This Brit predicted it...

[Ozark Wizard]

The funny thing about all of this is, it really doesn't matter whom the poster child is for the Corporate States of America. What difference whether brand 'X' or brand 'Y' is a better product, when it's the same content with a different label? The Sponsors pay for the race, not the drivers..... The spectators get to pay for tickets, and cheer for their team. Bread and Circuses.

Might as well just keep Barack Hussein in, for all the difference it makes. Or dig up John Wayne and prop him up in the House. The game is afoot, and we don't get a shot at the dice folks....

So relax, prop your feet up, turn on the game and wash your meds down with the latest soft drink craze. Or a nice IPA. Shake your head and say smugly to yourself, 'well, if I were in charge, things would be different'....:lol!:

 

[Vito]

...remarkable that these two bounders are the best you've got.

Stick: See, that's exactly what I mean about the political process being a superstition. As with all superstitions, everyone believes it's something that it can't possibly be.

The assumption that, because these two bounders have risen to the top, they must necessarily be "the best we've got" is upside down. In fact, by its very nature, the system brings the very worst to the top. Anyone who is actually paying attention knows that, but when someone has the effrontery to say it out loud, everyone treats is as though it were a joke, or excessive cynicism, or curmudgeonry, or cantankerous contrarianism, or "negativity".  

It is none of those things; it is the truth.

The fact that these two bounders (how very English...I love it!) are vying for the top spot is precisely indicative of just how focked up the system really is. We're living in the natural consequences of a system that inevitably brought us to this point because it was never real government in the first place. I'm not blaming the founders; they didn't know it was going to turn into this...they probably couldn't know it was going to become such a mess.

But none of that matters. We have the mess anyway, and it's obvious that the American Revolution is the primary casualty. Go back and read the text of the Declaration in PeeBee's post. It says it all right there. And what it says ain't what we've got.

Look at it this way. In science we have theory and we have application. The theory is a description of nature...of how it works, as far as we can tell to the best of our ability at the time. Then we try to apply it. The preliminary applications are always primitive, clumsy affairs. We don't blame the theory; instead, we try to improve our applications. The first televisions were crude applications of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory. Today we have much better technology. The theory didn't change; it has always been right. What has changed is our ability to apply it properly.

The Declaration is the theory. The problem is that we've put it on the shelf and forgotten about it. We've enshrined it as A Founding Document<img class="emojione" alt="" title=":tm:" title=":tm:" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/emojione/assets/png/2122.png?v=2.2.7"/>, but we otherwise ignore it. We don't consult it when we make our stupid laws.

Hell, we don't even consult the Constitution any more, and the Constitution is only an application — one application, and a primitive one at that. It's not the only possible application, and evidently it's not even the best application. But it's better than what we've got now.  :mrgreen:

 

[puros_bran]

So does this mean I do or do not get to be The Colonel running this banana republic? I need to get my blues tailored, well really with as big as my ass has got it would be trailered but I need to know, they close at 6.



But seriously the constitution is the perfect application, as long as the citizens hold the servants in check.   It says exactly what we expect them to do, and tells them in no uncertain terms what they can not do. We let them, so being truthful its our own fault.

 

[monbla256]

The funny thing about all of this is, it really doesn't matter whom the poster child is for the Corporate States of America. What difference whether brand 'X' or brand 'Y' is a better product, when it's the same content with a different label? The Sponsors pay for the race, not the drivers..... The spectators get to pay for tickets, and cheer for their team. Bread and Circuses.

Might as well just keep Barack Hussein in, for all the difference it makes. Or dig up John Wayne and prop him up in the House. The game is afoot, and we don't get a shot at the dice folks....

So relax, prop your feet up, turn on the game and wash your meds down with the latest soft drink craze. Or a nice IPA. Shake your head and say smugly to yourself, 'well, if I were in charge, things would be different'....:lol!:  

You nailed it Wiz. We are the United Corporation of America and have been since the end of WW II. All this stuff about the Delaration and Constitution only apply to an organization as we started with when we were the United States of America. The only thing that matters today is STUFF and how much we have.  Onward thru the fog ! :twisted: :twisted:

 

[Stick]

...remarkable that these two bounders are the best you've got.

Stick: See, that's exactly what I mean about the political process being a superstition. As with all superstitions, everyone believes it's something that it can't possibly be.

The assumption that, because these two bounders have risen to the top, they must necessarily be "the best we've got" is upside down. In fact, by its very nature, the system brings the very worst to the top. Anyone who is actually paying attention knows that, but when someone has the effrontery to say it out loud, everyone treats is as though it were a joke, or excessive cynicism, or curmudgeonry, or cantankerous contrarianism, or "negativity".  

It is none of those things; it is the truth.

The fact that these two bounders (how very English...I love it!) are vying for the top spot is precisely indicative of just how focked up the system really is. We're living in the natural consequences of a system that inevitably brought us to this point because it was never real government in the first place. I'm not blaming the founders; they didn't know it was going to turn into this...they probably couldn't know it was going to become such a mess.

But none of that matters. We have the mess anyway, and it's obvious that the American Revolution is the primary casualty. Go back and read the text of the Declaration in PeeBee's post. It says it all right there. And what it says ain't what we've got.

Look at it this way. In science we have theory and we have application. The theory is a description of nature...of how it works, as far as we can tell to the best of our ability at the time. Then we try to apply it. The preliminary applications are always primitive, clumsy affairs. We don't blame the theory; instead, we try to improve our applications. The first televisions were crude applications of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory. Today we have much better technology. The theory didn't change; it has always been right. What has changed is our ability to apply it properly.

The Declaration is the theory. The problem is that we've put it on the shelf and forgotten about it. We've enshrined it as A Founding Document<img class="emojione" alt="" title=":tm:" title=":tm:" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/emojione/assets/png/2122.png?v=2.2.7"/>, but we otherwise ignore it. We don't consult it when we make our stupid laws.

Hell, we don't even consult the Constitution any more, and the Constitution is only an application — one application, and a primitive one at that. It's not the only possible application, and evidently it's not even the best application. But it's better than what we've got now.  :mrgreen:

Hey Vito,

You've written some very intriguing posts in this thread. I've enjoying reading them very much and they have provided an interesting perspective.

As I'm sure you picked up, the comment regarding 'the best you've got' was written with pure sarcasm. I don't believe for one minute Trump or Clinton are two of the finest leaders you have. Just listening to them for a few minutes confirms that. It is remarkable though that despite the many alternatives the system is such that you're left with these two; for all the reasons you point out.

Until recently I worked in a large organisation that had more than its fair share of bounders, one of whom had consistently wrecked the lives and careers of many. Everyone could see this yet the system allowed it to continue and all the while he was getting paid a handsome salary. I learnt only yesterday that he has finally been caught out but my guessing is that due to his position a cover up will ensue. But he got away with it for a whole career.

So here's the interesting thing. I've mentioned 'the system' a few times here, and 'the organisation'. But what are these exactly? They are made up of people making choices and decisions. In other words, in my example, conscious choices and decisions were made that allowed him to continue negatively affectively many. An organisation or system requires people in order for it to function. So I guess in your context, what decisions were made by whom that led to the two bounders making it to the final two?

 

[Jevverrett]

I would just like to say that I believe there is still some hope in the world. The idea that personal responsibility and morality is the key to a happy life is not limited to a narrow margin of the population. I believe it, and I raise my children to believe it too. It's backed up with them in their Sunday school, and it's what my family lives daily. It's true that we stand out some amongst our peers in the world, but not for any bad reason.

Even though I don't believe it will make a difference bc I live in ct, I am voting for trump. The real point that I see in all this has less to do with who becomes our next president, as it does who that person appoints to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat. Presidents change constantly, that seat is for life, and does hold real power in this country.

 

[Vito]

...what decisions were made by whom that led to the two bounders making it to the final two?

Stick: It's not so much a matter of what the decisions were and who made them as it is a matter of what assumptions engendered those decisions. But I won't dodge your questions, although I'm certain most folks won't like the answers.

The decisions were made by the people who framed the Constitution, when they chose to create a system of artificial, arbitrary laws enforced by coercion (or the threat thereof), based on the assumption that such a system could serve the purpose of government as it is defined in the Declaration of Independence. That assumption is utterly false.

It's actually a far more insidious, pernicious, and ubiquitous assumption than it sounds; the belief in that assumption is virtually universal. To challenge it is tantamount to heresy...no, wait — it actually is heresy, because the assumption is a fundamental tenet of the most popular religion on the planet.

That religion is not Christianity, not Islam, not Hinduism, not Marxism, and not even atheism. The most popular religion on the planet is politics — the belief that the only possible form of government is one that is administered by some form of state, an entity whose power is based on legalized coercion, and that holds the ultimate authority over the lives and property of its subjects, constituents, citizens...whatever you want to call them.

I call them victims.

 

[Richard Burley]

So--correct me if I'm wrong--the "answer" to some unstated question on this thread is anarchy, and the Founders were naive, if not hallucinating fools? That it?

 

[Vito]

So--correct me if I'm wrong--the "answer" to some unstated question on this thread is anarchy, and the Founders were naive, if not hallucinating fools? That it?

Richard: Nope...that’s not it, amigo; not even close. You stand corrected. Glad to oblige.  :mrgreen:
________

First let me say that I’ve been reading your posts for years, and as far as I can tell, if you and I were sitting down over a bowl o’weed and yakking in face time, we’d prolly find that our core beliefs mostly coincide. So, if I were a political animal, I’d most likely be on your side. I’m sure as hell not your enemy, nor do I advocate the overthrow of the Constitution.

Next, please consider everything I’ve said. I’ve explicitly said that I don’t blame the Founders, and that they couldn’t know what their republic was going to become. I believe they did the best they could under very difficult circumstances. They were breaking new ground, trying something that had never been done before. And who said anything about hallucinating fools (except you)? Nothing I’ve said even implies that. In fact, the best of them were products of the Age of Enlightenment, and many were familiar with and influenced by the works of Bacon, Spinoza, Locke, and Déscartes. Hardly fools.

But that doesn’t change my answer to Stick’s question, the context and essence of which is, “Well, if the Declaration of Independence was right, then at what point did everything turn around and set us on the path that brought us to the point wherein we have a system that brings the worst of us to the top?” At least, that’s what I believe he was asking. I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong.  

And I’m sure you will too; so, correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be among the vast body of people who believe that no form of government could possibly be better than the one we have now, and anyone who says otherwise must be a monarchist, a totalitarian, or worst of all, an anarchist. Actually, I’m none of those.

In fact, not only don’t I believe that we have the best possible form of government, I have explicitly said that what we have now is not government. Evidently, you don’t know what I mean by that, or you wouldn’t presume that I want no government at all, just because I condemn the current fiasco. Everything I’ve said is anchored in the principles of the Declaration. It does not advocate anarchy, and neither do I. It advocates government that protects the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and so do I.

How’s that working out for you under the current system? It seems to me that if we keep going the way we're going, we're going to get to anarchy soon enough without any help from anyone but the politicians who are dragging civilization down by the throat. If that were not the case, we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation.

 

[Stick]

So--correct me if I'm wrong--the "answer" to some unstated question on this thread is anarchy, and the Founders were naive, if not hallucinating fools? That it?

Richard: Nope...that’s not it, amigo; not even close. You stand corrected. Glad to oblige.  :mrgreen:
________



then at what point did everything turn around and set us on the path that brought us to the point wherein we have a system that brings the worst of us to the top?”[/color] At least, that’s what I believe he was asking. I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong.  

Yup, that was pretty much it.

 

[Vito]

...then at what point did everything turn around and set us on the path that brought us to the point wherein we have a system that brings the worst of us to the top?” At least, that’s what I believe he was asking. I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong.  

Yup, that was pretty much it.

Thanks for keeping me honest, Stick.

Truth be told, I usually know exactly what you mean. You're a pretty straight shootin' fellow. :mrgreen:

 

[Stick]

...then at what point did everything turn around and set us on the path that brought us to the point wherein we have a system that brings the worst of us to the top?” At least, that’s what I believe he was asking. I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong.  

Yup, that was pretty much it.

Thanks for keeping me honest, Stick.

Truth be told, I usually know exactly what you mean. You're a pretty straight shootin' fellow. :mrgreen:

Thanks old bean. That's good to hear.

 

[puros_bran]

Wait, did someone think Vito had a sense of humor earlier in the thread?
He doesn't, I can attest to that.. I can not get him to laugh even when we are both on drugs. And sarcasm is way too lost on him. Damn shame too, I really thought he was going place in life.

 

[Vito]

Then it's agreed: I'm hopeless.

Perhaps that explains why I feel right at home here. :twisted:

 

[Richard Burley]

...so, correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be among the vast body of people who believe that no form of government could possibly be better than the one we have now, and anyone who says otherwise must be a monarchist, a totalitarian, or worst of all, an anarchist.

OK. You're wrong. That's a howler, Vito! :lol!:  

Seriously, I do think you were giving the Founders short shrift. They knew very well what the republic could become, as you may be aware if you've read any of their correspondence and other ancillary writings. What this "government" has become is exactly what they warned against, an unrestrained democracy, put there by an uneducated populace, vulnerable to any mob master assuming control by vote. The typical Americano doesn't know scheiss from Shinola about anything. The founding documents were written to set up a constitutional republic, and they knew even then it was vulnerable. "A republic if you can keep it," in the words of Franklin at the convention. It's not the documents that are defective, it's us. So we do indeed agree on many things, Vitostein. I think.

What I found most interesting on this thread is the absence of a single acknowledgement of the original post, namely the threat to free speech. Let me say, without free speech, we're lost. FREE, free speech. The right to say anything, including yelling Fire! in a theater--if you like civil lawsuits. The only alternative is violence, which means the most guns win, right or wrong. "That's hardly a radical viewpoint in America, Rick, you prick." Well, yes it is. There are too many "I'm-for-free-speech, but..." types walking about, and it's not opinion, but fact.

 

[Vito]

Rick: Well, that makes more sense. At least now I understand that this is yet another case of apparent discord, when the real source of disagreement is the fact that we are talking about different things, but calling them by the same name. Such semantic imprecision is the source of much conflict. I'm fessing up to my part in the mess. Translation: You're not wrong, and I'm not either. But I'll take your part first. If I'm wrong about why you're not wrong, I trust you'll straighten me out.

Why you're not wrong – I know perfectly well that the Founders knew of the dangers of direct democracy. I also know that "democracy" has become a sanctified shibboleth that actually stands for little more than mob rule—the tyranny of the majority over the minority. Or in the case of Pat Condell's point in the OP video, it's the reverse — the tyranny of a small but malicious minority trying to force everyone else to conform to their ideology through the criminalization of the "offensive" speech.

The manipulation of speech is simply the outward manifestation of this insidious attack on freedom. Their real, underlying goal is the manipulation of the thoughts and ideas that the forbidden speech expresses, and their means to that end is the political process that makes laws against "hate speech", "blasphemy", and anything else that offends the fragile sensibilities of the poor, oppressed whiners who clamor for them.

Evidently, they have so little self-esteem and so little psycho-emotional security about their beliefs that they need the state to turn the whole of society into a safe little bubble to protect their world-view. It's as though legislating politically correct speech and behavior somehow sanctifies it with the presumably irreproachable imprimatur of Democracy<img class="emojione" alt="" title=":tm:" title=":tm:" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/emojione/assets/png/2122.png?v=2.2.7"/>.

There's precedent for that kind of upside down thinking. It was cast in iron above the gates at Auschwitz: Arbeit macht frei ("Work makes you free")...and in a sense it was true. Ultimately it freed the thousands who were its victims of their very existence.

You're not wrong that the Founders presumed their republic would be populated by educated, literate citizens who knew how to reason, and thus would be able to connect the dots between laws that incrementally encroach upon their freedoms and the tyranny that cumulatively results from such insanity. Obviously, the morons (and their numbers are legion) who say, "I'm for free speech, BUT..." have lost that reasoning ability...if they ever had it in the first place, which I doubt.

So, yeah...in the sense that the Founders intended something very different to happen when they framed the Constitution, you're not wrong. What you were wrong about is the presumption that I think they were a bunch of "hallucinating fools" for not realizing that the system they created would morph into the current mess. I think no such thing.

Anyhow, the semantic confusion that I mentioned at the head of this post is this: We mean different things by "the system". You mean (at least, I think you do) "the system as the founders intended it to work". I should have recognized that and accommodated it. Conversely, when I say "the system", I mean "the system the way it actually ended up working".

Actually, I did anticipate that someone would object...remember? I said:

...I won't dodge your questions, although I'm certain most folks won't like the answers.

...by which I meant that there would be folks who didn't understand what I meant, even though I tried my best to exculpate the Founders. But I didn't make it clear that the mess we have now was clearly not part of their intent, so in that sense I understand why you think I gave them short shrift. My bad.

Anyhow, that's why I think you're not wrong. I have to stop writing now. If you want to take a stab at why I'm not wrong, go for it. Otherwise, I'll come back with clarification on that point when I get a round tuit. :mrgreen:

 

[puros_bran]

See.

 

[LL]

Humans haven't changed a bit, of course.  

The new force in the equation is (effectively) instantaneous communication between (pretty much) anyone who wants it, and (pretty much) the rest of the world.

The 21st century is simply the Writ Large version of what was---until recently---only seen occasionally at Home Owners Association meetings, in checkout-stand tabloid newspapers, and in "entertainments" like The Jerry Springer Show  i.e. shameless feasting upon spectacles of  greed, self-interest, hubris, ruthlessness, dishonesty, and so forth, and the Torches and Pitchforks response when groups with opposing views come into contact.  

In short, bitching, moaning whining, lying, claiming and counter-claiming, accusations, and Being Offended By Something ad nauseam now occurs on a vast scale on an hourly basis, courtesy of social networking.

Combine that with Man's tribal instincts, and his bottomless capacity to believe outrageous things to be true without a shred of supporting evidence when it suits them, and you have one royal clusterfuck indeed.

 

[puros_bran]

Ah!!! And there it is. The tribe. Not only the most basic of human society, but also the only one that truly works.
When my survival and comfort are tied directly into your survival and comfort, I am going to be highly motivated to keep you alive and comfortable. The End.

 

[Vito]

...Vote early, vote often, give all your dead kinfolk a ride to the polls..they ARE going to vote, they might as well be there.

I don't think "Mrs." Clinton is going to appreciate your giving away the secret of her election strategy, pb. :twisted: