|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Feb 19, 2016 23:18:43 GMT -5
Fortunately for the western world the Simpletons are a minority. A great leap backwards to the bad old days of democracy for the wealthy and everyone else can go to hell will not happen.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 20, 2016 2:45:27 GMT -5
Fortunately for the western world the Simpletons are a minority. A great leap backwards to the bad old days of democracy for the wealthy and everyone else can go to hell will not happen. Yes, it seems obvious that Simpleton never was in need of any help in his/her life and can't understand that not everyone was born with a silver spoon in their mouth.
Yes, it is good that the Simpletons in this world are a minority, never-the-less they are the most affluent & with all the money & the most power & can run rough-shod over the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Feb 20, 2016 9:36:53 GMT -5
Fortunately for the western world the Simpletons are a minority. A great leap backwards to the bad old days of democracy for the wealthy and everyone else can go to hell will not happen. Yes, it seems obvious that Simpleton never was in need of any help in his/her life and can't understand that not everyone was born with a silver spoon in their mouth.
Yes, it is good that the Simpletons in this world are a minority, never-the-less they are the most affluent & with all the money & the most power & can run rough-shod over the rest of us.
Only until the enfranchised wake up, see reality and vote, dmmichgood. And, incidentally, put aside their own greed. I'm afraid there are MANY people in this country who are relatively impoverished, but are against any moves toward income equality because they plan, one day, to move from the bottom 20% to the top 1%, and they consider themselves to be protecting their own ephemeral future interests.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2016 12:09:19 GMT -5
Fortunately for the western world the Simpletons are a minority. A great leap backwards to the bad old days of democracy for the wealthy and everyone else can go to hell will not happen. You do realize that most successful East Asian countries are not democracies or are just democracies in name only. Japan for example has had the same ruling party for nearly the entire post-war period, a political party which effectively rubber-stamps anything the Japanese bureaucracy wants. You simply don't understand that all successful countries are run by a professional cohort. Universal suffrage is just a crowd control mechanism to make the hoi polloi think that they have some say in what happens and so that they don't revolt. That's the big learning of the revolutionary times of recent history. We'd be a lot better off if the actual rulers could come out from the shadows and actually tell us why they want to do such and such policy, instead of hiding behind a smokescreen of lies to manipulate the public.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 20, 2016 12:28:10 GMT -5
I wonder if many of the "rulers" would agree with Winston Churchill, in defending their decisions , going against the majority, thinking they know better, and in some cases they actually do. “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Alvin
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Feb 20, 2016 14:26:15 GMT -5
Fortunately for the western world the Simpletons are a minority. A great leap backwards to the bad old days of democracy for the wealthy and everyone else can go to hell will not happen. You do realize that most successful East Asian countries are not democracies or are just democracies in name only. Japan for example has had the same ruling party for nearly the entire post-war period, a political party which effectively rubber-stamps anything the Japanese bureaucracy wants. You simply don't understand that all successful countries are run by a professional cohort. Universal suffrage is just a crowd control mechanism to make the hoi polloi think that they have some say in what happens and so that they don't revolt. That's the big learning of the revolutionary times of recent history. We'd be a lot better off if the actual rulers could come out from the shadows and actually tell us why they want to do such and such policy, instead of hiding behind a smokescreen of lies to manipulate the public. You are about right on all of that Simpleone, I think this has happened because of voter apathy. However from time to time voters have been stirred up enough to make their voices heard. I sometimes say that an election in NZ is the democratic choice between two dictatorships but that is changing with our MMP system and the emergence of strong credible third parties.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Feb 20, 2016 16:01:59 GMT -5
I find it amusing when I hear Americans commenting that Canadians are just like Americans -- what's the difference? Other than the fact that their cities are usually cleaner, the other ways Canadians differ from Americans aren't that apparent, unless you investigate their sense of community. It's a gentler society. Lots of over-generalization Bob. Canada is a very spread-out country with quite different people in different regions. The US has extremely different people within its very diverse geographic confines as well. Saskatchewanites and North Dakotans are more alike than they are similar to folks from other parts of their own countries. Mainians and New Brunswickers are more alike than they are similar to folks from other parts of their own countries. Albertans and Rocky Mountains states folks (MT, ID, WY, CO) are more alike than they are similar to other folks from their own countries. British Columbians and Pacific Northwestern states folks (WA, OR, northern CA) are more alike than they are similar to folks from other parts of their own countries. As for 'gentler', Southerners have a reputation for that quality by which they are world famous.This is from not so long ago. It happened regularly in the South.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2016 16:22:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 20, 2016 22:34:10 GMT -5
You can easily look up what the voting franchise was when the USA was initially established. I'd like something like that I already know who could vote when the US was first established as a country.
The only people who could vote were White men WITH property! Not quite. It was free adult male property owners. In some states, women who owned property could also vote. In some northern states freed slaves who owned property could also vote.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 20, 2016 23:14:23 GMT -5
Yes, it seems obvious that Simpleton never was in need of any help in his/her life and can't understand that not everyone was born with a silver spoon in their mouth.
Yes, it is good that the Simpletons in this world are a minority, never-the-less they are the most affluent & with all the money & the most power & can run rough-shod over the rest of us.
Only until the enfranchised wake up, see reality and vote, dmmichgood. And, incidentally, put aside their own greed. I'm afraid there are MANY people in this country who are relatively impoverished, but are against any moves toward income equality because they plan, one day, to move from the bottom 20% to the top 1%, and they consider themselves to be protecting their own ephemeral future interests. True, gene. There are indeed so MANY people in this country who are on the lower economic ladder but vote against their own interests because they think that they can move up that ladder to the 10% of the people who are so wealthy. They have NO IDEA just exactly how wealthy those people really are nor how they got their money!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 20, 2016 23:24:08 GMT -5
Fortunately for the western world the Simpletons are a minority. A great leap backwards to the bad old days of democracy for the wealthy and everyone else can go to hell will not happen. You do realize that most successful East Asian countries are not democracies or are just democracies in name only. Japan for example has had the same ruling party for nearly the entire post-war period, a political party which effectively rubber-stamps anything the Japanese bureaucracy wants. You simply don't understand that all successful countries are run by a professional cohort. Universal suffrage is just a crowd control mechanism to make the hoi polloi think that they have some say in what happens and so that they don't revolt. That's the big learning of the revolutionary times of recent history. We'd be a lot better off if the actual rulers could come out from the shadows and actually tell us why they want to do such and such policy, instead of hiding behind a smokescreen of lies to manipulate the public. I think the people behind the rulers have made what they believe/want quite clear. Consider Charles and David Koch. They are quite clear when explaining their agenda.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 20, 2016 23:33:18 GMT -5
I already know who could vote when the US was first established as a country.
The only people who could vote were White men WITH property! Not quite. It was free adult male property owners. In some states, women who owned property could also vote. In some northern states freed slaves who owned property could also vote. Aha! Thanks!
I didn't know that. Just goes to show that no matter one's age, they can learn something new every day.
July 2, 1776
"The New Jersey state constitution allows “all inhabitants . . . who are worth fifty pounds” to vote, including women and people of color. In 1807 the requirement is rewritten to specify only white men.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 23, 2016 8:13:01 GMT -5
The state of gun violence in the US, explained in 18 charts
|
|
|
Firearms
Feb 23, 2016 21:12:45 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Roselyn T on Feb 23, 2016 21:12:45 GMT -5
Of course @wally will disagree with this !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2016 21:35:37 GMT -5
Of course @wally will disagree with this ! i've heard it all before and remain unchanged by it...
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Feb 23, 2016 23:58:13 GMT -5
Why would someone who is living for the next life even want to defend themselves with a weapon of violence? Just adds to my anecdotal archiving ( related to experience in healthcare) of the number of christian and other religious people who accept excessive means to defer death despite claiming they are looking forward to being with their god. These anecdotes (shared by other observers) include observing that it is the religious who tend to be more afraid of, and to fight death. This seems entirely logical as if the religious feel they have fallen short of attaining the standards imposed upon them by their chosen religious text and they risk eternal punishment: death would be rather off-putting (or an experience to put-off). Death is merely a long sleep; to be interrupted by some incompetent supernatural deity who made a mess of his first project, would be more than a little annoying And the Peace aspect adds to the puzzle. In the case of chrisitanity: Jesus was referred to as the Prince of Peace. Do you think a gun comprises part of the Christian Peace Profile @wally? Such a tragic image matisse
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Feb 24, 2016 1:31:19 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2016 11:16:29 GMT -5
Why would someone who is living for the next life even want to defend themselves with a weapon of violence? Just adds to my anecdotal archiving ( related to experience in healthcare) of the number of christian and other religious people who accept excessive means to defer death despite claiming they are looking forward to being with their god. These anecdotes (shared by other observers) include observing that it is the religious who tend to be more afraid of, and to fight death. This seems entirely logical as if the religious feel they have fallen short of attaining the standards imposed upon them by their chosen religious text and they risk eternal punishment: death would be rather off-putting (or an experience to put-off). Death is merely a long sleep; to be interrupted by some incompetent supernatural deity who made a mess of his first project, would be more than a little annoying And the Peace aspect adds to the puzzle. In the case of chrisitanity: Jesus was referred to as the Prince of Peace. Do you think a gun comprises part of the Christian Peace Profile @wally ? Such a tragic image matisse I see the self preservation aspect of your humanity is not strong...mine is...
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Feb 25, 2016 4:20:22 GMT -5
And have you pondered why that may be @wally? You would have to note the irony when a religious person admits to clinging to "self" preservation when denying ones self is an integral part of christianity.
The bible stresses: The spiritual body over the physical Submitting ones' will to the will of christ Eternal life over the earthly one
What on earth has possessed you? By arming yourself with a deadly weapon; not only have you apparently tossed the above biblical edicts aside but you are placing yourself in a most precarious position as you have a high risk of breaking the first commandment.
|
|
|
Post by withlove on Feb 25, 2016 4:47:48 GMT -5
Why would someone who is living for the next life even want to defend themselves with a weapon of violence? Great question. I wonder the same thing. I'm looking forward to heaven...can't understand why others would be so desperate to hold onto this life, although the natural instinct to protect loved ones may be their reason for a weapon or even treatments for cancer, etc. Jesus avoided his predators until he felt that his mission was complete...maybe others feel their "work" isn't done? But Jesus said "your time is always," meaning we can die at anytime. The pope-mobile has bullet-proof glass. Odd.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Feb 25, 2016 5:02:38 GMT -5
I've also wondered about the popes level of protection withlove and I respect your consistency.
|
|
|
Post by withlove on Feb 25, 2016 5:13:12 GMT -5
I've also wondered about the popes level of protection withlove and I respect your consistency. Thank you-- and I really respect what you contribute! Just had the thought: while death may not be a reason to hurt someone else, what about defending yourself from rape, torture, kidnap, sex slavery, etc.? I get that fear. But there are other forms of sel-defense.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Feb 25, 2016 5:31:30 GMT -5
Self-defense is to apply our innate survival instinct. Fright; fight; flight: hormonal responses.
Is it correct to categorize the deliberate arming of oneself with a gun as a pre-meditated defensive action and reaching out for the nearest tool in the case of an actual attack, be it a shovel, kitchen knife etc, as employing a spontaneous reflex action.
The law seems to have greater challenges identifying the guilty party when a person dies from a bullet shot by an armed person, than one who has grabbed the nearest item to defend themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2016 11:18:19 GMT -5
And have you pondered why that may be @wally ? You would have to note the irony when a religious person admits to clinging to "self" preservation when denying ones self is an integral part of christianity. The bible stresses: The spiritual body over the physical Submitting ones' will to the will of christ Eternal life over the earthly one What on earth has possessed you? By arming yourself with a deadly weapon; not only have you apparently tossed the above biblical edicts aside but you are placing yourself in a most precarious position as you have a high risk of breaking the first commandment. I don't worship weapons they are just a tool like any other so no I haven't broken the first commandment...
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Feb 25, 2016 15:21:00 GMT -5
Just had the thought: while death may not be a reason to hurt someone else, what about defending yourself from rape, torture, kidnap, sex slavery, etc.? I get that fear. But there are other forms of sel-defense. Self defense is an issue tho going to the point of killing another for the sake of some stupid piece of inanimate property or money or just feeling threatened doesn't seem christ-like in any way. Rising to the defense of others is a less selfish thing but even then someone might choose to take a bullet for another instead of killing. Beyond personal killing governments do 'bear the sword' like Roman 13:4 says so a nation and police keeping order and protecting even with deadly force is something that god allows - there are people and nations out there who don't hesitate to kill and use violence to get their ways and thats where anarchists would have us all go - every person being a law and god unto him or her self is an ideal world for them.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 25, 2016 15:23:46 GMT -5
Just had the thought: while death may not be a reason to hurt someone else, what about defending yourself from rape, torture, kidnap, sex slavery, etc.? I get that fear. But there are other forms of sel-defense. Self defense is an issue tho going to the point of killing another for the sake of some stupid piece of inanimate property or money or just feeling threatened doesn't seem christ-like in any way. Rising to the defense of others is a less selfish thing but even then someone might choose to take a bullet for another instead of killing. Beyond personal killing governments do 'bear the sword' like Roman 13:4 says so a nation and police keeping order and protecting even with deadly force is something that god allows - there are people and nations out there who don't hesitate to kill and use violence to get their ways and thats where anarchists would have us all go - every person being a law and god unto him or her self is an ideal world for them. And for the theist, how can a person determine if their life is more important than the attacker? Deciding who lives and who dies sounds sort of like god's job description.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 25, 2016 16:03:33 GMT -5
Why would someone who is living for the next life even want to defend themselves with a weapon of violence? Just adds to my anecdotal archiving ( related to experience in healthcare) of the number of christian and other religious people who accept excessive means to defer death despite claiming they are looking forward to being with their god. These anecdotes (shared by other observers) include observing that it is the religious who tend to be more afraid of, and to fight death. This seems entirely logical as if the religious feel they have fallen short of attaining the standards imposed upon them by their chosen religious text and they risk eternal punishment: death would be rather off-putting (or an experience to put-off). Death is merely a long sleep; to be interrupted by some incompetent supernatural deity who made a mess of his first project, would be more than a little annoying And the Peace aspect adds to the puzzle. In the case of chrisitanity: Jesus was referred to as the Prince of Peace. Do you think a gun comprises part of the Christian Peace Profile @wally ? Such a tragic image matisse I see the self preservation aspect of your humanity is not strong...mine is... Oooops, there goes another Christlike quality.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Feb 25, 2016 18:19:28 GMT -5
And for the theist, how can a person determine if their life is more important than the attacker? Deciding who lives and who dies sounds sort of like god's job description. Depending on the 'the' in 'theist' answer might be found in the word 'attacker' if the attacked is someone else but for the christian the principles aren't about defending ones self but in laying down ones life for others and turning the other cheek when struck.
|
|