World Politics

Page 398 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
redtreviso said:
Why do Conservatives get a pass?

"Perry’s ideas range from wrongheaded to terrifying....The subtitle of Perry’s book is “Our Fight to Save America from Washington.” Reading it summons the image of another, urgent fight: saving America from Rick Perry.
Two comments. First, I wouldn't agree that it's just "conservatives" that get the pass. I feel what's happening is that the media for the most part lacks any kind of balls, and the concept of true investigative journalism is in such wane, that they don't bother questioning extremes, and merely report them as is. Thus, the problem isn't so much your average every day "conservative" making a comment, it's more aimed at asinine Tea Party type comments such as prayer being the solution to drought, more scientists saying global warming doesn't exist, etc. No one in the media (other than the progressive biased left, the Bill Mahar types) steps up and calls BS on this. Even mainstream media such as CBS News, CNN, AP, etc. simply reports that Perry made such comments, that's it. They are so tied to raising money, and self-crippled by the fear of sounding biased or being called "liberal media" they drop nearly all critical thinking.

Of course the corrupt hapless media hardly scrutinizes things like Obama's connection to bankers, or flip-flopping on so many issues either. Doing so takes work, and most viewers would rather know about Kim Kardashian's boobs.

Second. It's a sign of the time. Perry is going to get a free pass also because he's not in a real position now to do much damage. He's simply someone running for President. When it gets closer to the primaries, and if he get through those and is the nominee, his words will be more scrutinized overall.

As to Obama. While I think he's got a 50% chance of being re-elected, I agree with Scott that he can say whatever he wants between now and then, but once elected he will be another gutless, bought and sold flim-flam man, just as he is now, plus dealing with a GOP House, and if not a GOP Senate, not one much different (impotent) than now.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
I don't actually think that's the case when it comes to corporations. To be honest I think he's simply removed enough from the hardship that faces most workers, coupled with an honest belief in uncorrupted capitalism, that shapes his perception.

Hence, you see, and focus on what the bad corporations (and their ilk) are getting away with, and find that percentage high enough that it's one of the root causes hurting the workforce and average person to the point of being systemic, thus requiring system wide change.

I think he sees perhaps a more optimistic view. That being that some corporations are corrupt, and the solution (beyond justice to the offenders) for society is a more streamlined, less corrupt tax code.

You see the government as a potential equalizer, and employer, which despite aspects of corruption (of which offenders should receive justice) is at least a partial solution.

He sees the government as a hindrance, and corruption within it so engrossing that the solution stretches to a very limited government that offers very little in the way of employment.

Who's right? Who's wrong? You tell me.
I simply believe in the political process, however removed from the market ideology that that may be, because the alternative is either the law of the mighty, or else chaos. Also because in the end, society has the final say: which basically means revolution (or, if the society doesn't have the say, then repression).

The problem isn't the leadership per se, but how that ruling class administers the affairs of the state. In our corporate driven world the choices will inevitably be bad choices. Though this does not change a principle.

So we either give-up, basically out of selfishness and when opportunity presents itself, or else we hold strong to our beliefs, however removed from reality.

But this does not mean utopia, but rather a constant and ongoing struggle.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I don't actually think that's the case when it comes to corporations. To be honest I think he's simply removed enough from the hardship that faces most workers, coupled with an honest belief in uncorrupted capitalism, that shapes his perception.

Hence, you see, and focus on what the bad corporations (and their ilk) are getting away with, and find that percentage high enough that it's one of the root causes hurting the workforce and average person to the point of being systemic, thus requiring system wide change.

I think he sees perhaps a more optimistic view. That being that some corporations are corrupt, and the solution (beyond justice to the offenders) for society is a more streamlined, less corrupt tax code.

You see the government as a potential equalizer, and employer, which despite aspects of corruption (of which offenders should receive justice) is at least a partial solution.

He sees the government as a hindrance, and corruption within it so engrossing that the solution stretches to a very limited government that offers very little in the way of employment.

Who's right? Who's wrong? You tell me.
It really has nothing to do with corporate taxes or regulation...Republicans associating themselves with business is about power and voting blocks.. Someone on this forum said they made sure no liberals worked for them..Well
in the oil business in particular they do the same..I know people in the oil business who would be scared to death to not vote republican and not be a pom pom shaking cheerleader of ALL things republican.. Where they work people go around checking on them to make sure their head is screwed on straight..If they don't have an 8x10 of Reagan or Cheney or Dubya they can kiss any career advancement goodbye.. Lockheed... These people are even worse..Banking... anyone high enough up to make predatory strategies come into play are surely Republicans and it would be demanded of them that they proclaim it on a daily basis.. Financial services?? oh man.. Anyone who knows what a derivative is BETTER NOT have any leanings towards regulations or ethics.. There are many more..Republicans have made many businesses believe they only exist because they are defended by the GOP..
The GOP counts on these blocks of people as an automatic vote for them.

If everyone that works for Koch Industries hates school teachers then you should too..It comes to the point where industry can run the country by demanding voting obedience from their employees.. It could be just a bunch of crazy Koch brothers who are obsessed with stem cells or abortion or the 2nd coming that could decide everything.

So really,.,.. Don't ask me to agree with the randian crackpot ideas of your boss or your manager that you have to promote and swear to in order to make a living..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
redtreviso said:
It really has nothing to do with corporate taxes or regulation...Republicans associating themselves with business is about power and voting blocks.. Someone on this forum said they made sure no liberals worked for them..Well
in the oil business in particular they do the same..I know people in the oil business who would be scared to death to not vote republican and not be a pom pom shaking cheerleader of ALL things republican.. Where they work people go around checking on them to make sure their head is screwed on straight..If they don't have an 8x10 of Reagan or Cheney or Dubya they can kiss any career advancement goodbye.. Lockheed... These people are even worse..Banking... anyone high enough up to make predatory strategies come into play are surely Republicans and it would be demanded of them that they proclaim it on a daily basis.. Financial services?? oh man.. Anyone who knows what a derivative is BETTER NOT have any leanings towards regulations or ethics.. There are many more..Republicans have made many businesses believe they only exist because they are defended by the GOP..
The GOP counts on these blocks of people as an automatic vote for them.

If everyone that works for Koch Industries hates school teachers then you should too..It comes to the point where industry can run the country by demanding voting obedience from their employees.. It could be just a bunch of crazy Koch brothers who are obsessed with stem cells or abortion or the 2nd coming that could decide everything.

So really,.,.. Don't ask me to agree with the randian crackpot ideas of your boss or your manager that you have to promote and swear to in order to make a living..
Complete and utter tripe. Your annecdotal evidence is hardly the norm, but you probably already know this.

Last time I voted I was the only one in the booth.

But just for the sake of conversation, how would working for the Koch brothers be different from a conservative being an SEIU member working for some public entity? The real difference is the Koch's don't force anyone to pay dues.

Republicans have made many businesses believe they only exist because they are defended by the GOP..
Name one.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Complete and utter tripe. Your annecdotal evidence is hardly the norm, but you probably already know this.

Last time I voted I was the only one in the booth.

But just for the sake of conversation, how would working for the Koch brothers be different from a conservative being an SEIU member working for some public entity? The real difference is the Koch's don't force anyone to pay dues.



Name one.
OIL....Weapons..Financial Services..anything that pollutes..

and you don't know union people very well.. unlike conservatives they don't have to offer up their wife or 13yr daughter to their boss , they have a contract..If they feel like voting opposite to their union's endorsement they do..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
redtreviso said:
OIL....Weapons..Financial Services..anything that pollutes..

and you don't know union people very well.. unlike conservatives they don't have to offer up their wife or 13yr daughter to their boss , they have a contract..If they feel like voting opposite to their union's endorsement they do..
And the dues a conservative member of the SEIU pays go for what political cause?

If they feel like voting opposite to their union's endorsement they do.
Yes, and this is very unlike a private worker in the oil industry.:rolleyes:

Feel free to name any business that believes they exist only because they are defended by the GOP.

<crickets>
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Is this modern liberalism?

There is a Republican debate scheduled. It has been scheduled for some weeks. The Obama administration decides it wants to call a joint session of congress to give a speech on job creation and propose legislation to create economic activity (basically a campaign speech).

So what does the White House do? Schedule it on the same day and time as the already scheduled Repub debate. We now know the White House backed off of this and re-scheduled.

But then we get this;

Wolffe: Opposition To Obama Speech Possibly Based On Skin Color

"The interesting question is: What is it about this president that has stripped away the veneer of respect that normally accompanies the Office of the President? Why do Republicans think this president is unpresidential and should dare to request this kind of thing? It strikes me that it could be the economic times, it could be that he won so big in 2008 or it could be, let's face it, the color of his skin. This is an extraordinary reaction to a normal sequence of events," MSNBC contributor Richard Wolffe said on "The Last Word."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/31/wolffe_opposition_to_obama_speech_possibly_based_on_skin_color.html

So, it's amateur hour at the White House and they screw the pooch royally with the scheduling of this speech only to have the sycophantic press turn around and blame what amounts to this administration's incompetence on republican racism.

Just effing brilliant. In the same breath they will bemoan a lack of civility. I honestly don't know how this hack sleeps at night.


Contrast Richard Wolffe with James Carville;

Carville: WH "Out Of Bounds" To Schedule Address During GOP Debate

“I do think this is a really big debate and I think the White House was out of bounds in trying to schedule a speech during a debate,” James Carville said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

“Given a choice between watching a debate and the speech I would have watched the debate and I’m not even a Republican or even close to being a Republican,” Carville said.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/01/carville_wh_out_of_bounds_to_schedule_address_during_gop_debate.html
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
And the dues a conservative member of the SEIU pays go for what political cause?



Yes, and this is very unlike a private worker in the oil industry.:rolleyes:

Feel free to name any business that believes they exist only because they are defended by the GOP.

<crickets>
OIL....Weapons..Financial Services..anything that pollutes.. sorry to confuse you by naming MORE than one.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Is this modern liberalism?

There is a Republican debate scheduled. It has been scheduled for some weeks. The Obama administration decides it wants to call a joint session of congress to give a speech on job creation and propose legislation to create economic activity (basically a campaign speech).

So what does the White House do? Schedule it on the same day and time as the already scheduled Repub debate. We now know the White House backed off of this and re-scheduled.

But then we get this;

Wolffe: Opposition To Obama Speech Possibly Based On Skin Color



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/31/wolffe_opposition_to_obama_speech_possibly_based_on_skin_color.html

So, it's amateur hour at the White House and they screw the pooch royally with the scheduling of this speech only to have the sycophantic press turn around and blame what amounts to this administration's incompetence on republican racism.

Just effing brilliant. In the same breath they will bemoan a lack of civility. I honestly don't know how this hack sleeps at night.


Contrast Richard Wolffe with James Carville;

Carville: WH "Out Of Bounds" To Schedule Address During GOP Debate

“I do think this is a really big debate and I think the White House was out of bounds in trying to schedule a speech during a debate,” James Carville said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

“Given a choice between watching a debate and the speech I would have watched the debate and I’m not even a Republican or even close to being a Republican,” Carville said.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/01/carville_wh_out_of_bounds_to_schedule_address_during_gop_debate.html
Thank You Pat Buchanan....or is this Rush's talking point of the day?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
redtreviso said:
OIL....Weapons..Financial Services..anything that pollutes.. sorry to confuse you by naming MORE than one.
Name one company. It should be so easy. I'm sure you have something other than your word, right?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
redtreviso said:
Thank You Pat Buchanan....or is this Rush's talking point of the day?
Why don't you answer the question? Is this modern liberalism?

Tactically screw something up so bad you automatically fall back to the accusation of racism (because it always seems to work)?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
redtreviso said:
haliburton
A multi-national coporation that began in the mid 1920's employing 50 + thousand people doing business in almost 80 Countries... a $20,000,000,000 (annual revenue) busness that somehow republicans have made believe they only exist because they are defended by the GOP.

Republicans have made many businesses believe they only exist because they are defended by the GOP
You just make this **** up as you go along, don't you?
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
A multi-national coporation that began in the mid 1920's employing 50 + thousand people doing business in almost 80 Countries... a $20,000,000,000 (annual revenue) busness that somehow republicans have nade believe they only exist because they are defended by the GOP.



You just make this **** up as you go along, don't you?
You just don't get it..These corps have hitched their wagon to the GOP..they've been convinced that their demise is near without loyalty to THE PARTY..and then they insist on the same obedience from their employees. Their employees have sacrificed their free will in order to have a job..or keep it.
I know oil and gas people who might say something critical of republicans, but say it in a soft voice and look over their shoulder to see if anyone might have heard them blaspheme .. Seriously.. This is not American.. If they did that at work someone would go rat them out..They are scared..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
redtreviso said:
You just don't get it..These corps have hitched their wagon to the GOP..they've been convinced that their demise is near without loyalty to THE PARTY..and then they insist on the same obedience from their employees. Their employees have sacrificed their free will in order to have a job..or keep it.
I know oil and gas people who might say something critical of republicans, but say it in a soft voice and look over their shoulder to see if anyone might have heard them blaspheme .. Seriously.. This is not American.. If they did that at work someone would go rat them out..They are scared..
No, you don't get it. When you say "these corps" are you talking about GE as well?? Yeah, Immelt has really hitched his wagon to the GOP. Who are "these" corps? Please name them. All of them.

Haliburton's demise is near without the GOP? Yeah, I think that's the read those in the know have.:rolleyes:
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
No, you don't get it. When you say "these corps" are you talking about GE as well?? Yeah, Immelt has really hitched his wagon to the GOP. Who are "these" corps? Please name them. All of them.

Haliburton's demise is near without the GOP? Yeah, I think that's the read those in the know have.:rolleyes:
Haliburton bought dresser pump which had more asbestos liability than Haliburton was worth in total.. After the purchase the whole GD republican congress' top priority was tort reform. ONLY WE CAN SAVE YOU.. they did..
Forget Immelt.. GE is still Jack Welch's company..No one in upper management there would defy Welch's leanings..

Name all of them?? All oil companies..All defense contractors..All financial services companies dealing in unregulated securities. All insurance companies who are NOW banks thanks to GLB.. Just about anything with a dubious business model and that wants to keep it that way is GOP loyal and demands it of their employees.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Why don't you answer the question? Is this modern liberalism?

Tactically screw something up so bad you automatically fall back to the accusation of racism (because it always seems to work)?
A lil political obstructionism is a far cry, however, from lying to the nation and to the world about weapons of mass destruction to then start an ideological war for oil and give your corporate friends all the sweet rebuilding deals after you've blown the place to smithereens.

Modern conservatism at its finest.

Once again you have no sense of proportion and measure, while such things happen all the time in party politics, such leverage comes with being in power. It doesn't make it honorable, but let's not sensationalize out of baseness now shall we.
 
rhubroma said:
A lil political obstructionism is a far cry, however, from lying to the nation and to the world about weapons of mass destruction to then start an ideological war for oil and give your corporate friends all the sweet rebuilding deals after you've blown the place to smithereens.

Modern conservatism at its finest.

Once again you have no sense of proportion and measure, while such things happen all the time in party politics, such leverage comes with being in power. It doesn't make it honorable, but let's not sensationalize out of baseness now shall we.
Right here I just have to go +1
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
...He sees the government as a hindrance, and corruption within it so engrossing that the solution stretches to a very limited government that offers very little in the way of employment.

Who's right? Who's wrong? You tell me.
The problem with our government, and therefore our democracy, is that the political class that makes it up on both sides of the political spectrum has its function reduced to pretty much the exclusive role of satisfying an agenda that has in large part, if not entirely, been dictated to it by financial bankers, industry chiefs and the military.

There is thus a colossal financial apparatus in command which simply needs to be first dismantled and then annihilated, I've thought, if there's to be any chance of arriving at a political process that even resembles one with a modicum of principle and decency. We must dismantle the power and coercive forces of the business machine, Alpe, and then annihilate them to have any hope of reform. That's the truth. For if we don't first take them apart and then extinguish them, we're forever doomed to the actual political process that has sanctified the rule of the mighty, which the government cynically refers to as the nation's leadership and the consequent chaos that this has produced. Not the cheap and misguided reforms the plutocracy and their cronies the politicians are endlessly pontificating about. No these won't do, Alpe, which they then hypocritically pass off to the masses as social progress when they are in fact taking us straight back to the Dark Ages, but a real and earth-shattering change of course, of ideology and worldview. Instead the so-called reforms that they propose are driving the country straight toward a new form of totalitarianism.

I'm not sure how this is to be done, or even if it can be done, only that it must be to save the nation, and hence the state, from total enslavement to the business machine and the special interests of the financial apparatus, I've thought.

Mild measures won't do, however, as I have said. We need radical and even revolutionary ones if there is any chance to bring about all the necessary changes. The first thing I'd do is make all forms of private campaign financing illegal and treat them as subversive measures against the state and the unfettered democratic process. Politicians from each party, moreover, and not merely the two right-wing ones that have been forced upon us for lack of alternatives, which have thus monopolized and strangled the political discussion, are to be given the exact same amount of funds from a common pool as stipulated by federal law and provided by the tax payers, with which to run their campaigns. Tickets that are also to be restricted to an access of media exposure that is no greater in duration than any rival's: all in the interests of equality, competition and pluralism.

I would then reform Wall Street by breaking up the financial banks that have simply gotten too large and eliminate so called market makers who are forced to buy stocks by law and then speculate upon the future dividends they receive by working the system, on the grounds of a conflict of interests in terms of market regulations such practice obviously promotes. I would order that all forms of excessively risk taking financial capitalism like hedge funds and the rest be made against the rules of fair-play and so be declared anathema. I would not allow private pensions to be gambled away in such high risk investment strategies or people's mortgages to be amassed within toxic portfolios. I would not allow market forces to speculate on currency exchange rates and therefore state sovereign debt, with heavy fines and imprisonment for those that do, which basically amounts to playing with in the spirit of competition between nations the future lives and pensions of hundreds of millions for profit and to weaken a rival's economy. I would encourage foreign governments to do likewise in taking corrective measures to change the face of financial capitalism, to thus promote more collaboration and camaraderie between states in the spirit of collectivism instead of the intensive competition which reigns over today's markets that's placed us on the path of eternal conflict and eventually possible destruction. If Wall Street and the world's financial markets can't be entirely eliminated, then a new guiding principle needs to become at the basis of their economic culture.

This is a political process I can live with, not one in which the corporate universe and its profit driven interests replaces the sovereign state as having any significant role in the evolution of globalization. I would, of course, eliminate all sovereign debt of the underdeveloped nations and export this new model of economic cooperation throughout the globe. I would then stop using economic support, or the lack there of in the form of harsh sanctions, merely for political leverage and as a coercive measure to impose economic liberalism around the globe. In short I'd stop looking at the world and the societies that make it up exclusively in terms of potential markets to be exploited and developed, and begin to have some damn humanity. It therefore goes without saying that all foreign aid must be exclusively made in the form of humanitarian relief and assistance and must never be used as a deceitfully camouflaged military spending, as in the case of one infamous example that doesn't even bear thinking about, let alone mentioning.

I would then pull the military out of all of its bellicose campaigns and even from its foreign bases for strategic peace keeping and reduce it to the bare minimum for deterrence and defense, only after, however, we have assisted morally all those who struggle against the oppressive regimes we have either openly backed or looked the other way in the name of realpolitik. If the military can't entirely be done away with, then at least it will not be used to back an appalling imperialism. Perhaps then the world might have a chance at being provided with a badly needed objectivity when looking at the problems of international relationships and analyzing global conflict, which it has always lacked throughout history. Now that we have eliminated the mastodon costs of running the military complex, which would significantly contribute to bringing down the insanely gigantic public debt, the tax code will need to be totally revised, with a much heavier burden placed upon the wealthiest class. The conservative idea that providing fiscal relief to the rich creates jobs and allows the crumbs from the table of the rich to fall more copiously down upon the poor is a perverse and propagandistic mistaken metaphor of zealous ideologues which recent history has proven to be completely illusory and false. As has been demonstrated by the ever widening gap since Reaganomics between the haves and the have-nots which, among other consequences like rampant privatization and resultant cuts in government funded social programs, has sparked the social unrest and acts of street violence and vandalism we recently witnessed in London. The increased revenues coming in from the rich would then happily contribute to financing thos social programs that many people of society rely upon just to get by. These measures, in addition to the Wall Street reforms, should also offset the trade deficit with diminishing consumer demands at home, while making it much more congenial to buy Made in the USA abroad.

These would naturally only be the initial steps, Alpe, which haven't even begun to take into consideration all the other problems that need to be corrected, corrected underlined; like the insurance industries and therefore healthcare and other aspects of the insurance business which would also need rigorous reform, or the business of litigation that has removed all concept of personal responsibility and accountability and that's turning the country into a sue-crazy society to the great benefit of those who practice the so called legal profession. Public education will, of course, need to be made the greatest priority of domestic policy, which is an investment in the nation's youth and thus the future civility and well-being of the democracy. I would then combat all forms of religious fundamentalism and stigmatize them as anti-democratic, anti-scientific, anti-secular, which therefore have no political role and in establishing public policies under a constitutional framework that makes a basic democratic principle of a separation between church and state.

Finally I have already stressed the need for 'happy downsizing'. We all need to learn to live with less and embrace our own mortality, to stop cynically treating the world and our fellow man as merely instrumental resources, both natural and human, to be used up and exploited at will to satisfy men's every material appetite, or at least the strong among them over the weak. Thus the folly of eternal economic growth at the markets will have to be fundamentally rethought and reassessed. All of this means that we must willingly give up the empire to ensure more stability at home, while having any hope of promoting a more ethical world abroad. This is what is meant by leadership and leading by example, and not the spurious kind of administrating regime currently practiced in which the madness of global competition among states that's fanatically promoted means that everything is bargained for and everyone gets defrauded.

While I realize these measures may not be workable in the real world, because they aren't compatible with homo rapiens, they seem to me nonetheless to be the only rational and principled ones to prevent a more rapid extinction and are thus worth noting.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
Right here I just have to go +1
How can you keep reading this BS in this thread? I can only take it in very small doses.

I am sure scott will be along shortly with some link to a wingnut website stating the opposite or what rhubarb wrote.
 
rhubroma said:
...
While I realize these measures may not be workable in the real world, because they aren't compatible with homo rapiens, they seem to me nonetheless to be the only rational and principled ones to prevent a more rapid extinction and are thus worth noting.
I believe that people today are probably too divided in their views for a quorum of them to want something as broad as all that you suggest over the period of time sufficient to achieve it, however attractive it might seem (to you and I).

What's more, how can it be done? Through the democratic process? Certainly a two-party democracy (in my country of origin, the two-and-a-half party democracy) doesn't even begin to represent the sort of plurality that I think actually exists out there. On the other hand, here in Belgium they cannot form a government arguably because too many parties have a hand in the process.

For me, Obama proved that 'change' is a word. I work in government communications and I've seen at first-hand how, in difficult times, our office has jettisoned the policymaking and gotten very busy with message-making. This is bailing out the ship, not sailing it. Management around here is a byword for scared, hopeless, hanging-in-there boomers. I don't believe these people have what it will take to change anything. I don't believe they even know what it will take to change anything.

So what else can we do but start with ourselves and the choices we make?
 
L'arriviste said:
I believe that people today are probably too divided in their views for a quorum of them to want something as broad as all that you suggest over the period of time sufficient to achieve it, however attractive it might seem (to you and I).

What's more, how can it be done? Through the democratic process? Certainly a two-party democracy (in my country of origin, the two-and-a-half party democracy) doesn't even begin to represent the sort of plurality that I think actually exists out there. On the other hand, here in Belgium they cannot form a government arguably because too many parties have a hand in the process.

For me, Obama proved that 'change' is a word. I work in government communications and I've seen at first-hand how, in difficult times, our office has jettisoned the policymaking and gotten very busy with message-making. This is bailing out the ship, not sailing it. Management around here is a byword for scared, hopeless, hanging-in-there boomers. I don't believe these people have what it will take to change anything. I don't believe they even know what it will take to change anything.

So what else can we do but start with ourselves and the choices we make?

This has always been the problem. Man simply hasn't got the stomach for such a revolution, as is evident even here by a tendency to give into an access of sarcasm and derision toward such considerations and remarks. Which means we are fundamentally unworthy of building such a world, or even attempting to, because to live otherwise would go against our nature, which is a destructive nature and one thoroughly inimical to anything principled or ethical, because basically is controlled by greed and rapacity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS