Do you know your own self-interest?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
artisticsolution
Posts: 1934
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Contact:

Re:

Post by artisticsolution » Sat Aug 20, 2016 12:56 am

henry quirk wrote:"But I don't understand?!"

Of course you do. Why else would you try to distract from the topic with a personal attack? And what is the topic (between you and me)? Democrats in power, folks who claim to be sensitive to the will of 'the people', will, without remorse, circumvent that will, bend and blunt the democratic process, to get the result they want. Again, say what you like about Republicans, but be honest. Again, at least in the matter of nominating a presidential candidate, the Repubs are more ethical, more honest, than the Dems.

#

"I don't give a rats ass anymore."

Of course you do.

##

"under the thumb "

I don't 'feel' particularly hobbled by any-one or -thing...mebbe you do?

##

"going all freaky violent"

Nah, that's just part of the act, which is well-crafted, designed to push buttons and distract and redirect. I'm surprised 'racist' didn't come up in the spiel...woulda been a classic diatribe then.

##

"The valuer names the concept being valued."

Exactly right, so leave folks alone to determine what each values cuz we don’t need no stinkin’ technocracy.
Of course I do...I was being sarcastic.

As for repubs being more ethical, I don't think either party walks on water. You can cite thousands of instances of unethical behavior by individuals of either party. The thing I am concerned about mostly is what does each party stand for? Is their general message ethical? I think the liberal message is more ethical.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5383
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Re:

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sat Aug 20, 2016 1:25 am

artisticsolution wrote:
henry quirk wrote:"But I don't understand?!"

Of course you do. Why else would you try to distract from the topic with a personal attack? And what is the topic (between you and me)? Democrats in power, folks who claim to be sensitive to the will of 'the people', will, without remorse, circumvent that will, bend and blunt the democratic process, to get the result they want. Again, say what you like about Republicans, but be honest. Again, at least in the matter of nominating a presidential candidate, the Repubs are more ethical, more honest, than the Dems.
Who's saying this crap, that is 100% a lie. The last repub we had in office killed off all kinds of innocent young men, just so he could defend his families business, and tried to sell it to the American families as required so as to pay back the organizers of 9/11, when in fact there were no ties whatsoever. So the repubs are heartless murderers of innocence, and all for the sake of a dollar. Talk about evil incarnate, take the repubs please, and throw them in a great big hole where they belong. Of course I realize that both parties are comprised of individuals, each capable of doing that which serves their purpose alone. The real question is which are more "... for the people...?" And I see that it's the dems that fit that bill more so than the repubs.
#

"I don't give a rats ass anymore."

Of course you do.

##

"under the thumb "

I don't 'feel' particularly hobbled by any-one or -thing...mebbe you do?

##

"going all freaky violent"

Nah, that's just part of the act, which is well-crafted, designed to push buttons and distract and redirect. I'm surprised 'racist' didn't come up in the spiel...woulda been a classic diatribe then.

##

"The valuer names the concept being valued."

Exactly right, so leave folks alone to determine what each values cuz we don’t need no stinkin’ technocracy.
Of course I do...I was being sarcastic.

As for repubs being more ethical, I don't think either party walks on water. You can cite thousands of instances of unethical behavior by individuals of either party. The thing I am concerned about mostly is what does each party stand for? Is their general message ethical? I think the liberal message is more ethical.

Walker
Posts: 6879
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Re:

Post by Walker » Sat Aug 20, 2016 8:05 am

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
artisticsolution wrote:
henry quirk wrote:"But I don't understand?!"

Of course you do. Why else would you try to distract from the topic with a personal attack? And what is the topic (between you and me)? Democrats in power, folks who claim to be sensitive to the will of 'the people', will, without remorse, circumvent that will, bend and blunt the democratic process, to get the result they want. Again, say what you like about Republicans, but be honest. Again, at least in the matter of nominating a presidential candidate, the Repubs are more ethical, more honest, than the Dems.
Who's saying this crap, that is 100% a lie. The last repub we had in office killed off all kinds of innocent young men, just so he could defend his families business, and tried to sell it to the American families as required so as to pay back the organizers of 9/11, when in fact there were no ties whatsoever. So the repubs are heartless murderers of innocence, and all for the sake of a dollar. Talk about evil incarnate, take the repubs please, and throw them in a great big hole where they belong. Of course I realize that both parties are comprised of individuals, each capable of doing that which serves their purpose alone. The real question is which are more "... for the people...?" And I see that it's the dems that fit that bill more so than the repubs.
#

"I don't give a rats ass anymore."

Of course you do.

##

"under the thumb "

I don't 'feel' particularly hobbled by any-one or -thing...mebbe you do?

##

"going all freaky violent"

Nah, that's just part of the act, which is well-crafted, designed to push buttons and distract and redirect. I'm surprised 'racist' didn't come up in the spiel...woulda been a classic diatribe then.

##

"The valuer names the concept being valued."

Exactly right, so leave folks alone to determine what each values cuz we don’t need no stinkin’ technocracy.
Of course I do...I was being sarcastic.

As for repubs being more ethical, I don't think either party walks on water. You can cite thousands of instances of unethical behavior by individuals of either party. The thing I am concerned about mostly is what does each party stand for? Is their general message ethical? I think the liberal message is more ethical.
The Dems belong to the party of racism and the KKK.

No thanks.

Here’s the definition of liberalism with more substance in reality than the rumbling of humours and whims of opinion. American history concurs.
http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/fir ... liberalism

“Liberalism can be understood in two very different ways. Liberalism, or what some call ‘classical liberalism,’ is a political philosophy based on individual liberty and limited government. Over the last century, however, liberalism has come to take on a different meaning. The contemporary understanding of liberalism is based not on individual liberty, but on the use of government to grant benefits and advantages in order to give everyone the ability to achieve a certain standard of living and reduce inequalities. Therefore, modern liberalism encourages an extensive network of interest groups that receive benefits from government and organize in order to preserve those benefits.

“Modern liberalism grows out of the Progressive rejection of American constitutionalism and an embrace of a new conception of freedom, anchored in big government. There are however certain significant differences between Progressivism and modern liberalism.

“Whereas modern liberalism exalts freedom of self-expression, especially sexual liberation, most Progressives embraced traditional morals. Liberals are also obsessed with equality of outcomes in ways that the Progressives were not. Today, liberalism has lost the faith in progress that characterized Progressivism, mostly because of a loss of confidence in the inevitability of progress and the creeping effects of having embraced relativism from the start of the Progressive movement.”

artisticsolution
Posts: 1934
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Contact:

Re: Re:

Post by artisticsolution » Sat Aug 20, 2016 3:14 pm

Walker wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
artisticsolution wrote:
Of course I do...I was being sarcastic.

As for repubs being more ethical, I don't think either party walks on water. You can cite thousands of instances of unethical behavior by individuals of either party. The thing I am concerned about mostly is what does each party stand for? Is their general message ethical? I think the liberal message is more ethical.
The Dems belong to the party of racism and the KKK.

No thanks.

Here’s the definition of liberalism with more substance in reality than the rumbling of humours and whims of opinion. American history concurs.
http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/fir ... liberalism

“Liberalism can be understood in two very different ways. Liberalism, or what some call ‘classical liberalism,’ is a political philosophy based on individual liberty and limited government. Over the last century, however, liberalism has come to take on a different meaning. The contemporary understanding of liberalism is based not on individual liberty, but on the use of government to grant benefits and advantages in order to give everyone the ability to achieve a certain standard of living and reduce inequalities. Therefore, modern liberalism encourages an extensive network of interest groups that receive benefits from government and organize in order to preserve those benefits.

“Modern liberalism grows out of the Progressive rejection of American constitutionalism and an embrace of a new conception of freedom, anchored in big government. There are however certain significant differences between Progressivism and modern liberalism.

“Whereas modern liberalism exalts freedom of self-expression, especially sexual liberation, most Progressives embraced traditional morals. Liberals are also obsessed with equality of outcomes in ways that the Progressives were not. Today, liberalism has lost the faith in progress that characterized Progressivism, mostly because of a loss of confidence in the inevitability of progress and the creeping effects of having embraced relativism from the start of the Progressive movement.”
You can call black....'white' ...but that doesn't make it so.

The facts speak for themselves. Just look up how dem/Republican Congress vote . That will tell you all you need to know.

Republicans tend to vote for big corp interest, while Dems tend to vote for the peoples interests.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5383
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Re:

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sat Aug 20, 2016 3:26 pm

Walker wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
artisticsolution wrote:
Of course I do...I was being sarcastic.

As for repubs being more ethical, I don't think either party walks on water. You can cite thousands of instances of unethical behavior by individuals of either party. The thing I am concerned about mostly is what does each party stand for? Is their general message ethical? I think the liberal message is more ethical.
The Dems belong to the party of racism and the KKK.

No thanks.

Here’s the definition of liberalism with more substance in reality than the rumbling of humours and whims of opinion. American history concurs.
http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/fir ... liberalism

“Liberalism can be understood in two very different ways. Liberalism, or what some call ‘classical liberalism,’ is a political philosophy based on individual liberty and limited government. Over the last century, however, liberalism has come to take on a different meaning. The contemporary understanding of liberalism is based not on individual liberty, but on the use of government to grant benefits and advantages in order to give everyone the ability to achieve a certain standard of living and reduce inequalities. Therefore, modern liberalism encourages an extensive network of interest groups that receive benefits from government and organize in order to preserve those benefits.

“Modern liberalism grows out of the Progressive rejection of American constitutionalism and an embrace of a new conception of freedom, anchored in big government. There are however certain significant differences between Progressivism and modern liberalism.

“Whereas modern liberalism exalts freedom of self-expression, especially sexual liberation, most Progressives embraced traditional morals. Liberals are also obsessed with equality of outcomes in ways that the Progressives were not. Today, liberalism has lost the faith in progress that characterized Progressivism, mostly because of a loss of confidence in the inevitability of progress and the creeping effects of having embraced relativism from the start of the Progressive movement.”
Here, dick cheese:
progressive [pruh-gres-iv]
adjective
1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.


conservative [kuh n-sur-vuh-tiv]
adjective
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.


liberal [lib-er-uh l, lib-ruh l]
adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.


republican [ri-puhb-li-kuh n]
adjective
1. of, relating to, or of the nature of a republic.


democrat [dem-uh-krat]
noun
1. an advocate of democracy.
2. a person who believes in the political or social equality of all people.


So what can we conclude from the above ACTUAL DEFINITIONS OF THE WORDS MEANING FROM A DICTIONARY, NOT SOME SITE MORE APT TO HAVE AGENDAS? That if not for deception and lies, where the people actually stood for the meaning of their respective monikers, repubs would have slaves (the old ways), while the dems would stop it (progress).

Which is not to say that there are no such things as, wolfs in sheep's clothing.

Do you drink heavily? Sometimes you seem sharp, but then some of your ideologies seem idiotic.
Now that you've read this complete, you know why the, "dick cheese" comment was included. ;-)

P.S. So the repubs are fucking cavemen and the demos are the next evolutionary advance. But then it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5383
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Re:

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sat Aug 20, 2016 3:33 pm

artisticsolution wrote:
Walker wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
The Dems belong to the party of racism and the KKK.

No thanks.

Here’s the definition of liberalism with more substance in reality than the rumbling of humours and whims of opinion. American history concurs.
http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/fir ... liberalism

“Liberalism can be understood in two very different ways. Liberalism, or what some call ‘classical liberalism,’ is a political philosophy based on individual liberty and limited government. Over the last century, however, liberalism has come to take on a different meaning. The contemporary understanding of liberalism is based not on individual liberty, but on the use of government to grant benefits and advantages in order to give everyone the ability to achieve a certain standard of living and reduce inequalities. Therefore, modern liberalism encourages an extensive network of interest groups that receive benefits from government and organize in order to preserve those benefits.

“Modern liberalism grows out of the Progressive rejection of American constitutionalism and an embrace of a new conception of freedom, anchored in big government. There are however certain significant differences between Progressivism and modern liberalism.

“Whereas modern liberalism exalts freedom of self-expression, especially sexual liberation, most Progressives embraced traditional morals. Liberals are also obsessed with equality of outcomes in ways that the Progressives were not. Today, liberalism has lost the faith in progress that characterized Progressivism, mostly because of a loss of confidence in the inevitability of progress and the creeping effects of having embraced relativism from the start of the Progressive movement.”
You can call black....'white' ...but that doesn't make it so.

The facts speak for themselves. Just look up how dem/Republican Congress vote . That will tell you all you need to know.

Republicans tend to vote for big corp interest, while Dems tend to vote for the peoples interests.
Hey, AS, you know I still love you right? ;-) Even though you're mad at me! :cry:
Good to see you again! And you're correct, by the way!

Walker
Posts: 6879
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Re:

Post by Walker » Sun Aug 21, 2016 7:46 am

artisticsolution wrote:You can call black....'white' ...but that doesn't make it so.

The facts speak for themselves. Just look up how dem/Republican Congress vote . That will tell you all you need to know.

Republicans tend to vote for big corp interest, while Dems tend to vote for the peoples interests.
You can't be serious. That's the cartoon version. The cliche.

Speaking of absurdity:

Jackie Mason says this sounds like he’s in an asylum talking to people in straight jackets.

:lol:

Fact: This is not at all presidential.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HACfjMo5OtI

*

Eight years of a competent and effective agenda that is perplexing if not obvious has churned up a wake of chaos and conquest, domestic and global. This is not true because someone says it is true. This is true because it accords with reality, and because the agenda caused and causes a flood-dirty wake. The causes and intent are as close to apparent in time as one is likely to ever encounter, due to the immediacy of the news these days.

Here’s some of that intent, and the link that identifies that intent, but does not create that intent through the act of identification.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 1be9047553

“For a man (Obama) who sees a moral arc in the universe bending inexorably toward justice, calculations of raw realpolitik are 20th-century thinking — primitive, obsolete, the obsession of small minds.

“Obama made all this perfectly clear in speeches at the U.N., in Cairo and here at home in his very first year in office. Two terms later, we see the result. Ukraine dismembered. Eastern Europe on edge. Syria a charnel house. Iran subsuming Iraq. Russia and Iran on the march across the entire northern Middle East.

“At the heart of this disorder is a simple asymmetry. It is in worldview. The major revisionist powers — China, Russia and Iran — know what they want: power, territory, tribute. And they’re going after it. Barack Obama takes Ecclesiastes’ view that these are vanities, nothing but vanities.”

artisticsolution
Posts: 1934
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Contact:

Re: Do you know your own self-interest?

Post by artisticsolution » Sun Aug 21, 2016 9:54 pm

I'm not mad at you spheres...I just have nothing to add to your posts. Walker on the other hand I think is pulling my chain. There is no one on earth that can actually believe what he does and then use absurd arguments the way he does.

He must be joking. Cause usually people who hate Obama focus on the mistakes Obama has done. They don't show a video of usa policy that every American president has abided by an single out Obama as the only one who followed it. That's just crazy.

Most Republicans, though misguided and ignorant, can at least tell right from wrong...moral from immoral and make an argument based on that premise...as faulty and shallow as it usually is...at least their heart is in the right place. They just don't understand why what they do is immoral.

What's different about this new batch of Republicans, they don't care about right and wrong. They will make the argument, "right" IS "wrong".

There is no where to go with that. You can't argue with someone unless you both agree on the definition of right and wrong.

This new trump Republican, is not interested in what it means to be moral...so there is no argument to make. They just don't get it...they are the scariest sons a bitches alive. 72 virgins scary...

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5130
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:21 pm

"I think the liberal message is more ethical."

What is that message?

What's the conservative message?

How often does the liberal or conservative message match up cleanly with liberal or conservative actions?

artisticsolution
Posts: 1934
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Contact:

Re:

Post by artisticsolution » Mon Aug 22, 2016 10:43 pm

henry quirk wrote:"I think the liberal message is more ethical."

What is that message?

What's the conservative message?

How often does the liberal or conservative message match up cleanly with liberal or conservative actions?
What actions? The only actions that really matters is how Congress votes and how the president runs the country. Which is for all to see.

How did the country look when Bush left office vs. Now?

There is a stark contrast....people are actually spending money. Go figure.

Walker
Posts: 6879
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Re:

Post by Walker » Tue Aug 23, 2016 7:38 am

artisticsolution wrote:
henry quirk wrote:"I think the liberal message is more ethical."

What is that message?

What's the conservative message?

How often does the liberal or conservative message match up cleanly with liberal or conservative actions?
What actions? The only actions that really matters is how Congress votes and how the president runs the country. Which is for all to see.

How did the country look when Bush left office vs. Now?

There is a stark contrast....people are actually spending money. Go figure.
A non-answer to Henry’s questions thus is caused to exist. :lol:

Analysis of why the non-answer exists is not even required.

Walker
Posts: 6879
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Trumphobia

Post by Walker » Tue Aug 23, 2016 7:40 am

artisticsolution wrote:I'm not mad at you spheres...I just have nothing to add to your posts. Walker on the other hand I think is pulling my chain. There is no one on earth that can actually believe what he does and then use absurd arguments the way he does.

He must be joking. Cause usually people who hate Obama focus on the mistakes Obama has done. They don't show a video of usa policy that every American president has abided by an single out Obama as the only one who followed it. That's just crazy.

Most Republicans, though misguided and ignorant, can at least tell right from wrong...moral from immoral and make an argument based on that premise...as faulty and shallow as it usually is...at least their heart is in the right place. They just don't understand why what they do is immoral.

What's different about this new batch of Republicans, they don't care about right and wrong. They will make the argument, "right" IS "wrong".

There is no where to go with that. You can't argue with someone unless you both agree on the definition of right and wrong.

This new trump Republican, is not interested in what it means to be moral...so there is no argument to make. They just don't get it...they are the scariest sons a bitches alive. 72 virgins scary...
One wonders at these strange projections and imaginings. There are many labels for such thoughts, but really, it would be like analyzing the song of the wind chime. :D

*

Trumphobia:

Analysis?
Doesn’t take much.

Here’s what constitutes Trumphobia.

When a Democrat says what Trump says, no problem.
When Trump says what Trump says, problem.

It’s just as plain as plain can be.
Nothin fancy about what’s going on.

Bill Clinton talking like Trump on immigration
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZXbG5gvoC0

artisticsolution
Posts: 1934
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Contact:

Re: Trumphobia

Post by artisticsolution » Tue Aug 23, 2016 2:10 pm

Walker wrote:
artisticsolution wrote:I'm not mad at you spheres...I just have nothing to add to your posts. Walker on the other hand I think is pulling my chain. There is no one on earth that can actually believe what he does and then use absurd arguments the way he does.

He must be joking. Cause usually people who hate Obama focus on the mistakes Obama has done. They don't show a video of usa policy that every American president has abided by an single out Obama as the only one who followed it. That's just crazy.

Most Republicans, though misguided and ignorant, can at least tell right from wrong...moral from immoral and make an argument based on that premise...as faulty and shallow as it usually is...at least their heart is in the right place. They just don't understand why what they do is immoral.

What's different about this new batch of Republicans, they don't care about right and wrong. They will make the argument, "right" IS "wrong".

There is no where to go with that. You can't argue with someone unless you both agree on the definition of right and wrong.

This new trump Republican, is not interested in what it means to be moral...so there is no argument to make. They just don't get it...they are the scariest sons a bitches alive. 72 virgins scary...
One wonders at these strange projections and imaginings. There are many labels for such thoughts, but really, it would be like analyzing the song of the wind chime. :D

*

Trumphobia:

Analysis?
Doesn’t take much.

Here’s what constitutes Trumphobia.

When a Democrat says what Trump says, no problem.
When Trump says what Trump says, problem.

It’s just as plain as plain can be.
Nothin fancy about what’s going on.

Bill Clinton talking like Trump on immigration
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZXbG5gvoC0
What was that...20 years ago? LOL

Let's see...how did Clinton's plan work out? Did it stop the illegal immigration problem? LOL

Oh but wait! He didn't build a wall! Well, shit...that there's probably the problem! No wall! :roll:

Well, when we finally build a wall, round up all the illegal immigrants, feed them and house them while we organize transportation, put them on buses, ship em back, man the wall, air, and ocean. We might lessen the problem at a cost that greatly exceeds the current problem of having them here. LOL

Or

Maybe we grant amnesty, give them citizenship and let them start paying taxes like every other citizen.

Or is that too humane for you?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5130
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Tue Aug 23, 2016 2:29 pm

Walker,

I expected no answer to my questions, so: no worries.

#

Trumphobia has brought us to this...

Clinton could stand in the middle of Times Square, nekkid, praisin' Satan, guzzlin' the blood of newborns, and what passes for the press would ignore, dismiss, or explain it away.

Trump could fart in a crowded elevator and what passes for the press would declare it a sure sign of the Apocalypse.

I'm only exaggeratin' a little here.

If Trump wins the popular vote in a large, unambiguous way, it'll be a humilliatin', castratin', event for 'journalists' (but not for reporters)...how galling to spend a year slicin' away at some one to discover the heads you were tryin' to direct do exactly opposite of what you want. I'm no Trumpist, but it would warm my withered heart for the press to be on the receivin' end of such an obvious 'go fuck yourself'.

artisticsolution
Posts: 1934
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Contact:

Re:

Post by artisticsolution » Tue Aug 23, 2016 5:08 pm

henry quirk wrote:Walker,

I expected no answer to my questions, so: no worries.

#

Trumphobia has brought us to this...

Clinton could stand in the middle of Times Square, nekkid, praisin' Satan, guzzlin' the blood of newborns, and what passes for the press would ignore, dismiss, or explain it away.

Trump could fart in a crowded elevator and what passes for the press would declare it a sure sign of the Apocalypse.

I'm only exaggeratin' a little here.

If Trump wins the popular vote in a large, unambiguous way, it'll be a humilliatin', castratin', event for 'journalists' (but not for reporters)...how galling to spend a year slicin' away at some one to discover the heads you were tryin' to direct do exactly opposite of what you want. I'm no Trumpist, but it would warm my withered heart for the press to be on the receivin' end of such an obvious 'go fuck yourself'.
The "press" has done nothing but point a camera in his direction and waited for him to say something stupid, unethical or immoral. Trump does not disappoint.

Even if all the press did was just report and not comment, people would still think the majority of what Trump said was stupid, unethical and immoral.

You and walker either don't understand /can't discern why or your too unethical to admit Trump is a dick.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests