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

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 23:40
VIEWED: 8899
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SIGNYM

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 7:29 PM

Quote:
...I challenge you. Start a thread where I can speak my piece. Do it. I'll tell you what I believe. I'll show you and everyone else what I think we can do.

There! Easy-peasy!

HEYA EVERYONE: LET'S KEEP THIS A SNARK-FREE ZONE, WILLYA?

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 7:32 PM

Thanks Sig.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 7:33 PM

Now.

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

TO CHANGE things for THE BETTER?

SIGNYM

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 7:36 PM

I dunno....

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

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 7:37 PM

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

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

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

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

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

NIKI2

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 7:40 PM

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

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

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 7:41 PM

And to this I add...

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

You give power to others.

I say, you take that power unto yourself.

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

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

PIZMOBEACH

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 7:43 PM

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

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

SIGNYM

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 7:43 PM

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

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

Kinda muffled. Not clear. Clarify, please?

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 7:47 PM

So.

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

Specific issues tho...

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

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

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

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

SIGNYM

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 7:52 PM

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

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

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

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 7:57 PM

Yes. Its done by vote.

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

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

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

We were attacked.

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

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

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

SIGNYM

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 8:00 PM

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

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

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 8:05 PM

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

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

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 8:07 PM

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

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

NIKI2

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 8:07 PM

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

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

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 8:08 PM

Niki,

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

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

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

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 8:11 PM

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

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

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

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

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 8:19 PM

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

Or.

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

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 8:20 PM

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

Its just noone has asked me for it before.

:)

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 8:27 PM

And guess what, we can all do this.

Black, white, red, ect.

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

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

We can do this.

And we can do this without resorting to subjugating people.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 8:36 PM

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

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

STORYMARK

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 8:52 PM

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

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

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

So, who decides?

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

RUE

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:06 PM

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

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

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

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:08 PM

Ok.

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

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

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:10 PM

Rue. Grow up.

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

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:10 PM

Rue. Grow up.

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

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

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

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

RUE

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:15 PM

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

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

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

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:17 PM

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

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

I say no more.

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

RUE

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:35 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:35 PM

Yeah, no answer to what I've said.

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

RUE

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:40 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:09 PM

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

KWICKO

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:27 PM

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

We were attacked.

By neither of those nations.

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

I'm all ears...

Mike

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

KWICKO

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:29 PM

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

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

How'd that work out for them?

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

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

[Kicks Wulfie into The Pit]

Mike

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

KWICKO

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:34 PM

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

Black, white, red, ect.

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

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

We can do this.

And we can do this without resorting to subjugating people.

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

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

Ya see where this always goes?

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, September 17, 2009 1:50 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHRISISALL

Thursday, September 17, 2009 2:07 AM

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

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

All's fair & all.

The laughing Chrisisall

MANGOLO

Thursday, September 17, 2009 2:33 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, September 17, 2009 3:45 AM

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

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

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

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

-F

GINOBIFFARONI

Thursday, September 17, 2009 3:53 AM

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

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

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

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

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, September 17, 2009 4:27 AM

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

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

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

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

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, September 17, 2009 5:03 AM

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

How does Michele Bachmann not qualify ?

Also,

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

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

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

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

-F

KWICKO

Thursday, September 17, 2009 11:36 AM

Quote:

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

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

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

Mike

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

RUE

Thursday, September 17, 2009 3:21 PM

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

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

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

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 17, 2009 3:32 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 17, 2009 3:46 PM

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

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, September 17, 2009 3:56 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Just sayin.

-Frem

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

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, September 17, 2009 4:00 PM

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

Whattt?!!

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

-F

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 17, 2009 4:08 PM

Frem: Lions do. Wild feral cats will sometimes develop colonies centered around the queens. it is a defensive structure against marauding males. House cats... when forced to live in the same household will develop a pecking order.

But cats generally respond to fear, not guilt.

I've owned lots of cats. I had one cat who treated me like a friend. He would follow me when I took the dog for a walk, and let me bathe him when he was full of yuck. (Megacolon. Very sad story.) Personable without being demanding.

But that was very different from my dog. She had this pecking order in mind. Unlike my friend kitty, she felt guilt when she did something wrong, and looked to me to tell here whether or not it was OK. She went out of her way to welcome the kitties and the new baby into her "pack" (Although she DID chew up a baby book!)

Kitty, although extremely intelligent, rational and friendly, never exhibited these behaviors. Both equally intelligent, both very friendly and, we all bonded tight, but very different responses. Anyway, don't want to drag the thread way off topic into who has more experience with cats; just my personal observation of cats and dogs isall.

STORYMARK

Thursday, September 17, 2009 4:11 PM

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

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

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

So, who decides?

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

I had a legitimate question without snark....

The lack of response is telling.

