Walker survives the recall. Necessary conclusion: a majority of the people in Wisconsin are too dumb to handle to responsibility of voting.
Well blow me down.
Walker survives the recall. Necessary conclusion: a majority of the people in Wisconsin are too dumb to handle to responsibility of voting.
Your sophisticated, subtle and insightful attributions never cease to amaze me.
Last edited by somavision; 06-06-2012 at 01:43 PM.
IEE-Ne
Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
It's the Democratic process that's broken, not the minds of those who were affected by that cock-sucker Walker.
Last edited by glam; 06-07-2012 at 12:37 AM. Reason: spoilering
"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.".
i really don't know much about the situation, but i thought this chart might be illuminating as to what has been going on:
Why does money even matter? All it buys are TV ads and radio spots. After all, who would be stupid enough to believe a political ad, unless it cited a federal investigation?
That of course is the best part: Walker IS under investigation and they kept him anyway!
Because in reality that's the most important thing in determining public officials.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
It is weird thinking of such thoughts, because it becomes conceptual and what not. We say we care, but how can we? How many of us even have the time to count that many deaths? It all takes on an abstractness, and maybe a feeling or sorts, but how true is it as single beings with human minds?
relax, they're africans, not real people.
You seem to have no idea what money actually is.
Money controls everything, because 98% people on the world depend on it. You can not only use it in a legal way, you can as well bribe people in all positions (we both know that the majority will accept bribes or "little presents") to reach your goals or to buy allies. You can pay people to harm others, to destroy the (political) reputation or even the lives of your enemies. Or even if they are incorrupt, you can find a way to put them under pressure or to make them disappear. If you are rich, you can either exploit the people's greed to make use of them, or their will to survive which is always there. It's not just a means to exchange values, to pay for goods and services. No matter who is going to be elected, it will always be the few richest people who'll have the largest influence because of their wealth. And this influence will control the political situation of every country as well. Money allows people to preserve power, which is actually a very volatile property.
Money is Power.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
You're absolutely on to something there. 30 Million, we can't even picture that big of a number accurately in our minds.
We can only attempt to have empathy for people in that situation, help out a small % of a % of that statistic, and maybe be lucky enough to acquire some character because of it.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
This is how they think, isn't it?
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
.
PCS I get what you are saying. I get it. The moneyed elites have always been an aristocracy in America, and most families dream of having money. And the people with money, even in the Democratic party, are the people who play the political games. It's all about preserving the peace for them, because where there is peace only the dollar speaks. And the police, which are controlled by the money, are the instruments of that forced peace. America is only different from any other aristocratic nation in that it offers civil avenues to unequal status. Those who talk of the opportunity offered by America should be recognized for what they really want: to make others work to defend their private interests.
For the past year and a half, the media have been working on preserving the Bush tax cuts. Clinton says he's not for the cuts. Bullshit. He's always been corrupted by the money... there was never a time he wasn't.
The money really does run really deep. I was looking at the alumni lists (on WIkipedia) for the universities here in VA, and I noticed that three colleges, George Mason, William and Mary, and University of VA had amongst their alumni public officials who served around the country. The rest of the VA colleges didn't even have lists. U of VA has a 33% acceptance rate -- from amongst those who dare to apply. The current Sec of Health, Janet Napolitano, served as governor of Arizona before taking on that job (which made Brewer, who needs no introduction, governor), and she attended U of VA. U of VA is the choice for Dems from wealthy families because its top ranks get admitted to the Ivy League law schools. You gotta wonder: had Napolitano not been fed with a silver spoon, would she have thought twice about letting Brewer become governor?
So there are something like 30 very exclusive schools which are attended by the rich, and without attending these schools you probably don't meet the rich, and without the support of the rich was. Facebook, Google, and how many other internet startups... all founded by alumni from Stanford, Harvard, South Cal. The founder of reddit went to U of VA... coincidence? The rich give their attention to two kinds of people: people who have the intelligence to stay rich if made rich, and people who can get the non-rich out of their way, whom they make politicians.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 06-07-2012 at 09:24 PM.
I don't.
Though I may differ on a few philosophical points, you are dead-on from a pragmatic perspective. The "wealthy elite" have long understood the incredible significance of money as the most important economic tool for a national government to control, or at least influence. The advent of central banking heralded in a whole new measure of oppression and extortion, that strikes at the very core of the economic engine. Namely, that which enables the extent of contemporary civilization as we know it; the money stock and interest.
Nevermind the benefits conferred by the very prestige that comes naturally to anyone that wields such an impressive command over what Marx would deem society's "productive forces."
>Implying they wield productive forces.
The productive forces wield them. A capitalist is nothing more than capital personified.
"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.".
CP's theme song.
"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.".
But I always thought of this as my theme song!
I'll say this: nobody, but nobody obsesses over money like ILIs.
This is why any sort of equality would require some level of managed wealth disparity, I don't believe "true" equality is possible or even desirable but gross inequality is abhorrent to me so I do what I can to change it.
Money is the transport mechanism of a limited form of power, which can acquire many services and goods. I would not say it is power in the general sense. This is because emotional persuasion is inefficient, and force(violent or otherwise) results in conflict and consequences. It's also a lot easier to manage money than emotions or the use of force.
I view modern mixed mode governments as being proficient at managing a equilibrium of disparity and equality, which provides a reward mechanism for motivating people as well as a comfort mechanism for resolving ressentiment, envy, injustice.
I tend to find fanatics of either wealth equity or people who wish to see no regulation of wealth disparity, as forces which seek to destabilize this equilibrium(sometimes necessarily).
The world won't change, power will be concentrated in the hands of a few, the world will be unequal and unfair, but you can have a really good time if you motivate people effectively and comfort people when they need it and manage these ills.
IMO, human beings have basically evolved to be more effective managers of our environment, I don't really see any reason to stop.
Dual types compel people to work at the tasks they are most suited for. You can talk all you like about hard work an opportunity, but what you are really saying is this: you don't care if others enjoy their lives so long as you enjoy yours.
Power will not always be in the hands of a few. Knowledge, education, and the decline of religion will empower the people.
It's not that wealth is a motivator... it's that coercion constellates rebellion. People in communist countries feel uncompelled to work not because communism is bad, but because Cuba isn't communist. It's a straight up palace economy where the people on top get most of the money and there is very little potential for upward mobility. Wealth doesn't drive innovation... if anything, the pursuit of money makes a person think like an idiot who defends their own immediate interests without an eye to the end result of egalitarian social improvement.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
