A message to the lost left: Your foundation is resting on quicksand.

Let me refer you to this book.

 

,

I noticed the motto, there's no government like no government

Well, at least I don't have to continue this debate with you much longer....

"they don't have no wars, they don't have no laws, and they don't have no leaders because each man IS a leader." This book becomes more relevant day by day as the people are becomming aware that their "leaders" and THEIR laws, are bought and paid for corrupt individuals

And you say you have studied management? What on earth for?

After all, you are saying no management is the best management.

Cheers.

 

I have been kinda laying low trying not to cause you grief since the OP tried to explain his view and you were staying on government.

Look, let me see if I can kind of help you get him.

He tried to explain a system of thinking.

While he did mention the Left, it is them that is in deep agony and butt hurt. He wanted them to calm down and see things in a different fashion. But all in all he was not trying to stay to the topic of government.

I inserted some things about Jim Rohn too. Why? To bring the focus back to the concept of human thinking.

Rohn was a master of getting people out of a thinking rut. So is the OP. I see in him what I saw in Jim. A person of ideas.

Why then did i insert what Bill Malloy says in his book? Well, since you needed to talk of Government, why not introduce to you a novel thinker and a very smart guy. I am myself mentioned in his book though I did not request to be admitted to his page.

I went around and around with Bill aka Jackney Sneeb whom I argued with as Xcobrajock@aol.com

As I read his excellent arguments, i started to catch onto his theme.

We govern ourselves.

If you refuse to govern yourself, others have a way to handle that.

You call it government. And that is correct. But with your permission?

How much force by government do you really want and need? We have Democrats posting who totally are so deep in the tank for government dynamite won't shake them up. They totally need government My best guess is but for government they would be natural born con artists, bank robbers and bust up your property. See any of those in the news?

A lot of people do not give their permission.

Why? They are extremely gifted at governing themselves. So no thank you, keep the government.

 

The OP postulated that we are all responsible for our own behaviour, and that we can all achieve success, happiness and love, by training our minds to overcome unconscious mental barriers.

Amen to that.

But you and I appear to have strayed off-topic somewhat.

It's a question of balance, like many things in life.

Self-management is a necessity for success of the individual; however, any social entity benefits from appropriate management, from private companies up to local, national and international entities.

Regarding permission, note the preamble to the constitution:

We the people....in order to form a more perfect union......do agree to adopt certain regulations as deemed necessary for promotion of the common welfare....(my phrasing of the intent of the preamble).

There is always a tension between individual freedom and community well-being, requiring appropriate management to achieve the most efficient and productve interaction of individuals who have particular (sometimes competing) goals.

Management of complex systems is difficult, and mistakes are made (eg legal processes that are selfserving, as I previously noted in the Thomas Logistics case you cited as an example of tedious regulation, and which I regarded more a fault of legal processes rather than the fault of county regulations
Nevertheless we should always strive toward the goal of beneficial management, no matter how difficult.

[Note: necessity prompted the creation of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the accompanying institutions, after the experience of WW2, a project that is imperfect and incomplete as yet. Abandonment of this - management - project would be the worst possible move, in todays unstable world).

You don't wish to consider a balance between individual responsibility and public sector amenity ?

That's your choice.
-----------

I notice from your post #83

I agree Obama was a fizzer, and Clinton likely to have been more of the same.

But Trump too must deal with the continuing, underlying dysfunction of the monetary system in which he now governs (both national and global), which has in fact existed since WW2; and this dysfunction is becoming particularly acute with the rise of China and de-industrialisation of the first world.

Here's one commentary, which points to some very real problems requiring attention (beyond individual achievement and resposibility):

https://www.intellihub.com/why-dona...al-reserve-and-start-issuing-debt-free-money/

 

I had slowed my posting to this topic due to my desire to explore the OP view and not drift off into government.

Alas, I am trapped it seems.

So, since I am stuck, let me sort of recap how a good number see government and maybe a bit of why.

Ever hear of some animal that was in a cage and when the door opened up, it was so used to the cage they refused to walk out?