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 17, 2009 4:14 PM

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

RUE

Thursday, September 17, 2009 4:17 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 17, 2009 4:45 PM

So, to refresh some of the questions which have been asked, and place them away from the cat versus dog discussion:
-------------
You specifically...what actions would/will you take in your life to bring about what you believe in? How would you go about "taking" this freedom you speak of?-Niki2

Which people? Hard to find anything everyone agrees on these days. Attendees at Tea Parties would obviously say he is not representing them, but there are plenty of others who think he is. So, who decides?- Story

What if "the people" want MORE GOVERNMENT than what the Constitution allows? The Constitution was just what some people wanted that summer, 220+ years ago. And it wasn't even a representative group at that: All men, all white, and mostly rich.- Signy

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

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

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

What is it about "government" that you find so appalling? Is it the fact that "government" has the "approved" force of arms to enforce laws? If that's the case: How do you feel about the death penalty, which (IMHO) along with war is the greatest handover of power to "the state"? Would you feel the same about ANY OTHER entity which enforced its will on the people through force of arms? For example, in the past there were "company goons" who shot and killed anyone daring to meet "the company" with a just smidgen of power to bargain with. What about them? As bad as government? What about states and their rights? What would happen if a state turned out to be even more abusive in it power than the Feds? Then you get to gangs. Kinda the same problem as government: a group of violent people holding entire neighborhoods hostage. Both accepted AND feared by their neighborhoods. Is a husband, with superior (or perhaps sole) earning power and access to the larger world, free to beat his wife? Are parents free to beat their children, who are entirely dependent on them for survival?- SignyM

{is it} "the strong picking on the weak" that sets your teeth on edge (no matter what the entity), or the perceived moral authority of the government, problems with the Fed specifically (eg Civil war issues) or some other factor?- SignyM

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 4:52 PM

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

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

Does that make sense?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 4:59 PM

"You specifically...what actions would/will you take in your life to bring about what you believe in? How would you go about "taking" this freedom you speak of?-Niki2"

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

"What if "the people" want MORE GOVERNMENT than what the Constitution allows? The Constitution was just what some people wanted that summer, 220+ years ago. And it wasn't even a representative group at that: All men, all white, and mostly rich.- Signy"

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

"{is it} "the strong picking on the weak" that sets your teeth on edge (no matter what the entity), or the perceived moral authority of the government, problems with the Fed specifically (eg Civil war issues) or some other factor?- SignyM"

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

BYTEMITE

Thursday, September 17, 2009 5:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"... really, you ever tried to MAKE a cat do something against it's will ?"

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

... :(

*Throws away CAT-alyzer Ray*

*Tears*

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

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

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

Doin' okay on the snark.

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

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

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

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 5:07 PM

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

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

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

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

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

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 5:18 PM

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

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

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 5:21 PM

But I will do my best.

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 17, 2009 5:22 PM

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

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 5:28 PM

Good point.

I think its a good thing abortion is legal.

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

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

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

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

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

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 5:34 PM

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

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

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

NIKI2

Thursday, September 17, 2009 5:42 PM

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

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

Quote:
Unfortunately, we are country that is full of people that are complacent. Maybe they raise their voices or go to a march, but they rarely DO anything to ensure their freedom.

Mangolo's got it.

If you can grasp that, then many, many of your suggestions depend on the majority of Americans making the decisions. So second, given the majority can be so easily manipulated, how do you GET a "good", minimum government in the first place? Your suggestions also mean, for the most part, that people have to want to do what's RIGHT, not what serves their immediate interests.

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

Surely you're not THAT naive? Surely you don't really believe that's feasible, do you? Depend on peoples' conciences??? That's a helluva blanket statement! Others have argued about that one, tho' I don't know if you're hearing them. Without government, we have chaos. TRULY a case where the strongest are in power...something always fills a vaccuum...and gets power. So what do you propose that isn't "government?

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

But how do you get the people to call for it? The same way Bush did; with lies, manipulation, propaganda...in essence by brainwashing the "people" in every way possible until they do what you want? That's a lot of how it works now...so, what's the option? Again: Do you really think the majority of people in America are going to take a good, hard look at whether we should go to war or not before calling for one?

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

Then our Prez had his own agenda and we went after Iraq, where the people who attacked us weren't even THERE. We got manipulated into two wars with two countries, when neither "country" had attacked us. The American people were sold a bill of goods, and bought it hook, line and sinker. Even IF they understood what really happened, do you think they'd not have wanted to go after SOME country...the concept of a countryless organization attacking us didn't compute; and we'd have had to go after Pakistan too, if we really wanted to get to al Qaeda. So?

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

I like the idea, but again; how do you enforce it? What enforcement do you use: fine? Jail? How do you give people freedom by compelling them to vote?

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

The first, and I think biggest, problem with that is that elected representatives have to get elected, which costs enormous amounts of money. If it didn't, they wouldn't need

STORYMARK

Thursday, September 17, 2009 5:44 PM

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

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

Fair enough. My apologies for jumping the gun.

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

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 5:51 PM

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

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

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

I have to hope for more than that.

Because, otherwise, whats the point?

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

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

NIKI2

Thursday, September 17, 2009 5:57 PM

Oh, dear, you guys move too fast:

Quote:
but NOT doing anything to harm another person, because you CHOOSE not to. Because you have been taught by family and friends NOT to do certain things.

You put a lot of faith in people behaving according to moral standards. And moral standards are different for different people. It's what buddhism is based on, and works better in my opinion than religion, which is ALSO based on the same concept, but is abused because, just as you and I both said, the majority of people want a parental figure to tell them what to do. Like I said, the average person just wants to deal with their small lives and let the government figure out the rest.

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

Good on YOU! That's our best chance of at least AFFECTING what our government does. Bear in mind, tho', that for everyone one of us, there are ten who just want to bitch and moan to their reps and the ppers, just to let off steam about things they're uneducated on but have visceral feelings about.

Quote:
I am a grown man, I don't need someone else telling me whats for my own good.

But many DO. Should we do away with laws because everyone thinks they're adult and can choose for themselves? Wouldn't work, you know that, and you've expressed the reasons yourself.

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

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

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

---Augh! I can't keep up! No, I'm not saying

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

I'm saying that MOST people have enough to do to deal with the problems in their own lives, so they don't bother to deal with bigger issues. As such, those who DO bother need to take responsibility to learn and understand as much as they can, then be active in fighting (via all the methods you mentioned, and more) to bring about change, better things, and be responsible for themselves. I didn't mean "elites", I meant those willing to take the step beyond their own lives. I don't blame people for not dealing with the bigger issues--life IS hard, takes most of our time...but those of us who CAN, should educate ourselves, not take what we hear on the surface, and do our best to make things better.

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

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:02 PM

Reality is what you make of it.

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

NIKI2

Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:05 PM

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

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

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:15 PM

But thats part of the problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:26 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KWICKO

Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:56 PM

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

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

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

Pretty freaking sad, huh?

Mike

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

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:11 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:11 PM

NIKI2

Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:23 PM

Yeah, I'd heard about that long ago, wasn't sure whether to believe it or not.

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

Jeezus, glad you don't have power! To punish an entire country for a group that only used that country and had no national involvement to speak of; AND to send our soldiers over to suffer and die to do it, rather than take the person/people in charge handed to you...WOW!

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

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

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:26 PM

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

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:26 PM

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:28 PM

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

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

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

Spanking detrimental to children, study says
www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/16/spanking.children.parenting/index.html
NOTE:

Quote:
At all three ages, African-American children were spanked significantly more frequently than those from white and Mexican-American families, and verbally punished more than the other children at ages 2 and 3, the study said.

(Doesn't seem to help later behavior, does it?)

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

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

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

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

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:37 PM

You make some good point Sig.

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

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

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

Put it this way:

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

Its hard to explain.

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

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

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:43 PM

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

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:43 PM

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:52 PM

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

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

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:57 PM

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

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 8:04 PM

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

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 8:18 PM

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

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

You HAVE to get mad.

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

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

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 8:24 PM

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

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

YOUR raised voice, YOUR threatening gesture.

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

Yeah, its ugly, its not pretty.

But you meet force with force.

"Thats the Chicago way" lol sorry...

But its still the truth.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 8:33 PM

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 17, 2009 8:44 PM

Quote:
But anger at injustice, at loss of liberty, at any of these things is RIGHT. You HAVE to get mad.

No, you don't. Anger is counterproductive to clear thought and effective action.

Quote:
You know the answer to raised voices, and threatening gestures?
YOUR raised voice, YOUR threatening gesture.

Someone pulls a knife on you, you pull YOUR knife.
Yeah, its ugly, its not pretty. But you meet force with force.

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

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

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

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 8:49 PM

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

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

Its always my first option.

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

Better to draw first.

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

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

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

Anyways... far off topic here...

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 8:54 PM

As a courtesy Sig....

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 17, 2009 8:55 PM

Wulf, see above, I added. Also

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

It means carrying a mode of behavior that you learned in ONE context into an area where it doesn't belong... for example, among friends, family, neighbors, ETA online discussion groups, different religions, and politicians. Inability to learn. Being "brain stuck" in a rut of responses not functional for the situation. Being unaware of self, out of control of your responses, and therefore controlled by them.

ETA

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

Sorry. It's my style to edit online. Will try to remember.

Back to work for me. Later!

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 8:59 PM

You forgot to put ETA in front of:

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:01 PM

Roger that. Lost track.

Back later!

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:11 PM

Sure thing Sig.

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

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

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:30 PM

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

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:30 PM

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

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:45 PM

Before I go tho...

Because of a weakling and a woman....

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 17, 2009 10:56 PM

For balance, here's another website

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

What are the Symptoms of Anger Addiction?

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

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

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

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

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

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

KWICKO

Friday, September 18, 2009 12:32 AM

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

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

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

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

And it's pretty much always been this way.

Hopefully more later, barring any distractions.

Mike

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

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, September 18, 2009 1:50 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-f

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE