Post by thread:[OT]: Brainstorming adult only

{Quote hidden}> > On Jun 30, 2008, at 4:28 PM, James Nick Sears wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Jinx <spam_OUTjoecolquittTakeThisOuTclear.net.nz> > wrote: >>> it sounds like somone has it in for liberals there >> >> One of my dictionary definitions is "free from prejudice or bigotry", >> which is only a short hop from what most people might recognise as >> "political correctness". Possibly "political correctness" could be >> described as "aggressively active liberalism". Certainly seems that >> way sometimes > > So then in the other direction, the prejudice and bigotry of, say, > slavery and the Ku Klux Klan really are/were just "aggressively active > conservatism"? > > If the idea of being "free from prejudice or bigotry" can be spun as a > negative, we are in big trouble, folks. > > Not that I'm saying I agree that "brainstorming" is an example of > prejudice or bigotry. I agree this is crazy. Which is probably > offensive to crazy people, but what am I supposed to do? > > At least in the U.S. the whole idea of "liberal do-gooding > we-know-what's-best-for-you-even-if-you-don't meddlers" is pretty > blurry anyway. It's usually seems to be the supposedly conservative > Republicans that are trying to meddle in my life. Case in point: > UIGEA (Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act), aimed to make a > classic American pastime, playing poker, illegal on the Internet. > Sponsors: most, if not all, were Republicans. Real conservatism is > dead. The "conservative" party gets elected by pandering to > moral-religious interests and trying to legislate the tenets of their > faith (as well as brick and mortar casino interests). When it comes > to meddling in the issues that I believe the government should stay > out of (read: personal freedoms), when it comes to my vote, the > do-gooding of the Democrats ("liberal") pales in comparison to the > pandering of the Republicans ("conservative"). > > So it's all pretty complicated as far as I can tell, at least here in > the states. > > -n. -- Don't read any further if you are easily insulted. Best to delete this posting and remain calm and content. cc My view is that the vast majority ( the masses ) of humans live in a self imposed hallucination. Only a few recognize and admit reality for what it is. Their opinions about what to do about it vary widely. One big hallucination ( an attempt to avoid inconvenient truths ) of the masses is that democracy works in the USA and in other large "democratic" countries. Yes, democracy at the national level "works" if you have an incredibly low bar for the definition of "working". If you vote in a national election, you are a fool. Not only is your vote immaterial but if it actually counted, you will still be voting for a Demopublican ( sounds like someone who operates machinery to tear things down ) or perhaps a Republicrat. There is virtually no difference between the two parties. If you believe that there is a difference, you cannot actually care about liberty or personal freedom. Recently, the Democrats joined the Republicans in approving of warrant-less wiretapping. Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said that "impeachment" is not on the table. If this is so, in what way do Democrats differ from the big R's? So hey, if you like being a slave, why not admit it ? Go ahead and vote in national elections. Pretend you are doing something "good". I would have voted for Ron Paul. a) he had no chance b) if elected , his power to restore liberty would have been largely imaginary. I would have voted for him while admitting that I was indulging in a fantasy . It will be many , many years ( centuries ? ) from now before there are enough "phase two" humans to replace the "masses" that now inhabit the planet. Maybe then truth-telling will improve. cc

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Cedric Chang wrote: > If you vote in a national election, you are a fool. Not only is your > vote immaterial but if it actually counted, you will still be voting > for a Demopublican ( sounds like someone who operates machinery to > tear things down ) or perhaps a Republicrat. There is virtually no > difference between the two parties. If you believe that there is a > difference, you cannot actually care about liberty or personal > freedom. Recently, the Democrats joined the Republicans in approving > of warrant-less wiretapping. Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said > that "impeachment" is not on the table. If this is so, in what way > do Democrats differ from the big R's? Wow. I thought *I* had a low view of humanity. The democrats and republicans are both prretty awful, yes. Voiting is currently a choice between the lesser of two evils. But it is still a choice. Would you prefer to live in Zimbabwe or China? Democracy is a terrible system of government, but it's the best that we can do right now. Every vote DOES count, just look at how close many elections are. I can't belive you really think it makes no difference who you vote for. Do you think we would be stuck in a war with Iraq if we had elected Gore? Maybe we would be stuck in something else, who knows, but I can't imagine it would be worse than the situation we are in now. Ugh. My personal view is that as long as we have a two party system, we are going to continue down the wrong road with no real way of changing things. The two parties just have too much power and are unwilling to give it up. We need a voting system where you can rank all canidates. That way you are not forced to choose between voting for the lesser of two evils and throwing your vote away on a third party canidate. There are many, many systems that can do this, but good luck in getting any level of government to support changing the system that got them elected in the first place! I do love America. I hate it's current leadership, but I have hope we can fix it. It may be misguided hope, but without it I'd be miserable. :-) -- Ian Smith http://www.ian.org