Even if you never heard of that, it makes a point. There are those who crave cages. Maybe convicts for instance.

There are those who crave to be left alone.

The cage dwellers defend the cage. To them it is vital. They simply can't fend for themselves.

Think of that family living 20 miles up in the hills. They live months and months and never need government. They don't want it. It is not there to help them.

I have lived more away from huge cities, such as Los Angeles or NY City so appreciate the other life.

I would not mind if the rural areas were government free zones.

 

Thanks for the debate.

You are now free (!!)

(yes, the creature who has been locked up so long that it cannot walk through the door to freedom when it's opened - very sad.)

And that example of a family living in contentment, outside the 'madness', well explains your viewpoint.

I will move on to the appropriate thread.

 

You are giving an argument for the rejection of all religions. Had the followers of Jesus or Mohamed followed your stricture there would be no Christianity nor Islam as they required a parting with previous thought.

As too the quicksand part. Better to try and build on quicksand than a foundation of hell fire and brimstone as the current administration has done. Architects in Chicago found how to build on sinking foundations over a hundred years ago. No one has found a way to succeed while building on hell fire and brimstone, short term gain for long term suffering is a bad trade off.

 

Where do you get the hell fire/brimstone crap? That's illusion, in this case one you seem to have applied over the top of the reality. And Chicago architects did find a way to build on soft earth. They did that by driving piers and pilings down to solid rock, not supporting the buildings with quicksand or unstable soil. That was just a problem in the way to be solved. When your mind state is quicksand, there is no solid base beneath it. Doesn't make any difference which party or candidate you are for; there is no substitute for common sense, honesty and factual understanding. Any thing else leads to delusions- and you can pick anythhing you make up and it will still be a delusion. .

 

Please don't use colors like that, they can be very difficult to read.
Actually, Chicago architects found that you could build on unstable soil by making the basement floors a single unit essentially creating a boat hull on which you build. Prior to that nothing over four floors could be built. In essence I am objecting to your metaphor. You can build where there is poor land, even quicksand. The hell fire and brimstone that I refer to is the foundation that the right is building on. You say the left is quick sand and I say the right, specifically their current leader, is building on the foundations of Hell. Pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth are the seven deadly sins and Trump has the first 6 in spades and Congress takes care of the seventh admirably.
As you say

I agree but it seems that you overlook this when looking at the current state of affairs in our leadership. I am going back to the OP where the "lost left" comment came in. I believe those that are lost are the ones that overlook evil rather than reject and fight it.

 

If you think the world doesn't run on fantasy you haven't been paying attention

 

Thanks, I hope the OP can put a bit more information out on his thinking system.

 

Oh it has been running on fantasy all right- which is exactly why the current horrific conditions exist and things must be changed.

 

"I agree but it seems that you overlook this when looking at the current state of affairs in our leadership. I am going back to the OP where the "lost left" comment came in. I believe those that are lost are the ones that overlook evil rather than reject and fight it."

I certainly did not overlook that, but perhaps didn't clarify it enough. I agree that this is a major flaw in the ideology, and encourages more trouble rather than stopping it.

 

I can understand your reaction to this post, it's a tough realization when things like this hit home By redirecting the blame you proved the posters point and post to a tee!

 

OBarry was famous for it! How many times was he shot down by the courts Clearly the original post had you in mind!

 

And another voice heard from.

Sorry sonny boy. You don't get a pass to talk about what "liberals" think any more than the failed fool who initiated the thread.

Try talking, instead, about what YOU think. Justify, for example, deporting a 16 year old high school student who's live here for 15+ years, speaks only American English, gets excellent grades, and wants to be the first person in his family to ever attend college.

Please tell me how deporting this kid "Makes America Great."

I know, YOUR talking points stink. So you have to talk about them and you have to use the talking points given you because, when you talk about you, well, let's face it, as a group, you're pretty crappy people.

 

I think I can, considering I was raised in the bay area, and my immediate family "Mom and Dad" were dyed in the wool democrats along with my 20+ hippie cousins that I spent every day with during summer vacations, grade school and high school. Yes I was a long time democrat/liberal for a very long time until I finally realized that the world needed productive people and not a class of people that did nothing their entire life but demand someone else finance their pipe dreams of a utopian existence!

I can honestly say I lived thru the period where Democrats were decent hard working people that believe more like a conservative and watched the transformation of a party that was proud of their country, jobs to a group of lazy haters that can't find any type of work to suit their utopian life styles and because they are unhappy with themselves and the insanity they have failed to produce simply project that self loathing outwards to everything and anyone that apposed that defeatist theology!

I promise you, todays democratic party is nothing like it was in the sixty's, it's just a bastardized version by a group of very unhappy people! Your predecessor were nothing like the goons, thugs and violent bullies we see today!

 

Hmm. interesting example. One could ask a question like this. When it was Barry Obama and he was learning Indonesian and acclimating and otherwise becoming a citizen of Indonesia, why was he still an American? At least in his case, he was legally in Indonesia.

As for what happens in this country, children of illegal immigrants are still illegal immigrants themselves. The fact that they haven't been thrown out yet doesn't change that fact, nor does it satisfy the national discussion to say that we should simply over look them. When the Obama administration created the "dream act" they did so outside of congress by executive Fiat. Take this to court. You'll lose.

 

Talking about what somebody else thinks is like telling people that you control somebody else's thoughts. I agree with dadoalex on this: You can be the most similar person to somebody else, but you're still not that person. You can talk about what YOU think or you can request what OTHERS think and talk about what you hear.

What about the democrats that are running around in conflict, shooting at the enemy, because it shapes their view of democracy; or the ones that see their parents working hard to support them and in turn do their best to work for the community?

You may have experience in observing Democrats, but that doesn't mean you know Democrats or even Republicans for that matter. You can call yourself either or anything, but at the end of the day you are trying to represent that label that you use for yourself.

I agree that people should be productive in applying what they learn.

 

I think I have a fairly good idea where a Democrat, progressive or liberal is coming from Last time I voted democrat was Slick willy, if you do a little research you will see that the progressive "Party's" insane ideology began to tip the scales over old school moderate democrat ideology right about then! My father passed away under the Obarry administration and he was a southern democrat "Alabama" and then a retired 35 year bay area UAW democrat, although he died a registered Democrat he was none to proud of his party and the changes he had witness over his 83 years! My Mother is still a registered Democrat and again, is none to proud of the direction the party has taken over her 82 years. In my Momz case, the radicalized liberal version on display today actually pushed her to vote Trump, something I would have never seen coming, and I'm sure she is not the only old school'r turned off by this behavior!

All of my hippie cousins never really held a real job and took advantage of every social program they could, most are/always been under disabilities for mental distress, coping issues, physical disabilities or substance abuse! Mind you this is California and the ease of social qualifications is far easier than many other states, and again, California is the poster child for liberalism So in all honesty better than 95% of all my hippie relatives are social misfits and societal failures and lived a nonproductive life! Don't get me wrong they are no way isolated but the normal for folks of their generation in that area, bastardized Liberalism is a failed ideology, and in no way could it possibly be universally offered to all Americans, and that's where the conflict comes in! We have one party that understands that productivity is key to a healthy society and another that believes all "people" should be allowed to "Find themselves" but also believes that someone other than themselves should provide them with the basics it takes to survive, and publically insult those that provide, demean their life styles, ignore their concerns and troubles, and therein lies the conflict!

The post is so relevant, todays liberals need to extend their compassion to their fellow Americans and stop insisting "They" and every other person on the planet must come first! They should really take a moment and understand just who is providing this nation with the bread and butter and what side it should be buttered on!

 

Really?

And which part in the 70's...

Opposed the war in SE Asia
Fought for civil rights
Fought for a woman's right to choose
Fought for Medicare, Medicaid, and SS

And in the 70's "conservatives" were calling them "commies" then too.

The Democratic party has not changed it is still the same except for being abandoned by racists, gay-phobics, and women haters. Speaking of Republicans, Republican philosophy has lost all meaning. The only foundation the new Republican has is "against." To be "against" soley for the sake of being "against." The ACA is a prime example. Until 2009 the ACA WAS the Republican plan. Until Democrats adopted it. Then it was "against" at all costs.

Against is not

 

Your failed example failed to address the question. Which makes yours a failed post.

How does throwing those kids out "Make America Great."

 

There is something about your post that I can't quite put my finger on. But I will try anyway...

I feel that your argument is very akin to someone telling a mother that she should give money to someone else' kid instead of her own. You would be like, "why wont you want to support this someone else' kid? Just because he/she did not come out of a particular womb (aka, yours)?" This is what your argument basically amounts to. You seem to think that the States should just take in anybody who wants to come, as long as they promise to work hard. But the United States is not a charity. It is not her job to reward hardworking foreign nationals. Her primary concerns should always be about her citizens and their welfare. We are not turning people away because of the location of their birth. We are turning them away because they are not US citizens.

I don't think it is the responsibility of the United States (or her citizens) to ensure that people from other countries be able to create wealth.

I think real US citizens have the right to send money to anywhere on earth and this act should not deprive them of their citizen status. In other words, the citizen status is not affected by how much/whether one sends money abroad. Furthermore, I dont care if an illegal immigrant keeps all the money he makes in the US. He is still not a citizen and if he came here illegally, he should go.

By removing an illegal immigrant, the citizens of United States will have one fewer competitor for jobs. But this is not important at all. We are not removing illegals because it "makes American great again". We do this because we have laws that we should enforce.

 

My statements are trying to prevent you from supporting somebody else's kid when your own kids are starving. You have natural born citizens working for the US that you are claiming are not citizens and you are telling them that they are not citizens. Meanwhile, you have aliens that are draining the US economy, sending their money abroad, and you are calling them US Citizens. All of this because people have forgotten the meaning of citizenship and believe that other people are or are not citizens according to the label of the country that we decide to attach to their physical birth; according to a geographical location in this world. Effectively, we are turning people away because of the location of their birth and other factors that they have no control over, while denying them the right to identify with The United States.

Me neither (and I don't think the United States has a gender or sex).
I do enjoy the thought of justice or liberty; however...

What is your definition of a real US citizen? If the "citizen" is killing our economy, then they are not a citizen. If an "illegal immigrant" is bolstering our economy and working to represent our country, then they are a citizen of our country. Why are we doing everything in our power to kill natural born citizens and demanding that people have birth certificates or artificial citizenships to travel to/from the states and even to ride a bus in between them? When did our country become a nation where people are no longer free to work represent it if the birth of their physical body isn't on a piece of paper? A real US Citizen is born naturally; and not on any piece of paper.

Spending tons of cash moving a cat to the opposite side of the house, watching it walk back over to you, and then repeating that pattern is asinine and a horrible way to squander resources instead of doing something constructive with that positive energy. The United States is not a building that you can close off. It is not a physical thing that only gives birth above a certain piece of land. When you move somebody across a fence, it does not change the fact that they remain with The United States. It kills our economy, separates our people, disrupts families, and works to ensure that the United States will die at that border.

 

Your dates are off and other than the opposition to the Nam your events are wrong and far to much credit is being given to the 60's generation! The 70's were the very end of the flower child and had little resemblance to the culture group 1958 thru 68.

As for Women rights I don't believe there were many Hippies in 1848 when the movement began.
As for Civil Rights movement , again it peaked in 1960 after being fought starting in 1919, again, give credit where it's due.
Medicare "On November 19, 1945, seven months into his presidency, Truman sent a message to Congress, calling for creation of a national health insurance fund, open to all Americans."
Social security 1935
Women right to choose, again, Margret Sanger began this movement around 1915.

The 60's hippie and their aberrations today really didn't spearhead anything, they have done what they always have and always will do, ride the coattails of others, expect twice the credit for it and expect the world to lavish them with rich's and keep them in temples and worship their very existence