-
Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.
The Well-Mannered Politics Thread
- Thread starter usmccharles
- Start date
- Status
so this is where i think there is a divide - and it's on these facts - because the evidence you've given me above to me i take very differently and i think you're guilty of the same thing you're accusing "liberals" of with over-generalisations of liberals
so here's my view on those things above:
when i talk about Trump and women, i dont just mean his language or his criticism of one particular woman (pelosi who you've mentioned) but those are indicative of his attitude towards women - look at how he treats his wife in public, how he talks about women and targets them for their appearance, for criticising him politically his first reaction is to attack their visual appearance and whether they are credentialed to criticise him despite often times being members of respected media outlets including FOX (like Megyn Kelly) - then there is his attitude towards the beauty pageantry and what got left behind in the outcry about his use of language in the 'grab her by the *****' was not just the language but the attitude that he can do whatever he wants to a woman who works for him because they work for him - that he somehow has the right to do whatever he wants
and this is where generalisations are dangerous because not every woman is crying back at trump and accusing him of being sexist just because they dont agree with him - oftentimes it is because the way he talks about woman is inherently sexist
and im sorry but he may have been ahead of the game in the 70s but he has shown little progress since - if the most recent positive thing that can be said about trump and women is roughly 40+ years old then there's a bit of a problem
LGBT is less on the radar in the sense that it is less overt in Trump's case and I may have been a little exaggeratory about him being actively homophobic but a lot of his appointments and stances held by his government have been anti-gay:
January 12: During his confirmation hearings, the now-head of Housing and Urban Development, Ben Carson, said he didn’t believe in “extra rights,” when questioned about anti-LGBT housing discrimination. Carson has also compared being gay to pedophilia and beastiality, which actually is more tired than offensive at this point. (Rick Santorum said the same thing a decade earlier).
February 22: In late February, despite Trump’s earlier nonchalance about “the bathroom issue,” the Departments of Education and Justice rolled back the Obama administration’s stance that transgender children had the right to use the school bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity.
March 20: News came out that Tom Price, Trump’s head the Department of Health and Human Services, has shut down the department’s efforts to collect data on elderly LGBT people, seen by critics as part of a broad effort to erase LGBT needs and concerns from the government’s consideration.
March 27: In 2014, then-President Obama signed an executive order that prevented the federal government from contracting with companies that discriminate against employees because of their sexuality or gender identity. Trump took the teeth out of it, rescinding a rule that companies have to prove they treat LGBT employees fairly, sending the message that the executive order stands, but he has no intention of enforcing it.
May 4: Trump giddily shuffled a victory lap in the Rose Garden after the House passed the AHCA. The ACA increased healthcare access for people living with HIV, and the Kaiser Family Foundation predicts that the AHCA’s changes would undo many of those gains. On top of that, more than 40 percent of people living with HIV who are in treatment rely on Medicaid—--which despite Trump’s promises is on the chopping block in the Senate’s healthcare bill.
June 16: Speaking of HIV/AIDS, the day Trump took office, his administration took down the White House’s page on the Office of National AIDS Policy. That’d be a petty cosmetic detail if it hadn’t turned out to be prophetic: to date, Trump hasn’t named anyone to head the office, and on this date six members of Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS resigned in protest, saying the president just “doesn’t care.”
+ the most recent inability to recognise Pride Month while also speaking to anti-gay groups at the same time... it's not active but it is troubling
likewise, Trump's attitude towards Hispanics is troubling because he doesn't specify - it takes more reasonable people like you to articulate that he doesn't mean all Hispanics which empowers hate groups to act unfettered and without fear of rebuke
and his views on black people are again not overt but with emphasis on law and order policing and an inability to respect things like black history month with anything other than a rambling piece of ridiculous comedy is concerning - much like with brexit, i think you have to look at the lack of affirmation for some of these minority groups as a problem because it allows hate groups some validity because he refuses to condemn them and by extension allows some of those attitudes to continue - hate crime is on the rise in a post-brexit, post trump-election world which sets a bad precedent
in terms of the "Muslim Ban" - a lot has been said about that in multiple outlets but I dont really feel the need to comment on that anymore - but the circumstances in the Obama version were different and less widespread
and referring to black panthers, la raza and muslim brotherhood as dem groups is akin to calling the KKK a republican group - of course there are select bigots on both sides - the difference is that hate hillary or not she herself was not one whereas i would still argue trump is one
and to disagree and dislike one person is not bigotry - so dems hating rubio, cruz and carson for being awful people is not bigoted in the same way that republicans can hate clinton and it not be bigoted - bigotry is obviously when it carries over into general populace and a disdain for a group's ideas - so without being mean you could argue that your general disdain for liberal ideology is itself bigoted (which im not saying at all)
----- so that's all by the by i feel quite strongly about it but i realise that there's probably an age divide that affects all of it
abortion is where i really struggle to understand you - and please dont take this as insult but I find some of the ideology behind anti-abortion a little hypocritical at times - and i think part of the problem is US politics is still quite secular which i think is a problem in any government
so i thin there are a few important things about anti-abortion legislation and activism which i find problematic - the first is that it actively takes choice away from a human being and while it affects fathers, it affects mothers exponentially more - the idea that a country can be simultaneous equal and also force half of its population to not abort is a weird concept that i struggle to understand - and of course even more basic than that, shouldnt morally a person have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies - even weirder for me is the idea that an unformed feotus is somehow more important than the mother - it only becomes a foetus after 10 around 10 weeks anyway - i realise its an emotive issue so i wont add anymore detail than that...
but let's for the sake of argument say that i agree that outside of special cases where the mother's health is in danger, or in the case of rape, incest or extreme disability in the child i agree that abortion should be illegal (which i dont) - what i find incredibly crazy is that in conservative US politics the unborn baby has all these rights and protections up until the moment it's born at which point the support for it is terrible - so until the US has universal free health care, then i dont see any reason anyone should have any right to force a woman to bring a child into the world if she doesnt think she can support it because the government itself has not given any evidence that it can support or will support these children - why would any potential mother with few means bring a baby into the world if she knows she cant support it - if the government wont support that child through to adulthood then there should be no obligation for the parent to do that if the child was unwanted/unplanned in the first place
and then there's the preventative problem - because planned parenthood is also under attack which means that safe and healthy sex education and access to contraception is reduced which only exacerbates all the problems above - so in order for anti-abortion legislation to be even remotely acceptable in my view then some pretty widescale changes in attitude to health care and planned parenthood would have to take place... to improve welfare for single mothers and low income families, to make access to healthcare free and openly available to all families with any child under the age of 18, to make access to contraception and sex education not just free but actively encourage its use and availability and to devilanise abortions as a concept where they are absolutely necessary - only after that would i be comfortable with any discussion on abortion in terms of pro-choice, pro-life (which is a term i find ridiculous to be honest because it completely disregards one of the two lives in the equation)
right sorry that was so long and i realise that you probably disagree with everything i said but i feel like i had to put forth a personal viewpoint in opposition to yours because i believe it quite strongly - and i realise that some of those responses probably seem quite antagonistic given the view you put forth above but i felt like i couldnt leave it unsaid at this point
so i guess - here is one alternative viewpoint that isnt just grand sweeping liberal ideology generalisation politics - (also from someone not American and not a supporter of the democrats - in fact i find the association between liberalism and the democrats a little insulting given how right wing and conservative the democrats are fiscally at least - im a good ol' fashioned european left-winger not a faux-liberal democrat)
Willbacker
Ravens Ring of Honor
We're at completely different ends of the spectrum no doubt. I'll try to keep it short as possible and touch on what I think is important. Saying your left wing is an understatement when you're saying Dems over here are fiscally conservative lol
First off does Christian beliefs mean anything? Being forced to make wedding cakes even tho they served these customers several times before for other instances. Who cares about the family that doesn't want their children to share a bathroom with transsexuals. The bible clearly states that male homosexuality is a sin (interesting note it doesn't say anything about females). The problem is is that only certain people are important while the rest can go buzz off. Also all the dated points you made did nothing to the LGBT community.
I really don't know what you mean by Trump not specifying or being overt against Hispanics or blacks. Again he is not racist he is just accused constantly of being so cuz that's the only thing Dems can come up with. Our cities have been run by Dems for the last 50 yrs at least with their stupid gun laws and all there is is high crime rates, gang warfare, drugs and poverty. Yep that policy with their free handouts is working real well. All it has done is created dependency on the govt. That's what Dems want. The govt to completely control health care, education, redistributing wealth and not from the elites mind you. We don't want to be Europe. We want America to be great again!! That's thru privitizatuion which creates competition and letting the people dictate whats going on and the federal govt just being an overseer. Follow the Constitution!
Last time about abortion since I cant understand why you don't get this. Its the girls choice to spread her legs and have unsafe sex. Let them pay for their own damn abortion. I have clearly stated which is highly unconservative that companies and Medicaid should include preventative services like condoms and birth control and then I'd be all for planned parenthood but the hell with them until they get rid of general abortions.
Also you state that its different cuz Dems only hate "awful" people so its not bigoted. Uh yeah it is. Its either that or Dems need to stop with their racist,sexist,homphobic remarks.
I also hope you don't think I'm being antagonistic. Just showing you my side of things while I listen (read) yours. Ravens fans cant always agree on everything.
We're at completely different ends of the spectrum no doubt. I'll try to keep it short as possible and touch on what I think is important. Saying your left wing is an understatement when you're saying Dems over here are fiscally conservative lol
First off does Christian beliefs mean anything? Being forced to make wedding cakes even tho they served these customers several times before for other instances. Who cares about the family that doesn't want their children to share a bathroom with transsexuals. The bible clearly states that male homosexuality is a sin (interesting note it doesn't say anything about females). The problem is is that only certain people are important while the rest can go buzz off. Also all the dated points you made did nothing to the LGBT community.
I really don't know what you mean by Trump not specifying or being overt against Hispanics or blacks. Again he is not racist he is just accused constantly of being so cuz that's the only thing Dems can come up with. Our cities have been run by Dems for the last 50 yrs at least with their stupid gun laws and all there is is high crime rates, gang warfare, drugs and poverty. Yep that policy with their free handouts is working real well. All it has done is created dependency on the govt. That's what Dems want. The govt to completely control health care, education, redistributing wealth and not from the elites mind you. We don't want to be Europe. We want America to be great again!! That's thru privitizatuion which creates competition and letting the people dictate whats going on and the federal govt just being an overseer. Follow the Constitution!
Last time about abortion since I cant understand why you don't get this. Its the girls choice to spread her legs and have unsafe sex. Let them pay for their own damn abortion. I have clearly stated which is highly unconservative that companies and Medicaid should include preventative services like condoms and birth control and then I'd be all for planned parenthood but the hell with them until they get rid of general abortions.
Also you state that its different cuz Dems only hate "awful" people so its not bigoted. Uh yeah it is. Its either that or Dems need to stop with their racist,sexist,homphobic remarks.
I also hope you don't think I'm being antagonistic. Just showing you my side of things while I listen (read) yours. Ravens fans cant always agree on everything.
i think this might be one point where agreeing to disagree might be healthy for both our sakes because of how strongly on opposing ends of the spectrum we are
as a fun little observation about american politics its funny what constitutes left-wing in the US and its almost certainly a national reaction to the fear of communism for the last few decades during the cold war etc. but the entire spectrum of political thinking in the US has shifted so far right that your "left-wing" party in many places is more conservative than the aptly named Conservative party in the UK - just an observation that i always find a little funny - but i guess that's the way things are always going to go when two-party politics is the name of the game
Inqui
Pro Bowler
I wasn't talking about abortion or Planned Parenthood or anything (that's a kettle of fish I'm not touching) - this person was referring to the pregnancy and childbirth mortality rate, which is higher than Iran, Libya and Turkey. That contrasts with the NSA, which a few years ago created a diplomatic incident with Germany when it got caught trying to steal state secrets essentially because it could (the double agent only got caught because he went to Russia with the same offer, and it's obviously protocol to monitor outgoing communications into Russia). The NSA gets about $10.8 billion per year in funding, while its German counterpart gets about $945.6 million, so this guy's argument came down to how many lives that $11 billion actually saves. You can have the same discussion in relation to the road toll and putting that money into making the roads safer, or using federal funding to improve workplace safety conditions, or anything like that. I'll leave the House Representatives to debate where that $11 billion should go, but the main point is that there's nothing stopping the Treasury from spending that money on other stuff, which I suspect is a point we both agree on. I think the fact that your take on "America First" is different to these other people's takes on it (you want to put more money into upgrading the military, these guys are sick of high military spending at the expense of domestic expenditure) also suggests it's a fairly vague concept and open to interpretation (which I'd argue is by design so every Trump supporter feels he shares their exact vision, but I digress) in the same way "Make America Great Again" is. It's a concept that can't be discussed without first being defined imo (same as the "Is Joe Flacco elite?" question we all know and love....).
Iirc the Wells Fargo report said about 40% of US jobs were at risk (for all the talk of bringing jobs back, automation's going to hit China even harder), which definitely still bears thinking about. You don't have an answer and neither do I really - whoever does come up with an answer will probably go down as this century's version of Maynard Keynes or Albert Einstein. But with that said, on a more optimistic (if tangential) note that doesn't involve any particular politicians: would you rather be living on $100,000 a year in 1900 or $50,000 a year today? That 1900 figure would be about $2.75 million in today's currency and you'd have some of the best stuff of the day that money could buy, but you'd still be limited by the technologies of the day (for example polio and measles would be legitimate occupational hazards, the fastest car could push about 35mph and you'd probably be relying on heated rocks for a warm bath). Fast-forward the situation 100 years and I personally believe we're in a similar situation. Economic growth isn't just about making everyone richer, it's about making everyone's lives exponentially better over time. And if we're on the cusp of getting everything society needs without anyone having to work for it (so everyone can spend more time pursuing things they enjoy, spending more time with their family knowing everything's already provided for, and spending more time watching the Ravens) then there's a lot of reason to be optimistic about the future as well.
Of course, last time the world was facing an economic upheaval on this scale it was the Industrial Revolution, which led (directly or indirectly) to two world wars, one of the biggest economic collapses in history and some of the most repugnant policies the world's ever seen, so hopefully this transition ends up being a lot smoother. But the big question is a broader-scale version of the one that people should be asking now: how do you create a system that shares the gains of this increasing automation with everyone? It's like taking a coal miner in Kentucky who's lost his job because solar and wind power are cleaner and more efficient ways of generating power and the mines are closing as a result. But it doesn't really help the miner that cleaner energy is creating new industries when Kentucky's the 39th ranked state for renewables, so the debate needs to be about how to get said miner back on his feet.
Like I say I'm really not a fan of tariffs since they tend to cause more trouble than they're worth (global supply chains these days are so complicated that I'd be willing to bet a ton of money that those Ford factories already import a ton of parts from Mexican providers, who in turn get stuff from the US - so take the chicken feet example and that's an awful lot of steps in the production process that get affected). Foreign aid accounts for 1.3% of the federal budget (under the broadest definition - the Financial Times definition I used earlier has it closer to 0.5%), so even cutting a third of that doesn't save an awful lot. I'll give you the revenue flight (about $69 billion went to the Caribbean and Latin America last year), though with that said going by the fact that the report uses the term "migrants" I suspect that includes legal immigrants as well. It's hard to find reliable numbers on how many people come in by boat or plane or simply overstay their visa (which a wall obviously wouldn't stop), so I still think the amount of jobs saved in relation to the cost would be the most reliable indicator of whether the wall's ultimately worth the effort.
Interestingly enough the biggest wind farm in the world is the Gansu Wind Farm in China (indeed 13 out of the 50 biggest wind farms in the world are in China), which the government is looking to treble the capacity of by 2020. The Chinese economy is so mind-bogglingly big that the human mind hasn't even evolved to comprehend the numbers properly (in terms of land mass it's a similar size to the US, but you'd have to open the US borders to everyone from Canada, Mexico, Central America, South America and the Caribbean and you'd still fall 400 million people short of China's population - so to go even you'd have to add the populations of the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Russia) that it's the biggest carbon emitter in the world but also now the biggest producer of renewables (by a fair distance too) and they know full well the impact of climate change because they're living with the worst of it, hence the plans to invest $361 billion into renewables. But powering an economy that big takes outside help, and they're willing to pay good money for it. And once the income levels in Indonesia, the Philippines, India and Vietnam start to rise, they too will be looking to rely as much on renewables as they can. Which goes back to what I said about this being an important time in history and how maintaining influence and integration in the Asia-Pacific represents a HUGE opportunity for everyone to benefit.
Inqui
Pro Bowler
Theoretically there's no end game in the same way there wasn't for when the Iran and Cuba sanctions were placed and not removed for decades. Sanctions are just a form of soft power to make a state toe the line. There's plenty of hypocrisy in how and when they get applied (and more than a little "might is right" involved), but it's obviously better than declaring war.
This is why I think "socialism" is a little vacuous in the way it gets used as a word. It's like saying "people are sick of rain" in that it doesn't explore the context of how much rain the region used to get, who is actually sick of the rain or what the threshold is for too much rain. People ask whether the US is ready for a "socialist" president when discussing Bernie Sanders, but I'm in a country where if you put him on the spectrum he'd actually be on the right of our right-wing government. So I find it funny when people here rail against him for being a "socialist" who'd ruin the country but then think our centre-right government is doing a great job of things over here. It's all a matter of opinion who you like as a candidate of course, but I think it shows the average voter tends to be more interested in specific candidates and vague points on the spectrum than they are in actual policies.
Last edited:
The Raven
Veteran
People here in Merica don't even understand the context of so called "socialism" in the history of our own country. If you think we're not ready for a democratic socialist, I would ask you to reconcile why past generations elected TR, whose square deal leveled the playing field between labor and corporations; FDR, whose New Deal was the embodiment of democratic socialism at the time and enacted lasting policies that formed the bedrock of our country in the 20th century; JFK, who rose the minimum wage, strengthened labor rights, and expanded social security, which is at its core a socialist idea; and LBJ, whose Great Society programs, which are still in effect, sought to give the lower and working classes a leg up.
All here except for JFK were lambasted as socialists, yet are currently regarded as some of our finer presidents. Had LBJ not fucked up with Vietnam, he would have run for reelection and been remembered as one of our best presidents. We've endured at least three "socialist" presidents, and we are better off as a country for their contributions. FDR is widely regarded as, perhaps, our best president, yet his agenda was probably the most liberal we've had in this country. This country was built on the tenets of democratic socialism, whether you realize it or not.
And I would implore folks to recognize the obvious difference between socialism and democratic socialism. There is a significant and, yes, obvious difference between the two. Democratic socialism is proven to be an effective method of blending the free market with social programs providing upward mobility. If you disagree, I would ask you to reconcile how FDR, LBJ, and Bill Clinton all had better GDP growth than Reagan, Nixon, and the Bushes. Seems to contradict the rhetoric of the conservative agenda, but it is what it is. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
Last edited:
Willbacker
Ravens Ring of Honor
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/07...nd-near-record-accumulations-of-snow-and-ice/
Kind of seems like Greenland is missing out on some global warming lol
Kind of seems like Greenland is missing out on some global warming lol
that's a bit disingenuous
it also experienced record heat temperatures during june...
global warming causes inconsistent weather patterns across the globe - the melting of ice caps causes warmer weather in the arctic and therefore colder winters in the rest of the norther hemisphere - the melting of the ice caps and destruction of the ozone by CO2 creates inconsistent and extreme weather
you'll also notice that the weather in greenland today and the rest of this week is back up to hot temperatures only a couple of degrees lower than what we currently have in the UK which is notably warm given greenland's position in the arctic circle
also notable is that the only reports about record low temperatures and ice buildup came from breitbart news and other similarly anti-climate science outlets which given my trust of academic consensus (and in the case of climate science, peer-reviewed almost unanimity) i give no creedence to anything those outlets say with regards to anything scientific and especially global warming given their obvious agenda and consistent inability to face facts - you'll notice that there was a red team/blue team study done with skeptics
the leader of those skeptics, Dr Richard Muller, at the time said "Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct, and I'm now going to step further: humans are almost entirely the cause."
and then clarified to E&E news recently when al franken misquoted him that 90% of global warming since the industrial revolution is man-made... this coming from a skeptic
i really dont get this attitude of man-made global warming being political given that it is a worldwide phenomenon that now all bar three nations refused to ratify the paris climate agreement, nicaragua refused to take as much of the financial burden because they produce very little carbon footprint, which leaves just syria and the USA - which should say something when even north korea, iran, iraq, libya, yemen all signed and china which is the largest producer of fossil fuels in the world and is therefore impacted more than anyone else
that's crazy that out of 197 countries, only 3 refused, 1 is a war torn state, 1 thinks the commitment should be harder on bigger producers and the other is the USA
Last edited:
Willbacker
Ravens Ring of Honor
First of all last June was colder than normal on avg in Greenland. You are thinking of 2016. WaPo reported it ( of course) and I find it quite funny that if its left wing its believable but if its right wing its garbage. Also inconsistent weather patterns as you say has been going on for centuries. The one thing I do agree with you on is the rising sea levels but in thed last 50 yrs the avg temp on earth has went up 1 degree Farenheit. 1 degree!! The ozone layer above Antartica has been stable for quite awhile. Now about Dr Muller. He clearly states China is the problem. Not the USA. He believes in fracking. The liberals cry waah waah if you frack. And about the Paris Climate Agreement (not Treaty) it needs to be redone which I'm hearing is in the works but we cant sit there and foot the bill like helping rebuild India's infrastructure and being the the leaders all the time by capping our emissions and chasing our jobs to other countries. How bout lets see if countries like China and Noko can keep their promises. Why do we always have to be first every stinking time?
So basically what I'm saying rossi is yes we have to keep looking for ways to convert to greener energy but this country is just not able to run that way right now. Right now the libs here apparently want us to live by campfire and hunt our own meat and that's gonna be hard cuz they want us to do w/o guns. They don't want pipelines built even tho I guess taking it by ship,rail or trucks must be safer lol. Fracking? Crikes!! the one thing we have the most of and is safer than fossil fuel. Oh hell no we'll kill the animals, the air and the water. I'm sure the wind turbines will be next cuz they're an eyesore.. The bottomline is it'll never be enough.
BloodRaven
Pro Bowler
I've been avoiding political discussions and news for weeks now and I have to say, ignorance is bliss.
As you were.
As you were.
I have to say, this isn't a forum I look at really at all, but just scrolling through it yes they're arguments, but I'm amazing and proud that it has been kept so civil. I think I deserver an award for having the first ever online civil discussion on my site. Keep it up haha.
i think the title means that if you feel angry or insulting or disbelieving that you just dont mention it and that's been a big deal in this thread - no matter how much we disagree we have to adhere to the 'well-mannered' part of the title - and i think there comes a point where people can be so far apart in viewpoint that insults arent original or satisfying anyway because half the time they arent insults to the other person lol
Sami84
Ravens Ring of Honor
National Anthems mean nothing. People need to develop and understand that it's merely a tool to keep people obedient. Let me tell you something, patience is not the greatest virtue, disobedience is. What if i told you Water and Food CAN and Should be free? This is a subject too deep and complex for a forum and I'm not expecting people to get the magnititude of what I'm saying but in this situation with Kaep which is a different matter and context altogether, I am shocked that people can't see the oxymoron behind the national anthem and the evil it is actually trying to hide under the guise of freedom( which it is anything BUT).
It's hard to express how i feel about the state of humanity when everyone else here is still so mentally embedded in statist culture by default due to generational programming
If you're interested in seeing things differently I recommend the book '' The most Dangerous Superstition'' by larken rose.
Sami84
Ravens Ring of Honor
I agree, it's not real. It's what creates wars, is maintained by false ideologies and such. Religion and government were always born out of violence. It can be manipulated into a less obvious violence and power mongering but when something is fundementally evil, even a lesser evil is destined to become a bigger one if given the means to do so. Money isn't real either, it's part of the mind control. Why do you think Elephants are being shot dead? For money..money is a sure way to manipulate wealth. The federel reserve is an abomination of a creation designed to create poverty by default and taxation is another disaster. Wars are profitable. Thats why USA and other dominanant forces pick their allies and wars carefully, it has nothing to do with human rights. Saudi Arabia is the most despicable country in the world that executes 13-year-old kids and they don't say a word or invade them. These countries, including the USA create the ''problem'', use as a a fear tactic on the US people and they buy into their propaganda and military BS, and say hey, ''we're gonna tax you so we can protect you, it's for your own good''. BULLSHIT.
Our true currency is our humanity and relationship with nature. The earth gave us everything we need to prosper. We can either fight for an egoic masculine based fictional currency or use permaculture to create vast and true wealth. A free market based on natural resources and plentiful food and water for everyone. This is merely a cookie cutter.
Anyhow, It's cool to see another thinker on here. Let's not turn it into a public discussion as people are probably not ready to question their belief systems and cognitive dissonance is something to deal with on a personal level rather than lashing out on a forum.
Google Voluntaryst anarchy. one last thing, democracy is a farce, like any other government system. It's basically a sheep and two wolves sitting at a table, deciding what to have for dinner and even if you dont like either option..tough.
Our true currency is our humanity and relationship with nature. The earth gave us everything we need to prosper. We can either fight for an egoic masculine based fictional currency or use permaculture to create vast and true wealth. A free market based on natural resources and plentiful food and water for everyone. This is merely a cookie cutter.
Anyhow, It's cool to see another thinker on here. Let's not turn it into a public discussion as people are probably not ready to question their belief systems and cognitive dissonance is something to deal with on a personal level rather than lashing out on a forum.
Google Voluntaryst anarchy. one last thing, democracy is a farce, like any other government system. It's basically a sheep and two wolves sitting at a table, deciding what to have for dinner and even if you dont like either option..tough.
Last edited:
Sami84
Ravens Ring of Honor
okay, so to those posting these GIFS. Rather than getting overwhelmed with a dose of truth, how about you test your mindsets. You got brainwashed for years, I understand it's hard for a lot of people and a bit of relief humor can be helpful but try to unlearn the crap you've been forced-fed over time.
- Status