No matter how bad it seems... it will get worse.

reddan1981

reddan1981

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I don't understand what you are tying to say. What do you see with your open eyes that my shut ones don't? Not trying to mock, just trying to get at where you are coming from. I am atheist and so I'm not likely to buy into a mystical theory but won't reject your religious views so long as you don't insist on my compliance.
Click to expand...
Ok. Agreed. You will understand that it is a difficult task to explain, especially using this format and as what i am going to say will be contrary to what you think you know, I know it will be dismissed and ridiculed..
To understand, one must understand what 'society' is, how our psychology works and how our biological make up reacts to environmental stimuli.
As simply as i can explain it, Society is a construct. The purpose of its construction is to group us together and place us under rule. On the whole,one might see its construction as a good thing, as it definitely does benefit some and if fine tuned could eventually work for the benefit of all. But I don't believe the system we are living in today, was ever intended to be for the greater good of us all. Originally it was constructed to secure invaded lands and implemented a hierarchical structure which provided protection for 'persons' with assets.
 
Last edited:
OldMedUser

OldMedUser

Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
You know this is the Political forum right?

Anyhow, the guy you're talking to dries his plants hanging over very dirty, open cat litter boxes; true story.
Click to expand...
I know and will step out. I use kitty litter to steady my rifles when I sight in a new scope. Spinning a dime at 300 yards 9 times out of 10 lets me know I got it right. The sawed-off 12 gauge needs no such calibration to clear a room. ;)

:peace:
 
Unclebaldrick

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
reddan1981 said:
Ok. Agreed. You will understand that it is a difficult task to explain, especially using this format and as what i am going to say will be contrary to what you think you know, I know it will be dismissed and ridiculed..
To understand, one must understand what 'society' is, how our psychology works and how our biological make up reacts to environmental stimuli.
As simply as i can explain it, Society is a construct. The purpose of its construction is to group us together and place us under rule. On the whole,one might see its construction as a good thing, as it definitely does benefit some and if fine tuned could eventually work for the benefit of all. But I don't believe the system we are living in today, was ever intended to be for the greater good of us all. Originally it was constructed to secure invaded lands and implemented a hierarchical structure which provided protection for 'persons' with assets.
(Person as defined by blacks law dictionary only)

My kids have just got up so......priorities!
(I won't be able to concentrate)
I'll finish this later, get your popcorn.
Click to expand...
Enjoy those kids. Not long until they figure out that daddy is whack-a-doodle.
 
reddan1981

reddan1981

Well-Known Member
law was an integral part of this hierarchical structure, as it was the backbone that supported institutional growth. I highlighted that PERSON referred to the blacks law deffinition and is not synonymous with the word man, as we understand the word to mean ie; flesh and bone, human being, etc.
Blacks law defines PERSON as; 1. a company, legal entity or corporation.
2. a human being.
FYI Blacks law doesn't have a deffinition for human being, however Balentines law dictionary defines human, as monsters lol.
What I'm trying to emphasise is that flesh and bone sentient beings, are not recognised in law. Only LEGAL PERSONS, as defined by law, are recognised and thus corporations hold the same hierarchical position as us, under the rule of law. The guise is that laws are for our benefit, but the truth is their main purpose was to procure and provide protection of ASSETS.
Invasion came under the disguise of war and peace treaties were generally the first part of binding the conquested lands to the rule of law and with it, the institutions.
These institutions set themselves as the authority on subjects, teaching the indigenous people's of the land 'their' truths.
This system to create society has been maintained for thousands of years, anecdotal proof to support my premise can be found from at least three thousand years ago with the discovery in 1901 of the Code of Hammurabi which is a set of babylonian laws found inscribed on tablets.

The code consists of 282 laws, with scaled punishments, adjusting "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (lex talionis)[1] as graded depending on social status, of slave versus free man.[2] Nearly one-half of the code deals with matters of contract, establishing, for example, the wages to be paid to an ox driver or a surgeon. -
 
Unclebaldrick

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
reddan1981 said:
law was an integral part of this hierarchical structure, as it was the backbone that supported institutional growth. I highlighted that PERSON referred to the blacks law deffinition and is not synonymous with the word man, as we understand the word to mean ie; flesh and bone, human being, etc.
Blacks law defines PERSON as; 1. a company, legal entity or corporation.
2. a human being.
FYI Blacks law doesn't have a deffinition for human being, however Balentines law dictionary defines human, as monsters lol.
What I'm trying to emphasise is that flesh and bone sentient beings, are not recognised in law. Only LEGAL PERSONS, as defined by law, are recognised and thus corporations hold the same hierarchical position as us, under the rule of law. The guise is that laws are for our benefit, but the truth is their main purpose was to procure and provide protection of ASSETS.
Invasion came under the disguise of war and peace treaties were generally the first part of binding the conquested lands to the rule of law and with it, the institutions.
These institutions set themselves as the authority on subjects, teaching the indigenous people's of the land 'their' truths.
This system to create society has been maintained for thousands of years, anecdotal proof to support my premise can be found from at least three thousand years ago with the discovery in 1901 of the Code of Hammurabi which is a set of babylonian laws found inscribed on tablets.

The code consists of 282 laws, with scaled punishments, adjusting "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (lex talionis)[1] as graded depending on social status, of slave versus free man.[2] Nearly one-half of the code deals with matters of contract, establishing, for example, the wages to be paid to an ox driver or a surgeon. -
Click to expand...
I'm sorry. I could not get past Flat Earth. Not in the text perhaps, but as the text comes from somebody who believes that the Earth is flat, your views on society are of no interest to me. Thank you for your submission but we cannot use it at this time. Best of luck in your endeavors.
 
reddan1981

reddan1981

Well-Known Member
How ever effective laws were, these systems would break down, under revolt from the citizens. History is testament to this from countless personal accounts written during and shortly after revolution. Those that had nothing to lose were willing to take the risk for the chance of having something. And so the system of society developed through trial and error to involve the study of us.
This psycological profiling can be witnessed readily.
Ancient history – BCE Edit

c. 1550 BCE – The Ebers Papyrus briefly mentioned clinical depression.
c. 600 BCE – Many cities in Greece had temples to Asklepios that provided cures for psychosomatic illnesses.
624–546 Thales
560–480 Pythagoras is reputed to have proposed a mathematical description of the relations between notes of a musical scale.
540–475 Heraclitus
c. 500 Alcmaeon
500–428 Anaxagoras
490–430 Empedocles
490–421 Protagoras
470–399 Socrates has been called the father of western philosophy, if only via his influence on Plato and Aristotle.

Socrates made a major contribution to pedagogy via his dialectical method and to epistemology via his definition of true knowledge as true belief buttressed by some rational justification. Wiki

So it is reasonable to suggest that our psychology has been well and truly mapped out.
 
Bear420

Bear420

Well-Known Member
I found this and thought it would be interesting to post for all.


Mention anything about the US's huge debt, deficit, and debt-ceiling problem, and fans of both political teams will immediately begin shouting at each other.

Republicans howl that the whole problem is the fault of President Obama, who exploded federal government spending the moment he took office.

Democrats, meanwhile, blame massive increase in federal government spending during the Bush years and the triumphant assertions by Republicans during those years that "deficits don't matter."

So, what's the truth?

They're both right. (And wrong. And, on the Republican side, hypocritical.)

Federal government spending has risen under President Obama, mostly because of the $800 billion stimulus designed to offset the massive recession he inherited from President Bush. But the increase in federal spending under Obama is dwarfed by the colossal increase under President Bush.

Don't believe it?

Let's go to the chart.

Here's Federal Expenditures from 2000-2011 (quarterly figures, annualized), from the St. Louis Fed:

St. Louis Fed



As you can see, from 2000 to 2008, under President Bush, Federal spending rose by $1.3 trillion, from $1.9 trillion a year to $3.2 trillion a year.

From 2009 to 2011, meanwhile, under President Obama, federal spending has risen by $600 billion, from $3.2 trillion a year to $3.8 trillion a year. It has also now begun to decline.

In other words, federal government spending under President Bush increased 2X as much as it has under President Obama.
 
doublejj

doublejj

Well-Known Member
Bear420 said:
I found this and thought it would be interesting to post for all.


Mention anything about the US's huge debt, deficit, and debt-ceiling problem, and fans of both political teams will immediately begin shouting at each other.

Republicans howl that the whole problem is the fault of President Obama, who exploded federal government spending the moment he took office.

Democrats, meanwhile, blame massive increase in federal government spending during the Bush years and the triumphant assertions by Republicans during those years that "deficits don't matter."

So, what's the truth?

They're both right. (And wrong. And, on the Republican side, hypocritical.)

Federal government spending has risen under President Obama, mostly because of the $800 billion stimulus designed to offset the massive recession he inherited from President Bush. But the increase in federal spending under Obama is dwarfed by the colossal increase under President Bush.

Don't believe it?

Let's go to the chart.

Here's Federal Expenditures from 2000-2011 (quarterly figures, annualized), from the St. Louis Fed:

St. Louis Fed



As you can see, from 2000 to 2008, under President Bush, Federal spending rose by $1.3 trillion, from $1.9 trillion a year to $3.2 trillion a year.

From 2009 to 2011, meanwhile, under President Obama, federal spending has risen by $600 billion, from $3.2 trillion a year to $3.8 trillion a year. It has also now begun to decline.

In other words, federal government spending under President Bush increased 2X as much as it has under President Obama.
Click to expand...
bring back Bush.......I actually miss Bush now:roll:
 
reddan1981

reddan1981

Well-Known Member
Our thinking processes are flawed. Put simply our beliefs are the accumulation of environmental influences that we grow up around. We are vulnerable and easily malleable. During group settings we display group thinking.Psychology describes group think as; a psychological phenomenon that occurs when a group values harmony and coherance, over accurate analysis and critical evaluation. It causes individual members of the group to unquestioningly follow the word of the leader and it strongly discourages any disagreement with the concensus.
We can be polarised into groups just as easily.
 
reddan1981

reddan1981

Well-Known Member
This is what many of you have done,
Polarised yourself into groups that think a specific chain of thoughts, whether it's Conservative, Democrat or the infinitesimal number of other paradigms.
All the system has to do is design the subject.
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
Bear420 said:
I found this and thought it would be interesting to post for all.


Mention anything about the US's huge debt, deficit, and debt-ceiling problem, and fans of both political teams will immediately begin shouting at each other.

Republicans howl that the whole problem is the fault of President Obama, who exploded federal government spending the moment he took office.

Democrats, meanwhile, blame massive increase in federal government spending during the Bush years and the triumphant assertions by Republicans during those years that "deficits don't matter."

So, what's the truth?

They're both right. (And wrong. And, on the Republican side, hypocritical.)

Federal government spending has risen under President Obama, mostly because of the $800 billion stimulus designed to offset the massive recession he inherited from President Bush. But the increase in federal spending under Obama is dwarfed by the colossal increase under President Bush.

Don't believe it?

Let's go to the chart.

Here's Federal Expenditures from 2000-2011 (quarterly figures, annualized), from the St. Louis Fed:

St. Louis Fed



As you can see, from 2000 to 2008, under President Bush, Federal spending rose by $1.3 trillion, from $1.9 trillion a year to $3.2 trillion a year.

From 2009 to 2011, meanwhile, under President Obama, federal spending has risen by $600 billion, from $3.2 trillion a year to $3.8 trillion a year. It has also now begun to decline.

In other words, federal government spending under President Bush increased 2X as much as it has under President Obama.
Click to expand...
OK you sound like Ross Perot. Inherited by Bush, really? Firefighters inherit problems too, they don't put gas on them.

The truth is that it is yours and my fault. We endorse elastic currency and do not use the alternative or demand a usable alternative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top