behind them were when they originated. They are far too easily co-opted and ultimately controlled by the worst individuals among us. The power hungry. The greedy. The sociopaths.
This happens every time.
Every single time.
You will not, in the history of mankind, find an example that successfully argues against this truth.
If it hasn't happened yet, you only haven't noticed it because it's somehow benefiting you enough to not notice it. That, or the eventuality of this truth still has yet to play out.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:For sure there are no perfect societies. There are also no completely negative ones either for the simple reason that everyone would have perished.
This happens every time.
Every single time.
You will not, in the history of mankind, find an example that successfully argues against this truth.
I'm sure you can think of at least one society around the globe that you find worse than the US. So there's no 100% perfect society, and no 100% irredeemable society, either. But there's better and worse.
What society is better? How did that happen? What society is worse? How did that happen?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
When talking about America now, we just haven't seen the eventuality play out yet.
We're living on borrowed time at 245 years, and there are many signs that it's starting to crumble around us.
And after we're gone, nearly every other developed nation is going to fall like dominoes. Certainly all of the "free" ones.
That tree of liberty hasn't been watered in a very long time, and I doubt very much that any of us are going to see it happen in our lifetimes.
But just as everything is eventual, everything is cyclical as well. After our fall, and the fall of Democracy worldwide, there will be another very dark period in human history. But from the ashes of Democracy freedom eventually will rise once again.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The really cartoonish view of potheads is recognizing that they all get really, really defensive and offended in their denial, whenever reasonable folk point out any facts regarding their abused substance of choice.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
lol
Your 1930's cartoonish view of weed smokers is hilarious.
You're the dick at the family parties that everybody else hides the weed from.
My god, you'd end up having to cut off more than half your family if you ever knew the truth.
Oh, wait......
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
6IXSTRINGJACK:
lol
Your 1930's cartoonish view of weed smokers is hilarious.
You're the dick at the family parties that everybody else hides the weed from.
My god, you'd end up having to cut off more than half your family if you ever knew the truth.
JSF: The really cartoonish view of potheads is recognizing that they all get really, really defensive and offended in their denial, whenever reasonable folk point out any facts regarding their abused substance of choice.
Oh, wait......
JSF, how do you feel about coffee-drinkers getting defensive about their coffee habits? Or tobacco smokers getting defensive about smoking? Or soda-guzzlers getting defensive about sugar? Same category as pot smokers, or different?
Yanno, people have been drinking coffee and tea, smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol, chewing coca leaves, eating magic mushrooms, chewing betel, smoking hash and opium, starving or steaming themselves into hallucinations, drinking yohimbe, ingesting mescaline, chewing salvia divinorum, and in general messing with their brain chemistry for.... millenia.
Where do you draw the line between the commonplace (such as coffee) and the problematic (such as oxycodone), and why?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:The really cartoonish view of potheads is recognizing that they all get really, really defensive and offended in their denial, whenever reasonable folk point out any facts regarding their abused substance of choice.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
lol
Your 1930's cartoonish view of weed smokers is hilarious.
You're the dick at the family parties that everybody else hides the weed from.
My god, you'd end up having to cut off more than half your family if you ever knew the truth.
Oh, wait......
I haven't smoked weed in 7 years.
Of the vices I'd indulged in, nothing was easier than giving up weed.
Coffee is harder to stop than weed is.
You have a serious misconception of the plant.
And I'm not joking about the family thing either. They laugh at your attitude toward it behind your back while they're outside lighting up at the Christmas party.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
KIKI: I believe there's a legitimate role written into the Constitution for a legitimate government.
But what's advertised as legitimate "good intentions" by the government - and many administrations both D and R along the way - aren't.
Some of them fail at first blush - R2P for example. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the US is responsible for the well being of people in any other country but this one. In fact the founders envisioned an isolationist country, uninvolved in international pacts that could lead to endless wars. They'd seen hundreds of years of Europe having been there, and done that (Hundred Years War, anyone?). R2P is an unConstitutional fantasy.
Another that fails right off the bat is 'Human Rights'. It's a feel-good sound-bite fantasy, an amorphous blob of camouflage the government and the Deep State hide behind. Our rights are spelled out in the Constitution, and the US government is enshrined with protecting them. 'Human Rights' has no meaning in Constitutional America, let alone around the globe. But we make war all everywhere foreign in the name of 'Human Rights', while gutting our Constitutional Rights at home with the Surveillance State.
BLM is a front for - in the very kindest interpretation - a poorly thought out response to over-policing. But its mayhem and destruction betray the real motivation behind it. As I've mentioned, I do believe one can judge intentions by results.
Public good - there really is such a thing as the public good, found in other countries, where governments really do govern at times with the overall, long term benefit of their people in mind. In the US, though - and judging intentions by results - we see 80 years of not enough good-paying, productive jobs; the decline of vital, national-interest productive capacity; the marginalization of self-organization (unions and farm cooperatives are a form of self-organization), the common grounds of the environment being despoiled, and so on. Basically, we see a country being imploded to benefit corporations.
Anyway, while I don't see the government performing its legitimate functions, I do think they exist, as stated in the Constitution.
Can you name some examples of what governments do, with long-term societal benefit?
One of the things I find pernicious is the "FDR" paradigm of societal benefit. FDR wasn't trying to save people, he was trying to save capitalism from its own excesses by blunting, or ameliorating, capitalism's worst effects. Instead of "helping" "poor people" we should understand WHY people are poor in the first place, and fix the problems that made them poor. I'm going to repeat my tagline and signature in context:
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them
...and...
"Pity would be no more if we did not MAKE men poor"
Quote:
6IXSTRINGJACK
Bottom line is that, specifically in a society where it is necessary to flourish, Individuals themselves are generally, more often than not, "good", and even have the capacity to rise above and be great.
It's groups, movements and governments that are terrible, no matter how good the intentions behind them were when they originated. They are far too easily co-opted and ultimately controlled by the worst individuals among us. The power hungry. The greedy. The sociopaths.
This happens every time.
Every single time.You will not, in the history of mankind, find an example that successfully argues against this truth.
If it hasn't happened yet, you only haven't noticed it because it's somehow benefiting you enough to not notice it. That, or the eventuality of this truth still has yet to play out.
Can you explain "in a society where it is necessary to flourish"? There are a LOT of societies where it's necessary to work like a dog to stay alive, but these societies are usually the product of greed, corru
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not against pot per se, but from experience I gotta say, it was not for me. Also, the strains now are so strong, they really pack a wallop. It's like coca- chew some leaves and you get a bit of a buzz, like a couple cups of espresso. Concentrate it, add base (to make it volatile) and inhale it, and it takes some people to such a high they spend the rest of their lifetime trying to get back to that place.
6IXSTRINGJACK:
I haven't smoked weed in 7 years.
Of the vices I'd indulged in, nothing was easier than giving up weed.
Coffee is harder to stop than weed is.
You have a serious misconception of the plant.
And I'm not joking about the family thing either. They laugh at your attitude toward it behind your back while they're outside lighting up at the Christmas party.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Not against pot per se, but from experience I gotta say, it was not for me.
6IXSTRINGJACK:
I haven't smoked weed in 7 years.
Of the vices I'd indulged in, nothing was easier than giving up weed.
Coffee is harder to stop than weed is.
You have a serious misconception of the plant.
And I'm not joking about the family thing either. They laugh at your attitude toward it behind your back while they're outside lighting up at the Christmas party.
Nothing wrong with knowing what you like and don't like. I love coffee, but I hate tea.
I love weed. I plan on smoking it again one day. But the effects from person to person can be quite different. I happen to be among those that become quite lazy when I indulge. I made up my mind that I don't have time for that right now. I'm around people that smoke it all the time, and it's no harder for me to not partake than it is when I'm around people who drink. Any one of those people would gladly get me high. Hell... my sales-man buddy has made it a personal mission of his to try to get me to try the new store-bought stuff and feels that I'm one of the most challenging marks he's ever had at this point. He's not used to taking no for an answer.
Quote:
Also, the strains now are so strong, they really pack a wallop. It's like coca- chew some leaves and you get a bit of a buzz, like a couple cups of espresso. Concentrate it, add base (to make it volatile) and inhale it, and it takes some people to such a high they spend the rest of their lifetime trying to get back to that place.
Yeah... I think I'd probably just be using the black market weaker stuff. That's still everywhere, despite the legality of it now. The taxes are far too high to ever eliminate the black market.
The last 10 or so years I smoked, I only used a hitter bat, which is a very small amount. And I'd only do it after I got home from work or on weekends.
My days of ripping 6 foot glass bongs are very, very far behind me.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Here in the US, the EPA is a good example. I'd also count our national parks and public schools. In Europe, many governments have spent public money to provide non-global-warming power and are significantly cutting their emissions. Some governments like Cuba provide healthcare directly, aren't either just sending public money on to 'insurance' companies or to private 'health' corporations. Even a sheriff can be a public good. In a very near past there were small villages not just in the US but in Europe as well, with no law enforcement. The story that I heard was from someone who lived in just that kind of village. There was a really big strong guy who enjoyed pushing people around. Everyone was pretty poor, so an injury would mean at the very last being unproductive, and could put an entire family in economic jeopardy. And if you had to call a doctor, it would wipe you out. And then of course you could die. So everybody just stayed out of arm's reach as much as possible. Anyway, the meanest, richest, or quickest-draw could terrorize the town. And a sheriff was a good thing, provided the sheriff didn't in turn become just another bully. So those are a few examples of governments(public resources) providing a public good.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Can you name some examples of what governments do, with long-term societal benefit ...
Quote:Also, some very successful societies that lasted for hundreds of years, that seemed to operate unlike any modern-day ones fell to natural events like at Harappa; with another a powerful volcano wiped out an entire Minoan island and civilization.
Also, there were some governments that actually relinquished power peacefully. The Soviet Union, for example. Britain also gave up parts of its empire without revolution. So I wouldn't say that power "always" becomes so entrenched that it doesn't dissolve itself. Historically, societies and movements have.
Quote:Your millage may vary! I'm sure my definition of better would be different from Jack's. It was a thought experiment, to help open up the possibility of a spectrum of societies in between total disaster and heaven-on-earth. Many people have a hard time imagining anything could possibly be better than the US. But they can imagine worse! So it was a nudge to consider that indeed, just as some places can be worse - for very specific reasons, some places could also be better - also for very specific reasons. And maybe the US could be better, too, by implementing specific changes.
How do you define "better"?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So, I guess this would be the time to discuss WHAT we expect of government ... and society!
KIKI: Your mileage may vary
What about you, SIX? I left a couple of questions for you bc I didn't understand your post, and would really like to know what you think.
You, too, JSF. I left a question for you about drug use, since humans have been "self medicating" for millenia already I would like to know which drugs your find problematic, and -especially- why. (My guess is that drugs cause people to become irresponsible and unproductive, but I could be wrong.)
Anybody else? JO753? I know you have a lot of ideas.
SECOND? You have a lot of criticisms which [might] mean that you also have a picture of your ideal government policies (or, at least, your "better" government policies).
THGR? You post a LOT about Russia and Trump. What about our country? (Unless, of couse, you're Russian!)
JAYNZE: You do keep an eye on things from a different, and appreciated, perspective. Any ideas what a "great" America would look like?
When we say "Make America Great Again" I suppose we should probably figure out what it is that we mean by "great".
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So let ME start out by saying, when I say "Make America Great Again" I'm not really aspiring to greatness. What I really mean to say is
Make America Sovereign and Resilient Again.
Put the American nation on the path to survival, not self destruction.
Make America economically independent again: Able to survive mostly on its own production, and to trade fairly for things that it can't produce, instead of depending on debt and the reserve currency status.
Make America able to survive in the long run (for the next 200 years at least)
Make America independent of foreign entanglements, again.
Make America less corrupt, again.
******
What this boils down to, mostly, is about our individual physical and long-term social welfare. I could say "the greatest good for the greatest number, including those living in the future", but - what do I mean by "good"? If I were religious, it might mean "make people worthy of heaven" or "make us worthy of being reincarnated into the whole" or "make us the ideal socialist beings", but my ideas of "good" are more earthbound.
For me, that means fulfilling what humans have sought since humans started evolving:
Food and water, safety, good health, acceptance, agency, purpose, long-term predictability.
So my goals don't revolve around "freedom" altho freedom (individual agency) is part of the equation.
Any of this ringing any bells with anyone, or is it all gobbledygook?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, I guess this would be the time to discuss WHAT we expect of government ... and society!
What about you, SIX? I left a couple of questions for you bc I didn't understand your post, and would really like to know what you think.
Oh honey... I'm blackedpilled at this point. There are too many holes in this sinking ship to ever fix it now.
But sure... I'll answer your questions.
Quote:
Can you explain "in a society where it is necessary to flourish"? There are a LOT of societies where it's necessary to work like a dog to stay alive, but these societies are usually the product of greed, corruption, and extreme division of wealth and power. I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean.
Can you give me some examples of societies where it is "necessary" to flourish?
I didn't mean in one PARTICULAR society where being more or less good is necessary to flourish. I meant in ANY society, unless of course you are successfully part of the greed, corruption and on the right side of the extreme division of wealth and power, it benefits you to be more or less "good" if you have any desire to flourish. Being good doesn't mean that you will flourish in a society, but unless you're very good at being bad, it's basically a prerequisite and it behooves you to have friendlies about.
Quote:
Also, there were some governments that actually relinquished power peacefully. The Soviet Union, for example. Britain also gave up parts of its empire without revolution. So I wouldn't say that power "always" becomes so entrenched that it doesn't dissolve itself. Historically, societies and movements have.
I doubt very much that any of that was relinquished freely and of their own will. That only happens under duress. Let's just say that if America wasn't around at the time, neither of those examples would have happened.
Quote:
But I agree with you that power generally behaves "gravitationally": the more you have, the more you can get.
Don't forget the gravitational pull of this power over the worst individuals of a society. The greedy. The ambitious. The sociopaths.
Quote:
When we say "Make America Great Again" I suppose we should probably figure out what it is that we mean by "great".
At this point, I'd settle for "Not Terrible and No Longer On A Downward Trajectory", but we can't even do that.
There is no hope for this version of America. And after we fall, the rest of the "free" world falls with us.
Maybe we get it right next time. History would predict otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Signym, you might have noticed that I don't think in generalizations and abstractions. Here is a very specific example, but there are a million things only the Federal government can do, but does not because too many Americans and Congressmen think in abstractions blinding themselves to the million things an engineer sees:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND? You have a lot of criticisms which [might] mean that you also have a picture of your ideal government policies (or, at least, your "better" government policies).
Ike Dike. It would protect property around Galveston Bay. It is an enlargement of the Galveston Seawall, which could only been built with Federal money, BUT CONGRESS WAITED UNTIL AFTER 7.000 DROWNED IN THE 1900 HURRICANE. America tends to wait too long to react to all problems, large or small or specific to one area. But if it doesn't react immediately, America forgets until a new disaster reminds Congress/America for a week or two what it had forgotten.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ike+dike+congress
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SECOND:
Signym, you might have noticed that I don't think in generalizations and abstractions.
It says while cheer leading a spending bill in which it could not actually tell you more than 2% of what is in said spending bill.
The problem with Democracy is that two idiots can out vote a genius.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:All the geniuses I have known would use Democracy with great intelligence to achieve very selfish goals benefiting only themselves. Business owners are not well-rounded geniuses but the successful will run the business to benefit themselves, not the customers and certainly not the employees. The genius of successful business owners is to hide the owners' selfishness from customers and employees using ingenious tricks and pricing techniques and a large amount of salesmanship with a dash of fraud for seasoning. It takes a certain kind of genius.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by SECOND:
Signym, you might have noticed that I don't think in generalizations and abstractions.
It says while cheer leading a spending bill in which it could not actually tell you more than 2% of what is in said spending bill.
The problem with Democracy is that two idiots can out vote a genius.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually, you Do think in abstractions and generalities, you just don't recognize that you do.
SIGNYM:
SECOND? You have a lot of criticisms which [might] mean that you also have a picture of your ideal government policies (or, at least, your "better" government policies).
SECOND: Signym, you might have noticed that I don't think in generalizations and abstractions. Here is a very specific example, but there are a million things only the Federal government can do, but does not because too many Americans and Congressmen think in abstractions blinding themselves to the million things an engineer sees:
Ike Dike. It would protect property around Galveston Bay. It is an enlargement of the Galveston Seawall, which could only been built with Federal money, BUT CONGRESS WAITED UNTIL AFTER 7.000 DROWNED IN THE 1900 HURRICANE. America tends to wait too long to react to all problems, large or small or specific to one area. But if it doesn't react immediately, America forgets until a new disaster reminds Congress/America for a week or two what it had forgotten.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ike+dike+congress
Here are some generalizations embedded in this specific example:
Property loss is a bad thing, protecting property is a good thing.
Loss of life is a bad thing, saving lives is a good thing.
Protecting property and saving lives is the business of government (not business, religions, other NGOs or individuals) and (especially) Federal government. (I'm curious as to why you think the Federal government should construct a dike protecting Galveston Bay, since it's an intrastate problem and not a Federal one. Is it the size of the project that places it in Federal hands, or some jurisdictional issue?)
Solving "problems" (however defined) is a good thing, proactively solving them is better.
Americans (and I suppose people in general) are bad at recognizing and responding to potential pitfalls.
Congress only responds to immediate political pressure on hot-button issues, and doesn't take a responsible managerial (or, if you will, engineering) approach. That is therefore a flaw in democracy.
See?
I think there really are abstractions driving your thoughts, which run in both directions (from assumptions to conclusions). Do you agree, in general, with my description of your values and assumptions so far?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, this is just for discussion. We are, at best, ants in the steerage compartment of the Titanic.
SIGNYM:
So, I guess this would be the time to discuss WHAT we expect of government ... and society!
What about you, SIX? I left a couple of questions for you bc I didn't understand your post, and would really like to know what you think.
SIX: Oh honey... I'm blackedpilled at this point. There are too many holes in this sinking ship to ever fix it now.
Quote:THANKS!
SIX: But sure... I'll answer your questions.
Quote:So, if I were to restate this as: setting up an environment [society, ethics] where you must be good to flourish... is that about right?
SIGNY: Can you explain "in a society where it is necessary to flourish"? There are a LOT of societies where it's necessary to work like a dog to stay alive, but these societies are usually the product of greed, corruption, and extreme division of wealth and power. I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean.
Can you give me some examples of societies where it is "necessary" to flourish?
SIX: I didn't mean in one PARTICULAR society where being more or less good is necessary to flourish. I meant in ANY society, unless of course you are successfully part of the greed, corruption and on the right side of the extreme division of wealth and power, it benefits you to be more or less "good" if you have any desire to flourish. Being good doesn't mean that you will flourish in a society, but unless you're very good at being bad, it's basically a prerequisite and it behooves you to have friendlies about.
Quote:Well, Britain gave up Canada and Australia without a fight, USA not involved. But I understand about the USSR.
SIGNY: Also, there were some governments that actually relinquished power peacefully. The Soviet Union, for example. Britain also gave up parts of its empire without revolution. So I wouldn't say that power "always" becomes so entrenched that it doesn't dissolve itself. Historically, societies and movements have.
SIX: I doubt very much that any of that was relinquished freely and of their own will. That only happens under duress. Let's just say that if America wasn't around at the time, neither of those examples would have happened.
Quote:I think we're saying the same thing, but I see it more mechanistically: Power doesn't automatically concentrate, like matter accumulates automatically thnaks to gravity. It is purposefully concentrated by the greedy, ambitious, and sociopathic. But once they HAVE some power in their hands, they use that power to gather more power. Exponential growth is possible.
SIGNY: But I agree with you that power generally behaves "gravitationally": the more you have, the more you can get.
SIX: Don't forget the gravitational pull of this power over the worst individuals of a society. The greedy. The ambitious. The sociopaths.
Altho at some point it becomes self-feeding, because once the greedy, ambitious, and sociopathic start warping the rules that govern society, it just gets bigger and bigger as more people are swept up into it and depend on it.
Quote:HA! TOO TRUE!
SIGNY: When we say "Make America Great Again" I suppose we should probably figure out what it is that we mean by "great".
SIX: At this point, I'd settle for "Not Terrible and No Longer On A Downward Trajectory", but we can't even do that.
Quote:"Free" as in western civilization?
SIX: There is no hope for this version of America. And after we fall, the rest of the "free" world falls with us.
Maybe we get it right next time. History would predict otherwise.
Just curious.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Well, this is just for discussion. We are, at best, ants in the steerage compartment of the Titanic.
SIGNYM:
So, I guess this would be the time to discuss WHAT we expect of government ... and society!
What about you, SIX? I left a couple of questions for you bc I didn't understand your post, and would really like to know what you think.
SIX: Oh honey... I'm blackedpilled at this point. There are too many holes in this sinking ship to ever fix it now.
Yup. The best thing about nobody giving a shit about your opinion is that nobody gives a shit about your opinion.
Quote:THANKS!
SIX: But sure... I'll answer your questions.
Quote:Quote:So, if I were to restate this as: setting up an environment [society, ethics] where you must be good to flourish... is that about right?
SIGNY: Can you explain "in a society where it is necessary to flourish"? There are a LOT of societies where it's necessary to work like a dog to stay alive, but these societies are usually the product of greed, corruption, and extreme division of wealth and power. I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean.
Can you give me some examples of societies where it is "necessary" to flourish?
SIX: I didn't mean in one PARTICULAR society where being more or less good is necessary to flourish. I meant in ANY society, unless of course you are successfully part of the greed, corruption and on the right side of the extreme division of wealth and power, it benefits you to be more or less "good" if you have any desire to flourish. Being good doesn't mean that you will flourish in a society, but unless you're very good at being bad, it's basically a prerequisite and it behooves you to have friendlies about.
That's probably too far simplified.
I mean, sure... Great. Let's reward people who work for it and make it a meritocracy... But you know that's never going to happen.
I think one of the biggest problems we have is that our "societies" have become too large. With smaller, more intimate "societies", there aren't any need for hard-coded rules and alphabet agencies enforcing them. If you're a piece of shit to everyone and you haven't already consolidated a huge chunk of power, you're outcast from the society and the problem takes care of itself.
Things are really just too big now.
Quote:Quote:Well, Britain gave up Canada and Australia without a fight, USA not involved. But I understand about the USSR.
SIGNY: Also, there were some governments that actually relinquished power peacefully. The Soviet Union, for example. Britain also gave up parts of its empire without revolution. So I wouldn't say that power "always" becomes so entrenched that it doesn't dissolve itself. Historically, societies and movements have.
SIX: I doubt very much that any of that was relinquished freely and of their own will. That only happens under duress. Let's just say that if America wasn't around at the time, neither of those examples would have happened.
I think you're severely discounting the mere existence and power of America at the time those things happened. If there weren't larger powers around that would frown upon those decisions by fellow "free" countries AND they felt that they really needed those empires, the only way that they would have ever become free is with a fight.
Quote:Quote:I think we're saying the same thing, but I see it more mechanistically: Power doesn't automatically concentrate, like matter accumulates automatically thnaks to gravity. It is purpose
SIGNY: But I agree with you that power generally behaves "gravitationally": the more you have, the more you can get.
SIX: Don't forget the gravitational pull of this power over the worst individuals of a society. The greedy. The ambitious. The sociopaths.NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Just to specifically address 'agency' and 'purpose' for the moment (and btw this is a synthesis of the ideas and observations others). As animals, we'd love to lie around all day being fed high-reward foods and indulging in endless sex (for those with a high sex-drive), and perversions (for those who find them rewarding) and drugs - think of a non-stop Roman orgy. In other words, we'd like 100% reward for 0% effort.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So let ME start out by saying, when I say "Make America Great Again" I'm not really aspiring to greatness. What I really mean to say is
Make America Sovereign and Resilient Again.
Put the American nation on the path to survival, not self destruction.
Make America economically independent again: Able to survive mostly on its own production, and to trade fairly for things that it can't produce, instead of depending on debt and the reserve currency status.
Make America able to survive in the long run (for the next 200 years at least)
Make America independent of foreign entanglements, again.
Make America less corrupt, again.
******
What this boils down to, mostly, is about our individual physical and long-term social welfare. I could say "the greatest good for the greatest number, including those living in the future", but - what do I mean by "good"? If I were religious, it might mean "make people worthy of heaven" or "make us worthy of being reincarnated into the whole" or "make us the ideal socialist beings", but my ideas of "good" are more earthbound.
For me, that means fulfilling what humans have sought since humans started evolving:
Food and water, safety, good health, acceptance, agency, purpose, long-term predictability.
So my goals don't revolve around "freedom" altho freedom (individual agency) is part of the equation.
Any of this ringing any bells with anyone, or is it all gobbledygook?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
But when we treat animals that way in a zoo - protect them from danger, and feed them with no effort required - they become for want of a better word neurotic. They groom to the point of taking their skin off, or masturbate ceaselessly, or eat or throw poop or both, or act inordinately dominantly and aggressively, or lie around listlessly ... and so on.
When animals are allowed to roam to graze, or their food is challenging to find (partly hidden), or they're given opportunities to play, neurotic behaviors go away.
So reward with lack of challenge, while desired, isn't healthy for animals. As animals, we need challenges in our lives to exercise our minds, sharpen our motivations, and give us a sense or reward. And if depression is a sense of helplessness, one way to be depressed is endless struggle with no end in sight. Another way to be depressed is to be in a state of enforced helplessness with nothing to do.
As for 'purpose', if you talk with 'primitive' (non-monetary) peoples, their sense of reward is their children. Once you get past a certain age, you know that you'll die. So getting up and doing the same things over and over again till you die becomes unrewarding. People want to survive, but it's not a source of consistent reward. When they look for reward, they look to a purpose of healthy children and grandchildren.
So agency and purpose - both of which are tied to challenges, effort, success, and the future - are important to people for their mental well-being.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SIX: To be perfectly cynical ... IF we toss out the Constitution?
I think we've tossed out more than half already.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah...
And that being said, our Public School System is designed for everything opposite of what you just said, Kiki.
The top say 10% will end up finding a rewarding future, while the rest of them will end up mindless cogs in the machine without any real importance.
Most of our so called "essential workers" during the lockdowns were only essential because there are far too many people on the planet and they were doing things that wouldn't ever be done by anybody in a society if we had a reasonable amount of people living here.
On a micro-scale, I was and in some ways still am the fucked up zoo animal that you reference above. I found myself with near zero responsibility, zero obligations and zero bills of any real significance. What did I do with that time and freedom? I drank myself into oblivion and let everything I'd done up until that point fall into serious disrepair. I actively used that time to destroy my body and my mind (and my soul?) and any relationships I'd ever made.
I was comfortable, but without any sense of purpose.
I'm lucky I survived that. There are no words for how lucky I am to have some people in my life who didn't abandon me completely and were still there when I finally got my head back on straight. And while some days it's very easy to get better, there are still periods of time where I struggle with it. On my worst days, a LOT.
It's why I don't go around telling people to live like me. It's not for the feint of heart, and it's probably not something I would recommend to anybody who hasn't spent at least 3.5 decades here and become wise enough and self-determined enough to live a life without many restraints (especially if they weren't born with a silver-spoon in their ass and a ton of unearned contacts and opportunities that will just drop something worthwhile to do with their time in their lap).
Saving money is good. Neurotically saving money to get yourself into a position where you don't ever need to do anything again many decades before most people retire is probably not.
Unless you can find and make your own purpose.
And no school is going to teach you that.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SIX: To be perfectly cynical ... IF we toss out the Constitution?
I think we've tossed out more than half already.
Yeah... well... I can only swallow so many black pills in a single day.
At least we still pretend like we're a free people.
All you have to do is take a look at the Australian News right now and see what happens when a supposedly free people face the harsh reality that they aren't free at all.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To address human needs again (and again, this is a compilation of many ideas and observations of others) - as adults people don't forward species survival as isolated creatures, like tigers or bears. And the reason is this: To get rid of a misunderstanding that it's all about how males must be the 'fittest' - as the saying goes, sterility beats virility. And to get rid of a misunderstanding that it's all about how many children a male can breed - if those children don't survive to adulthood, there goes all his genetics. To survive as a species, enough children have to survive to be old enough to have their own children, and for those children to have children, and so on.
And females burdened with children are likely not going to survive on their own and neither will their children, especially if they're in competition with males for resources. Human survival is structured in such a way that male and female adults and children need to live together in groups at least somewhat cooperatively.
And when they do that, there needs to be standards of behavior in place that will routinely lead to enough generations of children surviving over the indefinite future to carry the species forward.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Just to specifically address 'agency' and 'purpose' for the moment (and btw this is a synthesis of the ideas and observations others). As animals, we'd love to lie around all day being fed high-reward foods and indulging in endless sex (for those with a high sex-drive), and perversions (for those who find them rewarding) and drugs - think of a non-stop Roman orgy. In other words, we'd like 100% reward for 0% effort.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So let ME start out by saying, when I say "Make America Great Again" I'm not really aspiring to greatness. What I really mean to say is
Make America Sovereign and Resilient Again.
Put the American nation on the path to survival, not self destruction.
Make America economically independent again: Able to survive mostly on its own production, and to trade fairly for things that it can't produce, instead of depending on debt and the reserve currency status.
Make America able to survive in the long run (for the next 200 years at least)
Make America independent of foreign entanglements, again.
Make America less corrupt, again.
******
What this boils down to, mostly, is about our individual physical and long-term social welfare. I could say "the greatest good for the greatest number, including those living in the future", but - what do I mean by "good"? If I were religious, it might mean "make people worthy of heaven" or "make us worthy of being reincarnated into the whole" or "make us the ideal socialist beings", but my ideas of "good" are more earthbound.
For me, that means fulfilling what humans have sought since humans started evolving:
Food and water, safety, good health, acceptance, agency, purpose, long-term predictability.
So my goals don't revolve around "freedom" altho freedom (individual agency) is part of the equation.
Any of this ringing any bells with anyone, or is it all gobbledygook?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
But when we treat animals that way in a zoo - protect them from danger, and feed them with no effort required - they become for want of a better word neurotic. They groom to the point of taking their skin off, or masturbate ceaselessly, or eat or throw poop or both, or act inordinately dominantly and aggressively, or lie around listlessly ... and so on.
When animals are allowed to roam to graze, or their food is challenging to find (partly hidden), or they're given opportunities to play, neurotic behaviors go away.
So reward with lack of challenge, while desired, isn't healthy for animals. As animals, we need challenges in our lives to exercise our minds, sharpen our motivations, and give us a sense or reward. And if depression is a sense of helplessness, one way to be depressed is endless struggle with no end in sight. Another way to be depressed is to be in a state of enforced helplessness with nothing to do.
As for 'purpose', if you talk with 'primitive' (non-monetary) peoples, their sense of reward is their children. Once you get past a certain age, you know that you'll die. So getting up and doing the same things over and over again till you die becomes unrewarding. People want to survive, but it's not a source of consistent reward. When they look for reward, they look to a purpose of healthy children and grandchildren.
So agency and purpose - both of which are tied to challenges, effort, success, and the future - are important to people for their mental well-being.
YES, THANK YOU for going in depth into what I only roughly outlined. It's what I feel about humans and animals in general: We are geared towards effort for reward; dopamine is the intrinsic reward for learning, and learning is the adaptive response to difficulty.
Quote:
And if depression is a sense of helplessness, one way to be depressed is endless struggle witNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
To address human needs again (and again, this is a compilation of many ideas and observations of others) - as adults people don't forward species survival as isolated creatures, like tigers or bears. And the reason is this: To get rid of a misunderstanding that it's all about how males must be the 'fittest' - as the saying goes, sterility beats virility. And to get rid of a misunderstanding that it's all about how many children a male can breed - if those children don't survive to adulthood, there goes all his genetics. To survive as a species, enough children have to survive to be old enough to have their own children, and for those children to have children, and so on.
And females burdened with children are likely not going to survive on their own and neither will their children, especially if they're in competition with males for resources. Human survival is structured in such a way that male and female adults and children need to live together in groups at least somewhat cooperatively.
And when they do that, there needs to be standards of behavior in place that will routinely lead to enough children surviving over the indefinite future to carry the species forward.
Yeah.
But our government has all but removed the dependency of females and children on males for nearly anything, completely shattering the old family dynamic.
I made a reference to this in another thread to JSF, talking about the new wave of millennial and zoomer feminists you see spewing shit on TikTok and Instagram.
They are an evolutionary dead end.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Looks like Siggy's account has been hacked by Trump.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So let ME start out by saying, when I say "Make America Great Again" I'm not really aspiring to greatness. What I really mean to say is
Make America Sovereign and Resilient Again.
Put the American nation on the path to survival, not self destruction.
Make America economically independent again: Able to survive mostly on its own production, and to trade fairly for things that it can't produce, instead of depending on debt and the reserve currency status.
Make America able to survive in the long run (for the next 200 years at least)
Make America independent of foreign entanglements, again.
Make America less corrupt, again.
******
What this boils down to, mostly, is about our individual physical and long-term social welfare. I could say "the greatest good for the greatest number, including those living in the future", but - what do I mean by "good"? If I were religious, it might mean "make people worthy of heaven" or "make us worthy of being reincarnated into the whole" or "make us the ideal socialist beings", but my ideas of "good" are more earthbound.
For me, that means fulfilling what humans have sought since humans started evolving:
Food and water, safety, good health, acceptance, agency, purpose, long-term predictability.
So my goals don't revolve around "freedom" altho freedom (individual agency) is part of the equation.
Any of this ringing any bells with anyone, or is it all gobbledygook
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Just to specifically address 'agency' and 'purpose' for the moment (and btw this is a synthesis of the ideas and observations others). As animals, we'd love to lie around all day being fed high-reward foods and indulging in endless sex (for those with a high sex-drive), and perversions (for those who find them rewarding) and drugs - think of a non-stop Roman orgy. In other words, we'd like 100% reward for 0% effort.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So let ME start out by saying, when I say "Make America Great Again" I'm not really aspiring to greatness. What I really mean to say is
Make America Sovereign and Resilient Again.
Put the American nation on the path to survival, not self destruction.
Make America economically independent again: Able to survive mostly on its own production, and to trade fairly for things that it can't produce, instead of depending on debt and the reserve currency status.
Make America able to survive in the long run (for the next 200 years at least)
Make America independent of foreign entanglements, again.
Make America less corrupt, again.
******
What this boils down to, mostly, is about our individual physical and long-term social welfare. I could say "the greatest good for the greatest number, including those living in the future", but - what do I mean by "good"? If I were religious, it might mean "make people worthy of heaven" or "make us worthy of being reincarnated into the whole" or "make us the ideal socialist beings", but my ideas of "good" are more earthbound.
For me, that means fulfilling what humans have sought since humans started evolving:
Food and water, safety, good health, acceptance, agency, purpose, long-term predictability.
So my goals don't revolve around "freedom" altho freedom (individual agency) is part of the equation.
Any of this ringing any bells with anyone, or is it all gobbledygook?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
But when we treat animals that way in a zoo - protect them from danger, and feed them with no effort required - they become for want of a better word neurotic. They groom to the point of taking their skin off, or masturbate ceaselessly, or eat or throw poop or both, or act inordinately dominantly and aggressively, or lie around listlessly ... and so on.
When animals are allowed to roam to graze, or their food is challenging to find (partly hidden), or they're given opportunities to play, neurotic behaviors go away.
So reward with lack of challenge, while desired, isn't healthy for animals. As animals, we need challenges in our lives to exercise our minds, sharpen our motivations, and give us a sense or reward. And if depression is a sense of helplessness, one way to be depressed is endless struggle with no end in sight. Another way to be depressed is to be in a state of enforced helplessness with nothing to do.
As for 'purpose', if you talk with 'primitive' (non-monetary) peoples, their sense of reward is their children. Once you get past a certain age, you know that you'll die. So getting up and doing the same things over and over again till you die becomes unrewarding. People want to survive, but it's not a source of consistent reward. When they look for reward, they look to a purpose of healthy children and grandchildren.
So agency and purpose - both of which are tied to challenges, effort, success, and the future - are important to people for their mental well-being.
YES, THANK YOU for going in depth into what I only roughly outlined. It's what I feel about humans and animals in general: We are geared towards effort for reward; dopamine is the intrinsic reward for learning, and learning is the adaptive response to difficulty.
Quote:
And if depression is a sense of helplessness, one way to be depressed is endless struggle witNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anyway, I'm going to continue on for a bit, and reply at some point later because I want to keep my train of thought but I have things I need to do.
As above, people survive in groups.
I've read the argument that family groups are a natural association. These are people you know individually over the long term, and who know you over the long term.
But that if you want to really bring more people together, you make up stories and tell each other and future generations that the stories are real.
At the very least, in the most primitive example, tribes do that.
To back up a bit, there was a group that very diligently tried to find some association between physical means of survival and social structure in 'non-monetary' tribes and villages. Some were hunter-gatherers, some were agriculturalists, some were herders, and some were seafarers. And the researchers projected what kind of society they thought the means of survival would dictate. For example, in a tropical jungle resources are uniformly available over the year, but widely scattered. One would think that means that people would scatter in small family groups who roamed widely for resources. But that wasn't what they found. Some cultures did, others didn't. Primitive agriculturalists who are tied to the land are neither more stranger-averse nor less, nor more warlike nor less. My guess is that even very primitive technology breaks the relation between the environment and survival strategies. And as a result, societies aren't formed around environmental dictates, but around what pretty much what people tell themselves they are. We people are peaceable and happy ... or, we people warlike and aggressive ... and so on.
The other thing I've learned over the years is that children believe what you tell them over what they see with their own lying eyes. What you tell them becomes their reality. (How does a mystery box work ... if you show a monkey a wrapped box and all the steps they need to get to the reward, once you unwrap the box they'll quickly figure out how it works and ditch the unnecessary steps. Children will keep doing what you taught them, even when they can see that all but 1 step is bogus.)
So, the theory is that to build really really large societies, you need to tell all those people the same myths - so that people who are strangers to each other will come together and act as if they belong to the same tribe. And that means - armies, especially. So that someone from Macon Georgia will fight with someone from New York New York and Petoskey Michigan for 'Iraqi Freedom'.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I have not seen coffee drinkers getting nearly as defensive as illegal drug abusers.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
6IXSTRINGJACK:
lol
Your 1930's cartoonish view of weed smokers is hilarious.
You're the dick at the family parties that everybody else hides the weed from.
My god, you'd end up having to cut off more than half your family if you ever knew the truth.
JSF: The really cartoonish view of potheads is recognizing that they all get really, really defensive and offended in their denial, whenever reasonable folk point out any facts regarding their abused substance of choice.
Oh, wait......
JSF, how do you feel about coffee-drinkers getting defensive about their coffee habits? Or tobacco smokers getting defensive about smoking? Or soda-guzzlers getting defensive about sugar? Same category as pot smokers, or different?
Yanno, people have been drinking coffee and tea, smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol, chewing coca leaves, eating magic mushrooms, chewing betel, smoking hash and opium, starving or steaming themselves into hallucinations, drinking yohimbe, ingesting mescaline, chewing salvia divinorum, and in general messing with their brain chemistry for.... millenia.
Where do you draw the line between the commonplace (such as coffee) and the problematic (such as oxycodone), and why?
And yes, abuse of pot is currently defined as smoking more than one tenth of one small joint per day. At the time of that line being established, the pot was 1/30 as strong as today, and the measure was 3 joints per day. Anything more causes permanent damage to the Immune System.
I have seen coffee drinkers compete, wager, bet on who has the highest BP each day.
Coffee, sugar, chocolate, tobacco, are currently legal substances.
I recently have been consuming 2 aspirin per day, almost every day. It bothers me, but nobody else has been annoying me about it.
Consumption of unfrozen meats drenched in chemicals is currently legal, but for folk who want cancer, that6 is their choice.
Not long ago, absinthe was in some way legalized in the US, but there seems to be some vastly weakened version which is now available. I don't recall the permanent long term side effects of that - whether physical or mental.
If individuals are choosing to be criminals, knowingly perpetrating crimes, then that is different than the legal choices they could make. There is no legal limit on the amount of sugar, chocolate, or coffee one cna have possession of - but you can still overdose on too much caffiene.
Food makers pour poison like sucralose into foods currently, and this is still a legal activity.
Maybe I'm rambling too much right now. I am distracted. And have not had enough chocolate. Geez, just realized I had a Coke for lunch - maybe that is it.
ETA: perhaps my primary dividing point is the physical ailments resulting from drug abuse.
Coffee = HBP, is that right? If you die from it, you win the Darwin Award for your end of the genetic line.
Sucralose = diabetes, HBP, migraine headaches, and a myriad of other health failures. But some folk demand to consume it.
Isn't most of the classification of drugs by our government based upon the permanent physical injury thy can produce, even if the injury is in the brain?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME