destruction of america

[frankendat]

5 hours ago, john510 said:

I'd like to hear an example of Republicans wanting more control.I'm thinking hard about it and can't come up with an example.The Democrats on the other have made it quite obvious.

Because you agree with the control or rather the "need" for control doesn't make it any less. And then, to quote another Ratsuner.

 

3 hours ago, a.d._510_n_ok said:

Republicans aren't necessarily about more control but they also almost never repeal even the most aggrigieous democrat power grabs even when they possess a majority in both legislative bodies

Politicians and many constituents, seem to forget that all the power grabbing/Constitutionally questionable controls they develop, while in power, will be turned against them in less years than they envision.

 

As far as, Republican control there are many social issues that present, but it is not worth bringing them up. Instead, Homeland and other Federal Agencies continue to push the limits of what is a Constitutionally prohibited Federal police force.  At the same time, construction of a MASSIVE data collection complex in Utah continues full speed and fully Federally funded. The Republicans decry woke cancel culture, but do not miss a chance to turn it back on a Democrat. Your data is being collected. Anyone who believes, "I'm not doing anything wrong, who cares who is watching." Is a fool. I get it, and enjoy watching a blue state politician get harpooned over some misstep, but by doing this I am supporting the institution of control. Allowing legal, but not necessarily prudent behavior to remain private, would be denounced by both parties for very different reasons, but the common undeniable thread is control. 

[Farmer]

https://news.bitcoin.com/former-treasury-official-warns-of-complete-economic-implosion-if-us-dollar-loses-global-reserve-currency-status/

 

It's starting

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/22/china-and-russia-affirm-multi-year-economic-cooperation.html

https://apnews.com/article/china-saudi-arabia-iran-global-mediator-45ec807c8fd2b2aa65eef4cc313b739d

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/saudi-aramco-open-new-china-refinery-petchem-complex-2026-2023-03-26/

[a.d._510_n_ok]

[datzenmike]

My throat is sore....

[paradime]

Saudi Arabia’s cabinet approved a decision to join a China-led security bloc, strengthening Riyadh’s eastern ties in a further step away from U.S. interests.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/29/saudi-arabia-takes-step-to-join-china-led-security-bloc-as-ties-with-beijing-strengthen.html?recirc=taboolainternal

 

https://www.foxnews.com/world/saudi-arabia-grows-closer-beijing-step-toward-membership-china-led-security-bloc

 

Keep in mind this is from the left/right media propaganda apporathice, but Bloomberg, Wall St Journal, and Reuters Financial News are also sounding an alarm.

[frankendat]

7 minutes ago, paradime said:

Saudi Arabia’s cabinet approved a decision to join a China-led security bloc, strengthening Riyadh’s eastern ties in a further step away from U.S. interests.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/29/saudi-arabia-takes-step-to-join-china-led-security-bloc-as-ties-with-beijing-strengthen.html?recirc=taboolainternal

 

https://www.foxnews.com/world/saudi-arabia-grows-closer-beijing-step-toward-membership-china-led-security-bloc

 

Keep in mind this is from the left/right media propaganda apporathice, but Bloomberg, Wall St Journal, and Reuters Financial News are also sounding an alarm.

That is the scariest thing I have read in a long time and I read the news everyday. If the billion Hindu's in India are willing to put aside their hatred of Muslims to benefit their economy and f--k America, then there are dark times ahead. China and Russia team up from time to time, but theirs is strictly a marriage of convince. I watched that Globalization video you posted a while back, if this alliance materializes all of that falls apart. The Western world has demonstrated distaste for military action to protect economic interests, but if we wait for it to get bad enough, where the majority supports such intervention, it will be too late.

[frankendat]

"Karl Marx held that politics is determined by economics, but that was because he was still under the influence of eighteenth-century rationalism, and imagined that what people most desire is to grow rich. Experience since his time has shown that there is something which people desire even more strongly, and that is to keep others poor."

-Bertrand Russell

[john510]

18 hours ago, frankendat said:

Because you agree with the control or rather the "need" for control doesn't make it any less. And then, to quote another Ratsuner.

 

Politicians and many constituents, seem to forget that all the power grabbing/Constitutionally questionable controls they develop, while in power, will be turned against them in less years than they envision.

 

As far as, Republican control there are many social issues that present, but it is not worth bringing them up. Instead, Homeland and other Federal Agencies continue to push the limits of what is a Constitutionally prohibited Federal police force.  At the same time, construction of a MASSIVE data collection complex in Utah continues full speed and fully Federally funded. The Republicans decry woke cancel culture, but do not miss a chance to turn it back on a Democrat. Your data is being collected. Anyone who believes, "I'm not doing anything wrong, who cares who is watching." Is a fool. I get it, and enjoy watching a blue state politician get harpooned over some misstep, but by doing this I am supporting the institution of control. Allowing legal, but not necessarily prudent behavior to remain private, would be denounced by both parties for very different reasons, but the common undeniable thread is control. 

I don't feel as if I agree with the control from the right.I'm just not seeing anything "controlling" from them being forced upon me.I was asking for a specific example.For instance the Covid ordeal.The left wanted us shut down and masked at any cost.The right didn't.I was looking for a specific so maybe I'll learn something from it and pay closer attention.

[frankendat]

5 hours ago, john510 said:

Homeland and other Federal Agencies continue to push the limits of what is a Constitutionally prohibited Federal police force.  At the same time, construction of a MASSIVE data collection complex in Utah continues full speed and fully Federally funded. The Republicans decry woke cancel culture, but do not miss a chance to turn it back on a Democrat. Your data is being collected. Anyone who believes, "I'm not doing anything wrong, who cares who is watching." Is a fool. I get it, and enjoy watching a blue state politician get harpooned over some misstep, but by doing this I am supporting the institution of control. Allowing legal, but not necessarily prudent behavior to remain private, would be denounced by both parties for very different reasons, but the common undeniable thread is control. 

There are prime examples in my above text. Social control by the Democrats is brazen and because of media bias, it dominates our feeds but Republicans employ the same tactics. If it is difficult to apply this do your daily life, then I would recommend watching Black Mirror episode "Nosedive". Before you dismiss the story of Nosedive as doomsday hyperbolic dystopia future fear mongering, realize that recently China started to implement a "social score" program, where citizens are able to earn rewards by positive recommendations from other citizens (I predict this is the carrot to gain acceptance and integrate the scoring system. Once established a citizen with a low score will be penalized, the stick; a subtle by key differentiator).  

Edited March 31, 2023 by frankendat
spelling

[paradime]

7 hours ago, john510 said:

I don't feel as if I agree with the control from the right.I'm just not seeing anything "controlling" from them being forced upon me.I was asking for a specific example.For instance the Covid ordeal.The left wanted us shut down and masked at any cost.The right didn't.I was looking for a specific so maybe I'll learn something from it and pay closer attention.

The right has always made attempts to assert control in moral issues such as sexuality, reproduction, abortion, and obscenity.  

[bottomwatcher]

12 hours ago, paradime said:

The right has always made attempts to assert control in moral issues such as sexuality, reproduction, abortion, and obscenity.  

Don't forget fiscal responsibility, but as they say "do as I say not as I do".

[john510]

16 hours ago, paradime said:

The right has always made attempts to assert control in moral issues such as sexuality, reproduction, abortion, and obscenity.  

Ok that's an example but does it affect every one of us ? I'm talking about forcing each and every one of us to comply with things we disagree with.Moral issues are important to society.Look what's happened to this country in the last 10 or 15 years.Morals are disappearing quickly.

[john510]

3 hours ago, bottomwatcher said:

Don't forget fiscal responsibility, but as they say "do as I say not as I do".

Is fiscal responsibility a bad thing ? Or are you saying the right isn't fiscally responsible ? 

[bottomwatcher]

1 hour ago, john510 said:

Is fiscal responsibility a bad thing ? Or are you saying the right isn't fiscally responsible ? 

Neither side has shown any fiscal responsibility. Point out any president that had left with less national debt than when they started.

[paradime]

2 hours ago, john510 said:

Ok that's an example but does it affect every one of us ? I'm talking about forcing each and every one of us to comply with things we disagree with.Moral issues are important to society.Look what's happened to this country in the last 10 or 15 years.Morals are disappearing quickly.

 

Morality refers to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society, or a political party that can pass laws controlling an individual's sexuality, reproduction, choice of abortion, and freedom of speech. Those thing can and do effect us all. 

 

54 minutes ago, bottomwatcher said:

Neither side has shown any fiscal responsibility. Point out any president that had left with less national debt than when they started.

President	Year	Debt At Start ($)	Debt When Leaving Office ($)	Debt Change Percentage	Total Debt Change ($)
Coolige and Harding   Joe Biden	2021-present	$28,428,918,570,048.60	$30,928,911,613,306.70	8.79%	$2,499,993,043,258.10
Donald J. Trump	2017-2021	$20,244,900,016,053.50	$28,428,918,570,048.60	40.43%	$8,184,018,553,995.10
Barack Obama	2009–2017	$11,909,829,003,511.70	$20,244,900,016,053.50	69.98%	$8,335,071,012,541.80
George W. Bush	2001–2009	$5,807,463,412,200.06	$11,909,829,003,511.70	105.08%	$6,102,365,591,311.64
William J. Clinton	1993–2001	$4,411,488,883,139.38	$5,807,463,412,200.06	31.64%	$1,395,974,529,060.68
George H. W. Bush	1989–1993	$2,857,430,960,187.32	$4,411,488,883,139.38	54.39%	$1,554,057,922,952.06
Ronald Reagan	1981–1989	$997,855,000,000.00	$2,857,430,960,187.32	186.36%	$1,859,575,960,187.32
Jimmy Carter	1977–1981	$698,840,000,000.00	997,855,000,000.00	42.79%	$299,015,000,000.00
Gerald Ford	1974–1977	$475,059,815,731.55	698,840,000,000.00	47.11%	$223,780,184,268.45
Richard Nixon	1969–1974	$353,720,253,841.41	$475,059,815,731.55	34.30%	$121,339,561,890.14
Lyndon Johnson	1963–1969	$305,859,632,996.41	$353,720,253,841.41	15.65%	$47,860,620,845.00
John F. Kennedy	1961–1963	$288,970,938,610.05	$305,859,632,996.41	5.84%	$16,888,694,386.36
Dwight Eisenhower	1953–1961	$266,071,061,638.57	$288,970,938,610.05	8.61%	$22,899,876,971.48
Harry S. Truman	1945–1953	$258,682,187,409.93	$266,071,061,638.57	2.86%	$7,388,874,228.64
Franklin D. Roosevelt	1933–1945	$22,538,672,560.15	$258,682,187,409.93	1047.73%	$236,143,514,849.78
Herbert Hoover	1929–1933	$16,931,088,484.10	$22,538,672,560.15	33.12%	$5,607,584,076.05
Calvin Coolidge	1923–1929	$22,349,707,365.36	$16,931,088,484.10	-24.24%	-$5,418,618,881.26
Warren Harding	1921–1923	$23,977,450,552.54	$22,349,707,365.36	-6.79%	-$1,627,743,187.18

Edited April 1, 2023 by paradime

[frankendat]

4 hours ago, paradime said:

 

Morality refers to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society, or a political party that can pass laws controlling an individual's sexuality, reproduction, choice of abortion, and freedom of speech. Those thing can and do effect us all. 

 

Looks like some of my best years happened when government spending exceeded government income dramatically, guess that makes me....an American.

 

6 hours ago, john510 said:

Ok that's an example but does it affect every one of us ? I'm talking about forcing each and every one of us to comply with things we disagree with.Moral issues are important to society.Look what's happened to this country in the last 10 or 15 years.Morals are disappearing quickly.

Social control is far more sinister than overt control; social control has blurred edges and starts with issues of general agreement, but like the frog in the slowly warming pot; once fate is realized, it is too late.

 

Morality is blurry concept. Whose moral rules? The standard "American was founded on a Christian values/morals" is questionable historical interpretation. The founding fathers were deeply concerned about religious freedom, given their recent history. Additionally, the Puritan interpretation of Biblical text is different than what is common Christian understanding today. But, what is common Christian understanding today? The Lutherans differ from the Catholics substantially, then there are subsets of both that teach opposite values/morals. Mormons have another system entirely, yet each of the previously mentioned believes they uphold morality, Christian morality. 

 

So we are left with morals that are determined by the majority and this is problematic, because the majority will place self interest above the good of the community and the majority, in all countries, have proven themselves mostly incompetent and often evil.

 

The majority in America rules through a collectively financed government with powers limited by the Constitution. The purpose for this is to stop a majority from harming the whole to the point of system collapse. Values and moral decay are fun for lunch break bitching, but only serve as vehicles for control. The spectre of the other is used to justify fiscal expansion of the government and the weakening of the Constitution. 

 

I see three opportunities to slow the destruction of America. One- maintain any system of morals and values you desire (remaining in conformity with Federal,State and local law), and allow your neighbor to do the same. Disagree, advocate against, but do not support government action against them. Two- vote against increased taxation and government expansion. There are good reasons for government expansion, especially with the current, beyond incompetent, immigration policy, but refrain. Three uphold the principles of the Constitution and demand your appointed officials do the same.

 

 

[a.d._510_n_ok]

 

[paradime]

1 hour ago, a.d._510_n_ok said:

 

 

Huge red flag they didn't show the actual laugh that got this kid cancelled, so it's impossible to know wether it was justified or not . That said, no other judge asked for pronouns, so at what age should a child be able to navigate this intolerant insecure woke judge's expectations with perfect grace? So who gives a shit that the question made the child uncomfortable, but because his giggling made the POS adult judge feel uncomfortable he get's booted off?:... I'm all for equality and nondiscrimination, but WT holy F is this ridiculously unjustified shit supposed to accomplish? Now even dyed blue liberals are turning against the woke overreach for this very reason.

 

A minor isn't able to enter into a contract or legal agreement, so it's the parent or guardian who signs and holds legal responsibility. I don't know if the contestants were given a clear definition of unacceptable behavior, but even if he was perceived as bing rude by the judge, this seems like a violation of this kid's civil rights. Chances are mom and dad signed away their ability to bring a civil suit against the show's producers. However, Pokémon didn't contact his parents, they got this minor to sign a resignation of the game he was playing, which constitutes an agreement of wrong doing, and this opens the door for a civil suit involving abuse of a minor. Pokemon backed this snowflake judge and violated the rights of a minor. They should be held responsible for their wack ass tilted values and abuse of power.

[john510]

15 hours ago, frankendat said:

 

Looks like some of my best years happened when government spending exceeded government income dramatically, guess that makes me....an American.

 

Social control is far more sinister than overt control; social control has blurred edges and starts with issues of general agreement, but like the frog in the slowly warming pot; once fate is realized, it is too late.

 

Morality is blurry concept. Whose moral rules? The standard "American was founded on a Christian values/morals" is questionable historical interpretation. The founding fathers were deeply concerned about religious freedom, given their recent history. Additionally, the Puritan interpretation of Biblical text is different than what is common Christian understanding today. But, what is common Christian understanding today? The Lutherans differ from the Catholics substantially, then there are subsets of both that teach opposite values/morals. Mormons have another system entirely, yet each of the previously mentioned believes they uphold morality, Christian morality. 

 

So we are left with morals that are determined by the majority and this is problematic, because the majority will place self interest above the good of the community and the majority, in all countries, have proven themselves mostly incompetent and often evil.

 

The majority in America rules through a collectively financed government with powers limited by the Constitution. The purpose for this is to stop a majority from harming the whole to the point of system collapse. Values and moral decay are fun for lunch break bitching, but only serve as vehicles for control. The spectre of the other is used to justify fiscal expansion of the government and the weakening of the Constitution. 

 

I see three opportunities to slow the destruction of America. One- maintain any system of morals and values you desire (remaining in conformity with Federal,State and local law), and allow your neighbor to do the same. Disagree, advocate against, but do not support government action against them. Two- vote against increased taxation and government expansion. There are good reasons for government expansion, especially with the current, beyond incompetent, immigration policy, but refrain. Three uphold the principles of the Constitution and demand your appointed officials do the same.

 

 

I don't think the moral issue is blurry at all.It's right against wrong I always thought.It's been made blurry by the left wing nuts in this country.Now for some strange reason it's ok to steal from the store.That's clearly left wing policy.They promote doing NOTHING about it.Making drug posession and use a non crime is another.There are no consequences for these actions that harm others.There should be and needs to be otherwise the problem gets worse.Living in California and being under the control of the Democrats may also affect my judgement I'll admit.I have no say so in this fucked up state.I have no representation which would be fine if they would leave us alone and not create more laws and taxes that take from me.The things they waste money on are why I questioned the fiscal responsibility of the left.They come up with some of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard.

[datzenmike]

 

[frankendat]

2 hours ago, john510 said:

I don't think the moral issue is blurry at all.It's right against wrong I always thought.It's been made blurry by the left wing nuts in this country.Now for some strange reason it's ok to steal from the store.That's clearly left wing policy.They promote doing NOTHING about it.Making drug posession and use a non crime is another.There are no consequences for these actions that harm others.There should be and needs to be otherwise the problem gets worse.Living in California and being under the control of the Democrats may also affect my judgement I'll admit.I have no say so in this fucked up state.I have no representation which would be fine if they would leave us alone and not create more laws and taxes that take from me.The things they waste money on are why I questioned the fiscal responsibility of the left.They come up with some of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard.

Are you willing to consider, if only for a moment, that another rational intelligent human may utilize valid reasoning and arrive at different conclusions, as to what is right and what is wrong? (I am neither suggesting that I am this person nor your beliefs and mine must align - only that such an individual could exist)

Edited April 2, 2023 by frankendat

[angliagt]

9 hours ago, john510 said:

I don't think the moral issue is blurry at all.It's right against wrong I always thought.It's been made blurry by the left wing nuts in this country.Now for some strange reason it's ok to steal from the store.That's clearly left wing policy.They promote doing NOTHING about it.Making drug posession and use a non crime is another.There are no consequences for these actions that harm others.There should be and needs to be otherwise the problem gets worse.Living in California and being under the control of the Democrats may also affect my judgement I'll admit.I have no say so in this fucked up state.I have no representation which would be fine if they would leave us alone and not create more laws and taxes that take from me.The things they waste money on are why I questioned the fiscal responsibility of the left.They come up with some of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard.

 

              Plus (maybe) a really bitch'n train.

[datzenmike]

10 hours ago, frankendat said:

Are you willing to consider, if only for a moment, that another rational intelligent human may utilize valid reasoning and arrive at different conclusions, as to what is right and what is wrong? (I am neither suggesting that I am this person nor your beliefs and mine must align - only that such an individual could exist)

 

Under these rational and intelligent conditions shouldn't both conclusions be the same, no matter how hard it is to accept by one or both parties??? Aren't moral (right and wrong) decisions often hard to accept even though they are correct? To say that there are two or more outcomes that are correct nullifies all morality, hell it nullifies reasoning altogether. In this case, where an outcome is unexpectedly opposite what you expect isn't the supporter and opponent obligated to examine all valid reasoning to find out if they are valid, looking for a mistake? Righteous  is right, not mostly right, sometimes right or often wrong.

[paradime]

3 hours ago, datzenmike said:

 

Under these rational and intelligent conditions shouldn't both conclusions be the same, no matter how hard it is to accept by one or both parties??? Aren't moral (right and wrong) decisions often hard to accept even though they are correct? To say that there are two or more outcomes that are correct nullifies all morality, hell it nullifies reasoning altogether. In this case, where an outcome is unexpectedly opposite what you expect isn't the supporter and opponent obligated to examine all valid reasoning to find out if they are valid, looking for a mistake? Righteous  is right, not mostly right, sometimes right or often wrong.

 

 Moral "right or wrong" has never been a cut and dried equation. Even the 10 Commandments have been reinterprated to serve different agendas. A society's social order is never static, it's always evolving even though it can be hard for many to accept. Morality is based on the subjective reasoning of core values and internal experience. Individual values often differ greatly based on individual circumstance. Like it or not, democracy and our politically swayed legal system is how we decide the validity of subjective morality. Objective reasoning is based on incontestable external facts, and holds no right or wrong value judgement. Without a crystal ball, there is no way to gage whether a moral decision is correct for the greater good, or if it just serves those with the power to influence our moral decisions via legal, political, or religious propaganda. We have the ability to look at moral decisions through the lens of history, and it's easy to see that catastrophe follows when the line between subjective and objective reasoning is blurred. Both are valid and serves humanity well in their respective internal/external context.

 

A subjective $.02 worth.  I believe the greed of global capitalism has run humanity off course, and the world is sick from a lack of insight. I fear we're all in for a rude awakening. 

 

The tag line on my 510realm account since 2009:

"People lose sight of subjectivity when their head is stuck too far up their own reality."

[frankendat]

6 hours ago, datzenmike said:

 

Under these rational and intelligent conditions shouldn't both conclusions be the same, no matter how hard it is to accept by one or both parties??? Aren't moral (right and wrong) decisions often hard to accept even though they are correct? To say that there are two or more outcomes that are correct nullifies all morality, hell it nullifies reasoning altogether. In this case, where an outcome is unexpectedly opposite what you expect isn't the supporter and opponent obligated to examine all valid reasoning to find out if they are valid, looking for a mistake? Righteous  is right, not mostly right, sometimes right or often wrong.

There is more than one side to every moral decision. I've spent decades searching for absolutes and found two correct answers even concerning the building blocks of reality (both particle and wave) Moreover, the application of moral absolutes has produced some of the greatest suffering in history. "Moral" decisions are only hard to accept when they conflict with your subjective values. There are legions of scholars who have dedicated their lives twisting "absolute" morals to conform to subjective belief.