kvnchrist

Ya and while your at it , you might as well point out that water is wet ... hehe . But am curious what would constitute a society that did not build anything ? Is it a culture that does not exploit or at least very little ? Because the inverse is what I would constitute as not building anything . Which is where I think American society is at , always in Exploit mode. I've changed my mind on America splitting into 2 federal entities being a good thing. At least while I would have to live through the change ... since it would take 10-20ish years of turmoil before we would get a working government for the people out of it. (being the whole reason to do it) So meh ... let the non voting generation deal with it when they decide just looking at their iphones isn't working anymore. And technology is more what I was talking about ... since there are so many life skills that are getting phased out by it . Plus introducing so many new ways of exploit. (not in a good way) At a guess, I would say that the native americans were not exploitative, and most of them didn't really build anything permanent... (there are exceptions....) That would likely to apply to pretty much any nomadic people as well. And their lifestyle didn't change for thousands of years, and even then, it was because of an outside influence. (spanish introducing horses, europeans taking over the land.....) I'm not a great fan of technological advances as much as I am social progression. Just look at what we do with the tech we have now. We have the internet and look at how many who each day segregate ourselves into our own respective little forums to talk with people who agree with us about those we collectively hate. How much actual thought is needed to regurgitate old prejudices? Are we actually progressing or are we regressing, seeing how many times in the past few years that physical violence has erupted.? How many times have we heard the statement that someone had pissed someone else off when in reality those making these statements let themselves become pissed off. The fact is that no one can make any of us angrey. We let ourselves become angry because of our own assumptions. Admiral Rickover used to interview each candidate for submarine school. One of his tests was "You have 3 seconds to piss me off." This brought about a wide variety of behaviors.... the most effective of which was the guy that immediately grabbed the model submarine on the admirals desk, and promptly smashed it. Needless to say, the admiral was pissed. :D (and the guy got into submarine school.......) So yeah, it is most certainly possible for others actions/words to piss someone off. To deny that, is to deny reality. Humans are emotional animals. There is no getting around that. Sorry, but no. Emotions are feelings and as such can be controlled if control is more important to a person than being controlled. It's all in whats important to you. It's my experience that the less you think of imagery such as being arrogant or placing undue importance on material items the less chance of being effected by others interactions with you. Knowing yourself and loving others in such a way as to endeavor to understand the situation can do wonders at this. Booker T Washington had a very excellent quote " I shall allow no man to belittle my soul by making me hate him." When you are angered, you hate and that's something that can not be gotten around. You either hate what was done or the person doing what was done. Like I said its a value system. Yes, emotions are feelings. And for the most part, they can be controlled. But not 100% of the time. Terribly sorry, but, if you are a human being, and not some variety of sociopath/psychopath, then it is indeed possible for other people to piss you off. In fact, it's rather likely that it will happen to you quite frequently over the course of your life. You may not necessarily REACT, but, it's highly likely various folks have made you angry over the course of your life.... And really, hate doesn't enter into it. Many people have pissed me off over the years. I don't hate them, nor do I hate their actions. I get over it. Just like most other folks. Wow! Did you find a crowd rallying in the street while you walking your dog today? Did you feel the excitement of your youth surging in your blood and hope to see a fight break out? Which I conclude; from my own experiences how the thrill from the others in the crowd causes a vibrating sensation our bodies experience and does get me so excited. And yet I believe we share that kind of nervous thrill? When we are near the excited mass of people we hope we are able to run; fast enough if we see the battle begin; to either get into the brawl, or run away with the dog and find comfort behind our brick and mortar prison's concrete walls. Do you have a key to your cell or are you the warden of your keep? Sarcasm is a poor excuse for debate. If you have a point then bring it forward and we will discus it. If not then I will revert back to my statement that I am not here to be liked. Nor am I here to waste time respecting the post of someone who obviously disrespects mine.

Ya and while your at it , you might as well point out that water is wet ... hehe . But am curious what would constitute a society that did not build anything ? Is it a culture that does not exploit or at least very little ? Because the inverse is what I would constitute as not building anything . Which is where I think American society is at , always in Exploit mode. I've changed my mind on America splitting into 2 federal entities being a good thing. At least while I would have to live through the change ... since it would take 10-20ish years of turmoil before we would get a working government for the people out of it. (being the whole reason to do it) So meh ... let the non voting generation deal with it when they decide just looking at their iphones isn't working anymore. And technology is more what I was talking about ... since there are so many life skills that are getting phased out by it . Plus introducing so many new ways of exploit. (not in a good way) At a guess, I would say that the native americans were not exploitative, and most of them didn't really build anything permanent... (there are exceptions....) That would likely to apply to pretty much any nomadic people as well. And their lifestyle didn't change for thousands of years, and even then, it was because of an outside influence. (spanish introducing horses, europeans taking over the land.....) I'm not a great fan of technological advances as much as I am social progression. Just look at what we do with the tech we have now. We have the internet and look at how many who each day segregate ourselves into our own respective little forums to talk with people who agree with us about those we collectively hate. How much actual thought is needed to regurgitate old prejudices? Are we actually progressing or are we regressing, seeing how many times in the past few years that physical violence has erupted.? How many times have we heard the statement that someone had pissed someone else off when in reality those making these statements let themselves become pissed off. The fact is that no one can make any of us angrey. We let ourselves become angry because of our own assumptions. Admiral Rickover used to interview each candidate for submarine school. One of his tests was "You have 3 seconds to piss me off." This brought about a wide variety of behaviors.... the most effective of which was the guy that immediately grabbed the model submarine on the admirals desk, and promptly smashed it. Needless to say, the admiral was pissed. :D (and the guy got into submarine school.......) So yeah, it is most certainly possible for others actions/words to piss someone off. To deny that, is to deny reality. Humans are emotional animals. There is no getting around that. Sorry, but no. Emotions are feelings and as such can be controlled if control is more important to a person than being controlled. It's all in whats important to you. It's my experience that the less you think of imagery such as being arrogant or placing undue importance on material items the less chance of being effected by others interactions with you. Knowing yourself and loving others in such a way as to endeavor to understand the situation can do wonders at this. Booker T Washington had a very excellent quote " I shall allow no man to belittle my soul by making me hate him." When you are angered, you hate and that's something that can not be gotten around. You either hate what was done or the person doing what was done. Like I said its a value system. Yes, emotions are feelings. And for the most part, they can be controlled. But not 100% of the time. Terribly sorry, but, if you are a human being, and not some variety of sociopath/psychopath, then it is indeed possible for other people to piss you off. In fact, it's rather likely that it will happen to you quite frequently over the course of your life. You may not necessarily REACT, but, it's highly likely various folks have made you angry over the course of your life.... And really, hate doesn't enter into it. Many people have pissed me off over the years. I don't hate them, nor do I hate their actions. I get over it. Just like most other folks. you can not be angered at anything unless you give it permission to anger you. you can be bothered by something, you can even be upset by something that happens to you, but if you allow it to anger you, that is your fault that you are angry, not the antagonists.

There is every getting arou Ya and while your at it , you might as well point out that water is wet ... hehe . But am curious what would constitute a society that did not build anything ? Is it a culture that does not exploit or at least very little ? Because the inverse is what I would constitute as not building anything . Which is where I think American society is at , always in Exploit mode. I've changed my mind on America splitting into 2 federal entities being a good thing. At least while I would have to live through the change ... since it would take 10-20ish years of turmoil before we would get a working government for the people out of it. (being the whole reason to do it) So meh ... let the non voting generation deal with it when they decide just looking at their iphones isn't working anymore. And technology is more what I was talking about ... since there are so many life skills that are getting phased out by it . Plus introducing so many new ways of exploit. (not in a good way) At a guess, I would say that the native americans were not exploitative, and most of them didn't really build anything permanent... (there are exceptions....) That would likely to apply to pretty much any nomadic people as well. And their lifestyle didn't change for thousands of years, and even then, it was because of an outside influence. (spanish introducing horses, europeans taking over the land.....) I'm not a great fan of technological advances as much as I am social progression. Just look at what we do with the tech we have now. We have the internet and look at how many who each day segregate ourselves into our own respective little forums to talk with people who agree with us about those we collectively hate. How much actual thought is needed to regurgitate old prejudices? Are we actually progressing or are we regressing, seeing how many times in the past few years that physical violence has erupted.? How many times have we heard the statement that someone had pissed someone else off when in reality those making these statements let themselves become pissed off. The fact is that no one can make any of us angrey. We let ourselves become angry because of our own assumptions. Admiral Rickover used to interview each candidate for submarine school. One of his tests was "You have 3 seconds to piss me off." This brought about a wide variety of behaviors.... the most effective of which was the guy that immediately grabbed the model submarine on the admirals desk, and promptly smashed it. Needless to say, the admiral was pissed. :D (and the guy got into submarine school.......) So yeah, it is most certainly possible for others actions/words to piss someone off. To deny that, is to deny reality. Humans are emotional animals. There is no getting around that. Sorry, but no. Emotions are feelings and as such can be controlled if control is more important to a person than being controlled. It's all in whats important to you. It's my experience that the less you think of imagery such as being arrogant or placing undue importance on material items the less chance of being effected by others interactions with you. Knowing yourself and loving others in such a way as to endeavor to understand the situation can do wonders at this. Booker T Washington had a very excellent quote " I shall allow no man to belittle my soul by making me hate him." When you are angered, you hate and that's something that can not be gotten around. You either hate what was done or the person doing what was done. Like I said its a value system.

Ya and while your at it , you might as well point out that water is wet ... hehe . But am curious what would constitute a society that did not build anything ? Is it a culture that does not exploit or at least very little ? Because the inverse is what I would constitute as not building anything . Which is where I think American society is at , always in Exploit mode. I've changed my mind on America splitting into 2 federal entities being a good thing. At least while I would have to live through the change ... since it would take 10-20ish years of turmoil before we would get a working government for the people out of it. (being the whole reason to do it) So meh ... let the non voting generation deal with it when they decide just looking at their iphones isn't working anymore. And technology is more what I was talking about ... since there are so many life skills that are getting phased out by it . Plus introducing so many new ways of exploit. (not in a good way) At a guess, I would say that the native americans were not exploitative, and most of them didn't really build anything permanent... (there are exceptions....) That would likely to apply to pretty much any nomadic people as well. And their lifestyle didn't change for thousands of years, and even then, it was because of an outside influence. (spanish introducing horses, europeans taking over the land.....) I'm not a great fan of technological advances as much as I am social progression. Just look at what we do with the tech we have now. We have the internet and look at how many who each day segregate ourselves into our own respective little forums to talk with people who agree with us about those we collectively hate. How much actual thought is needed to regurgitate old prejudices? Are we actually progressing or are we regressing, seeing how many times in the past few years that physical violence has erupted.? How many times have we heard the statement that someone had pissed someone else off when in reality those making these statements let themselves become pissed off. The fact is that no one can make any of us angrey. We let ourselves become angry because of our own assumptions.

Did you mean " trying too hard to be the opposition than we are at being ourselves. " Cuz it certainly didn't make sense with the " Not" I used to be like you ... with a bleeding heart ... but the blood ran out. Now I could give a fu#k about ASPCA commercials. Because if you notice ... the filming is staged quality ... therefore they are making the animals suffer for video value. And that stupid biatch that sounds like she is on 20 quaaludes can go fook herself . Cheeze and rice ... imagine how much of your donation is going to pay for her habit ? And don't get me started about saving the holucuck survivors :down: Anyways sorry to vent ... but I can't see anyway through the conundrum ... but for people to start suffering and die . Most particular ... the self entitled Americans , which are basically spoiled brat children living off of what their ancestors built for them. 2021 I predict being able to watch a lot of people suffering from their own stupidity. Which I will enjoy for a moment ... but then I will have to pull up my bootstraps and fix it for them :pirate: What I said was what I meant. Trying too hard not to be something is acting out so ridiculously against something that you seem to the casual observer to be far more unhinged than your rival. Certainly in today's political circus we have seen over the top ridiculous statements and activities on both sides that have turned off the center so much I would submit that many of them will be more likely to be voting for Donald Duck than anyone on any ticket. Sorry about whatever you meant by bleeding heart, but as we all are, we are not here on this world to be liked or disliked. We are here to state our opinions as we see it and deal with the aftermath as we have the mind to do. I think too many people are so addicted to this FACEBOOK trend to take likes as some sort justification for more and more ridiculousness. They end up playing for short lived adoration instead of long term sensibilities. With that being said, I do appreciate respectful corrective criticisms and a swift kick in the pants when I go too far on a tirade.

Sometimes I think that we, as a people are trying too hard not to be the opposition than we are at being ourselves. The left is trying so hard to not be what they consider a racist republican and the right is trying too hard to not be their stereotypical imagery of what the left is. I think it is playing out in the cultural wars, which includes the migration question. At times I think the only people who really like what America is today are those who come from other countries. The rest of us are just fighting over the spoils of a world created by past generations, that we are taking for granted. Owning something is not necessarily buying or paying for something. It is a responsibility of acknowledgement that something was done that disrupted the lives of a good many people. I think our arrogance has taken away several opportunities to mend fences and to extricate us from several countries crap lists. I may be wrong. It was a long time ago, but I seem to remember after the Iran Hostage criss that the people over there was demanding an apology for our intervention in their internal affairs. Who knows. If President Carter would have given it, we might have been on friendly relations with those people instead of trying to stop their nuclear program.

The West has meddled in the Middle East far longer than Bush. We were in Iran and put up the Shaw in the mid 50's which was what lead to our troubles over there. The European countries have had their hands in there far longer. After WWI they carved the Middle East up like a wedding cake and gave it to themselves. I do understand why things have gotten so bad, but I agree with General Powell. If we break it, we own it. We own what happened in Iraq all the way up until today and will have to shoulder that burden for a very long time. I do agree with you, we should leave the Middle East. We all need to leave the Middle East and break our addiction to fossil fuels, which in my opinion has done more harm than good in just about every scale imaginable. Our addition to cheap oil has done as much damage over there as our addiction to drugs coming across the Southern boarder has done to the civilians South of the boarder who are terrorized by the Cartels that use the drug money to buy power and influence. President Trump keeps talking about a border wall to keep things out, when it is our need to entertain ourselves. I know that there is a terrible problem with the Opioid addiction, but our infatuation with recreational drugs has been around a lot longer and has effected far more peoples lives in several South American countries. We need to stop with this idea of being the benevolent benefactor of the rest of the world and really look at these places with a respect for the people instead of this idea that we are helping by supplanting our culture for theirs.

How can a majority of any people so uneducated and so indoctrinated by culture, by ideology and by religion determine what bills are in their best interest if they continue to believe in most politicians that even by their own words read only a portion, if any of the legislation that passes under their noses? Speaking of rights The public has not only the right, but the obligation to educate themselves on what is going on, not only in their back yards but all over the globe. They need to know why things are, because of what happened in the past and fully acknowledge any responsibility their government has had in bringing others to the state they are in. I don't think half the world would be in the state it is in if certain parts of the world hadn't decided to interfere in the cultures of others. I look at not only Iran, but the whole of the middle East and Asia, when I say this. I know that some of my Conservative friends take a dim view of this attitude, but most of them have a way of ignoring the past for the present, just as many of my liberal friends have a tendency to dwell on the past and ignore the present. I guess there is a comfort zone within eachothers perspective interests that, in their minds justify spitting in the other persons eye. This country is no longer populated by Americans, as much as it is populated by people grouped together by a color, a sex or a religious or political persuasion. People talk about legal citizens, but from what I've seen, there are a lot more ilegal citizens who seem to feel a whole lot better about being in America than many of those who were born here. At least many of them don't take the country for granted. How do we get a majority opinion out of uneducated, indoctrinated, self absorbed spoiled rotten people who think they are the leaders of a free world, when so many of them have freely given up the freedoms they once had [Patriot act] for a sense of security, given to them by the same people who have botched up so much in the past. The US Government. Many are more interested in how many likes they've gotten on their last cat video than they are about their legislative well being. A good measure are more interested in what someone else has than what they have and end up not appreciating anything at all.

It's not the government, but our system of values and our control of our financial system that we have too deal with. We put too much value in our own opinions and don't scrutinize them or those whose duty it is to indoctrinate us in the quote/unquote correct way of thinking for those in the seats of power. Unless we are willing to really willing to take an open honest and thorough self evaluation of ourselves, we will never know how full of crap we might just be. If we can't be that honest with ourselves, then how can we even contemplate what a government that we can actually say with a straight face is for the people. What people are we actually envisioning when we construct this perfect sounding image within our head? What form of commerce and what monetary system would support this so-called perfect order? America started out as an ideal that was considered a liberal idea when it was formed. Today, it is embraced mostly by conservatives and those who consider themselves on the left seem to want to accentuate the negatives, just as the founding fathers of Americas birth did the British system. My question in all this is what we mean by the term, people. Both sides flout this word as if it should be sacred, but what do they mean by people. Do they mean, people like us or people who think like us.? It seems like there are too many people out there who think they own the term People and use it exclusively to reflect their mental image of the people in the world and it is that very images that the thought police have taken such a long time to cultivate with the approval of those we really should be looking at, instead of those they claim are so evil. If we really look at the term PEOPLE, aren't those in government people? Aren't those who voted for and against President Trump, people? If so, why are so many upset that he sets in the White House? Why are there so many who hate those who voted him in, with a hatred so vile that they would attack them physically? Why do so many affix the term haters on those people, when they hate them? Is the any hatred in the world that can be considered any more righteous than any other? Hatred is not interchangeable to indignation, which leads me to believe that much of what we see in anger in this country is not about TRUMP or CLINTON. Its about us as human beings and about our own fears that we are far less interested in dealing with than blaming those around us. If we can't do that, then what the heck are we contemplating a more perfect union?

I don't know how old many of you are, but I remember when people would just come to an agreement on something mutually beneficial, or at least we could agree to disagree and part without either destroying each other or messaging one another's ego. I remember when the term enlightened came out so that those who agreed with someones ideals could verbally pat those people on their heads for following along. Now we have the word WOKE! that pretty much means the same thing. I just don't get the idea of seemingly having to message someones ego for agreeing with another. It reminds me of a carnival game show host that has to inflat others ego to make them feel better about themselves instead of letting the data speak for itself. Those who don't agree with that data aren't going to be persuaded by rhetoric and standing around praising each other will just amuse those same sceptics.

I don't think I ewas ever defending the media. More like pointing my fingers to the true culprate in this little shell game. We can't forget the the media is made up of people who are the public. This is not a one way street and to fixate on only one side of the delusion only allows that part of this little charade to find some other way of justifying themselves and their behavior. People want to be the heroes of their own reality and project attitudes and ideal on those around them according to how they feel about them. Lets not forget who it is who wears the chips on their shoulders and who does not. It is those with something inside them to prove. All the media does is message the shoulder that carries the chip.

Its imagery,. AOC hits all the markers in the lefts version of the underdog. A woman and a woman of color. One who unseated a Democratic stalwart and is one who is not afraid to mix it up with anyone who gets in her way. It's Christmas for the far left, but what they haven't learned is that they can't use scavenger hunt tactics to pick those who represent them. Just being a woman or a man or being outspoken doesn't make you effective. Shes even attacked her fellow Democrats for not following the Democratic agenda and is so doing told those peoples constituents that they are less important that the party line. These constituents vote in these people because they like what they say, not because what a junior representative from another state thinks is right. If that rep doesn't listen to them then they won't listen to the Democratic party. The media raised her up to the status she thinks she has and they will follow her all the way down if she ever falls from the heights she thinks she has attained. It's all about the bottom line for these media types and the mnore contriversial, the more readers buy their rags. Im thinking that the group or gang or whatever they are called has the political life expectancy of the Trump Administration because they are sucking up all the air. The American public has the attention span of a Cocker Spaniel puppy. Their will be some new shinney little bobble that will get our attention and we will run after that till we find something else to peek our curiosity. It's like watch a keystone cops movie on a contenious loop.

I don't think the media knows who they are following. I think that the entire political landscape is changing right under their feet and they are trying to stay relevant by pandering to those they feel is projecting the most controversial imagery. I think, with the the end of the Obama presidency was a watershed moment for both parties as neither side was fully satisfied with either sides performance. The left turned to Hillary Clinton, but those who really wanted real change went with Senator Sanders. From what I've heard many on the far left blame Hillary for loosing to Trump and those are the ones who now support people like AOC It's not without design that she is backing Senator Sanders. I think he is the most sincere of the hopefuls and would really like him to get the Democratic nod. Id like to see him debating whoever stands for the right. I have already said that I think Trump was a protest vote against those the republican voters thought was most ineffectual in combating the changes President Obama tried to bring in. All im all I think we are looking at the slipting of the Democratic and the Republican parties into two additional parties which I think would be a good thing.

I don't know why people seem to think the these news outlets are the reason for the divisions in AmericaThe divisions have been there for a very long time and it is cultural. Just look at the mannerisms of each of the idealistic campgrounds. They are very far apart as to how they look at the world. https://www.diffen.com/difference/Conservative_vs_Liberal This idea that they need to be lead to anything by the media is, to me ignoring the fact that each camp has been so far apart to begin with and through the years their own leaders have moved them even more apart due to demonization and messaging egos. The media simply, at times offers manipulated instances that supports many of the narratives each camp has already determined is the truth to begin with. Conservatives are stupid to liberals and liberals are immoral to conservatives. They set around inside their own respective camps and regurgitate the same old self aggrandizing thoughts about their own nature and snear at those who oppose them. It's not the medias fault that they have found a core group to peddle their own flavor of information and more than a drug pusher who suplies the drugs that junkies use to get off. People poison themselves every day. If not with drugs, then with the food they eat or the alcohol they ingest. They do so because they are used to it and it is convenient for them to do so. It is like President Trump blaming the Mexican Cartels for the drugs pouring across the Mexican border, when if their wasn't any demand over here, their wouldn't be any issue to begin with. The real issue is what our money is doing to those innocent people across the boarder, who have to live with the violence that our money facilitates. All we have to do is look at the example of that family of Mormons who were slaughtered just last week. Was that warfare due to how lucrative the drug trade is down there or how lucrative the drug trade is over here. Its our money that is flowing across that boarder that is feeding that, but just like normal.so many people are looking at what effects us. Right now we have a big debate on migration, but that gravitates towards only what effects America and not what effects the countries that these people are fleeing from. People are people and human beings are human beings. We act so magnanimous when we open our borders to those wanting assylum, but what about those people who can't make the journey? they still have to live through the same hell that have driven so many Northward. If people actually gave a crap they would have a system that would police up and provide the technology and the support that would allow each of these counties to thrive independently on an equal basis with the rest of the world. There is nothing that will prevent all crime, but, at least there would be an option for prosperity within that community that would promote the best that that country has to offer the world. There wouldn't be a 3rd world or even a 2nd. There would be the world and the countries that abound within it. In my opinion, the toothless United Nations is nothing more than a good old boys network that allows the richer nations to fondel the poorer ones with a growing sense of dispassionate benevolence that rivals Marie Antoinette mouthing the words, "Let them eat Cake"

You might as well ask who benefits by the drug trade. Does the person providing the drug profit more than the junkie who having an addictive personality and finds the drug offered to be to his liking? Both reap a reward off the exchange and both are satisfied enough to continue the exchange. Both are slaves to each other in that without the other, they could not exist in their present form. Lets not forget the greatest human trait is self delusion and information that feeds into a particular self delusion provides the same feel good experience as any illicit drug. Fox news and Cnn remain alive because there is a market for their wears and if they both disappear today, there would appear similar providers tomorrow They are simply Its not freedom of speech, it's regurgitating old tired ideas that are repackaged in shiny new boxes and sent out as new material. Its the perception of the observer that creates the reality each of these people. That's why those listening can take totally different takes on the same information. They want to see things the way they do and look for evidence to support that vision.