RANT FROM THE HEART, SOUL, MIND, OR ALL OF THE ABOVE

[cap1015]

A thread jsut so that you can rant about whatever/whenever/whomever, secretly, openly, random, planned, the only rule is there are no rules..........

A few hints/suggestions (not rules!) rants can be happy, sad, true, false........there yours do whatever you want with them.......and they are all open to comments, so if you are sure you dont' want to have anyone reponds you may want to consider not posting.......again no rules........

[cap1015]

I feel so hopeless and just want some sign, some guidance, some direction, some form of hope, something to change, this never ends, I must find a way to do something, find an answer, see a sign, take a direction of moving on....................I will always remember from this experience to never judge another's situation, try to continue to learn to truly listen to those in need, be a kinder person, and hope that what I take from this makes up for the pain and agony caused to my family, that I was unable to prevent. I have learned that effort, want to, and pure will power is useless sometimes.........I feel I have failed at defeating an enemy that cannot be defeated..........I am sorry for my not understanding that no matter how hard we try sometimes we cannot protect those that matter most........and the pain will be with me for life.............I just want a sign......and I can then go one more day.

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

So beautifully said Cap. If I could say in a word the feeling I am left with, the word would be "grace".

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

My rant is about Socialism. Is it alive and lurking in our society, like the boogie man that you never actually see, but know is there? Ohh yeah the boogie man all black and hidden and that only showes himself when we lie sleeping.
Take a good look at society and tell me where you really and truely see Socialism! Because the only place that I see new and growing albeit small examples of Socialism is in the private business sector and Church.

[Guardian7347]

My rant is about Socialism. Is it alive and lurking in our society, like the boogie man that you never actually see, but know is there? Ohh yeah the boogie man all black and hidden and that only showes himself when we lie sleeping.
Take a good look at society and tell me where you really and truely see Socialism! Because the only place that I see new and growing albeit small examples of Socialism is in the private business sector and Church.

Um...the federal government? Here are some key indicators of a socialist government. Let me know when you see something familiar...
1. Strong, centralized government.
2. Powerful Executive at the expense of Congress and the Judicial.
3. Government controlled banking, credit and securities exchange.
4. Government control over employment.
5. Unemployment insurance, old age pensions.
6. Universal medical care, food and housing programs.
7. Access to unlimited government borrowing.
8. A managed monetary system.
9. Government control over foreign trade.
10. Government control over natural energy sources, transportation and agricultural production.
11. Government regulation of labor.
12. Youth camps devoted to health discipline, community service and ideological teaching consistent with those of the authorities.
13. Heavy progressive taxation.

Private business? REALLY? You understand that the very concept of privately owned businesses is completely incompatible with socialism, right?
Quick question for you. When you spanked me on the constitutionality of the income tax, wasn't there something about taxes had to be evenly applied?

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

Taxes must be equal amongst the states. I cant copy and paste here as you know, so its kind of difficult to seperate your post into sections to answer.
There is no true Socialism in America. The closest thing we have in our society now is SS and medicare. Do you have any clue what life would be like for the millions of senior citisens without those two? Have you ever looked at history of sanitariums in this country? Do you think that is preferable to the system we have now? I think what you are railing against is The Constitution itself. Perhaps had the anti federalists of 200 years ago is more to your liking?
There are syndicates and co ops that are privately owned in this country that do just fine in this country. The Florida orange growers are one example. Syndicates in sports is pretty common as well such as a group of people that own racehorses. They pool their money to purchase a multi million dollar animal, share the training expences and share the rewards. Credit Unions have a similar idea. There are so many examples of Socialistic type of private activity.
Having regulations is not Socialism. It is protection against usery and corruption. Whether its EPA, banking regulation, housing regulation or other, they are vital to our economy and for the protection of consumers. Everything you stated numerically is called standards. Standards and not Socialism.

[BLUE]

I think what you are railing against is The Constitution itself.

Omg.....omg.....om...g. I just thought I would peek in and ah...yea. wow.

Edit: You know that I luv Krsty but isn't this what Guardian does??? Fight For Our Constitutional Right. Isn't That What He Is Doing Right Now. Fighting for me. Protecting my butt. Infact I don't think I would rather have anybody else protect my butt but Guard.

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

Hey BLUE,
If you knew a little about the Constitution or who the anti federalists were, you would understand where I am comming from. Im not saying that Guardian or his service is questionable. But do you really think that every service member really knows the Constution? I think Guardian has every right to speak his mind just as I have a right to speak mine. Guardian and I butt heads often. So? Maybe I'm trying to get him and others to look a little deeper at some things. One thing I dont ever want to do is blindly take someone elses word or point of view as my own without looking deeper at the issue myself and coming to my own conclusions. So Guardian really feels that The USA is on the verge of full blown Socialism and plenty of others share his point of view. So I looked into it to see if It was something that I feel is valid for "me" to also consern myself with. Basically many of the things that he stated is very similar to the Federalists and Anti Federalist debates that our forefathers had over 200 years ago. It is also similar to the ideaology that was the basis for civil war. (Im not talking about slavery here, but the rights of the states and the anti federal attitude. Does that help a little BLUE?

[BLUE]

Well I do know a little about it. More than you you think actually. I know that the two of you debate. I luv you and thought my friend insulted by the statement. I guess that would be my point of view. I was trying to make light of the situation. Now if you will excuse me I have more pressing things to tend to.

[Guardian7347]

Taxes must be equal amongst the states. I cant copy and paste here as you know, so its kind of difficult to seperate your post into sections to answer.
There is no true Socialism in America. The closest thing we have in our society now is SS and medicare. Do you have any clue what life would be like for the millions of senior citisens without those two? Have you ever looked at history of sanitariums in this country? Do you think that is preferable to the system we have now? I think what you are railing against is The Constitution itself. Perhaps had the anti federalists of 200 years ago is more to your liking?
There are syndicates and co ops that are privately owned in this country that do just fine in this country. The Florida orange growers are one example. Syndicates in sports is pretty common as well such as a group of people that own racehorses. They pool their money to purchase a multi million dollar animal, share the training expences and share the rewards. Credit Unions have a similar idea. There are so many examples of Socialistic type of private activity.
Having regulations is not Socialism. It is protection against usery and corruption. Whether its EPA, banking regulation, housing regulation or other, they are vital to our economy and for the protection of consumers. Everything you stated numerically is called standards. Standards and not Socialism.

Big difference between co-ops, syndicates, and socialism. A co-op is voluntary. Syndicates are voluntary. People choose whether to join into a co-op, based upon what they personally believe would be best for them. If they choose to join a co-op, GREAT! If they choose NOT to join a co-op, WONDERFUL! Either way, the choice is theirs to make, not the governments.

There is no true Socialism in America. The closest thing we have in our society now is SS and medicare.

So...you don't count govt subsidized housing? Section 8 housing? Especially section 8 housing as government-provided housing? That's a purely socialistic, borderline communist tenent that the state should provide for the people all their needs. Unemployment has become a new welfare(socialism). It has gone from something intended to be a stop-gap while someone gets back on their feet, to being another teat for people to suck off of the system for years. While I'm all for helping out my neighbor who needs a helping hand, I don't believe I need the federal government to do that on my behalf with my tax dollars. That's what private charities are for.
There is a LOT of socialism in America! Look at the list! Much of that is already in place, the rest is coming.
We have govt control of banking, natural resources, agriculture, labor, foreign trade, transportation...pick something, and they are always looking for ways to increase their control, not limit it.

Have you ever looked at history of sanitariums in this country?

Have you ever looked at the history of child labor at the turn of the century? Both are irrelevant to this discussion. A sanitarium such as what you're referring to could never operate today for the same reasons that child labor practices of the early 20th century could never happen again, even if they repealed all child labor laws tomorrow. Lawsuits. At the turn of the century, if you were hurt at work, that was just the risks you took doing the job. There was no recourse. Now, if you stub your toe really hard at work, you can not only get worker's comp, you can also sue your employer for unsafe work enviroment. No one would hire a kid to do anything with any real hazards for fear of losing their company in a lawsuit. No one would allow their loved ones to be cared for in a sanitarium where the standard of living was lower than that of a federal prisoner.
Regulations are NOT vital to our economy, they are crippling to our economy. While a FEW regulations protect against corruption and usery, the vast majority do not. Again, lawsuits and a consumer-driven market would be at least as effective in controlling the behavior of businesses as economy-killing regulations. Anyone ever try to start a business? Small businesses are drowning in a sea of regulation making it hard for them to start-up or keep going. Over-regulation is also another reason why many of our manufacturing jobs have moved to other countries. If regulation is so vital to the economy, why is it so many businesses are fleeing from it? And yes, strictly speaking, government regulation of businesses IS socialism. Period.

Everything you stated numerically is called standards.

A strong centralized government is not a standard. Govt control over agriculture, transportation, natural resources and the monetary system is NOT standards. Government control = Socialism. That's what socialism boils down to. Government control or government "oversight". Oh, and "standards" is a socialist term when referencing government or peoples lives. Part of "The Great Experiment" was this idea that people could achieve success based upon their own efforts and shouldn't be forced to support a burgeoning government with the fruits of their success. That man wasn't intended to be ruled over by a distant leader, but instead by his local peers. Hence the idea of state supremacy over federal, and individual rights over all. For proof of this, just look at America's first form of government, the Articles of Confederation. In a confederation, the States weild supreme power and the central government only has the powers explicitly granted to it by the states. The problem our fledgling nation ran into with a confederacy is that they didn't explicitly allow the central government to force states to give monies and troops to fight it's wars! So the states only gave what they felt appropriate, when they felt it appropriate. We would have won the war much sooner had all the states contributed as requested. We would not have, however, had a republic though.

I think what you are railing against is The Constitution itself.

Ok...I'm curious...Why do you think I'm railing against the Constitution? What led you to this conclusion?

[Guardian7347]

Perhaps had the anti federalists of 200 years ago is more to your liking?

I will say that I share many of the same concerns that the anti-federalist had, and that I think time has proven their fears to be well-founded. Without the bill of rights, or amendments, which of our cherished freedoms would still be standing today? Freedom of speech would be gone, as would the right to bear arms. Freedom of religion would be non-existant. Illegal search and seizure is under heavy attack now, and it's clearly noted in the bill of rights. Where would we be without it? I think the Federalists were largely optimists and couldn't foresee a time when Americans who had just fought a bloody war for their liberties would ever allow such an evenly divided government to grow outside of it's limited powers. The argument against a bill of rights demonstrates their overly optimistic view of this new government. They thought that if you didn't list any specifically protected rights, then the government couldn't put limits on ANY of the rights that the founding fathers just inherently knew belonged to the people. The fallacy of this thought process is proven time and again as this very argument by the founding fathers is ignored by the courts who give the government any right not specifically listed by the Constitution to the government, and even argues the verbiage of those listed!

[Soulkiss333]

It is strange to me that almost everyone will talk crap about the mainstream media, and how they are bias, control/persuaded ppl's thinking etc. but right when something bad happens or some controversy event, most wont shut up about it and all they know about it is from the media. It is one thing to bring up a law or issues from the event like the one Isis brought up about suing the other woman/man when someone is married instead of talking about the case in the news we just talked about the law and our thoughts not the actually case ( not the ppl involved) but the one in the news now about that shooting in Florida (lucky I dont have a TV so I dont get caught up in all the crap) I mean everywhere I go ppl (at school, in the stores, on the net, on the bus) are arguing over it the specific and about the ppl involved (not the general issue). But these same ppl, most of the time, who are all up in this case are the exact ppl who do not trust the mainstream media because of the persuasion factor yet that is the only place they are getting their info. It is just so ironic to me and annoying. I just needed to rant about this because it is so like messed up how ppl think sometimes...."Oh you cant trust them (mainstream news)"....but that is where most get there info from, it doesnt make any sense to me, why do ppl do this. If you really dont trust the news than stop reading and watching it. Don't say one minute you dont trust it or it is bias but then turn around and watch/listen/read it. I dont get it. Why would anyone watch/read/listen to something they believe to be corrupted? And then they(ppl) will make assumptions from off something they dont trust or believed to be persuaded by (media). REALLY????? It doesnt make any kind sense. Again I say this all the time I was meant to be life on a different planet. I just wish everyone would just shut up about it because none of us know what really happen, the thought processes ect (except for what the media tells us about it, and if you dont trust the media then you shouldnt be listening/reading it) this is just making us so judgmental (desensitizing us to make quick decisions on others without knowing anything but hearsay) but we are all just little freaking politically correct saints arent we. I swear I feel my anger coming on and going to end up punching someone, I cant just stay at home either, I have to work and go to school. It's everywhere I go. I feel my anger now so I need to stop, I was in a good mood when I started this rant, but now I'm just in an intensely foul mood. I dont usually talked about negative things but this has been annoying me for over a week now.

I could rant about how I hate politics too, but I am done for the day, back to the greatness of life. I would love to one day live up in the mountains or in the middle of the desert where there isnt very many ppl, I really like ppl to so dont get me wrong, I just would love to be on my own little hill and when this stuff starts I can disappear from the world and when I want to see ppl I can go to them.

[SmileAreSexy]

I hate how everythings "cancerous" now, according to "scientists" and "investigators" it's REALLY TRUE. BAHAHAHA Are you kidding? Next your going to tell me air is cancerous, so don't breathe! Some people just can't seem to realize that you can't live your life fearing everything all the time.

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

@ Guardian,
I should have clarified the comment about railing against the Constitution to railing against the Constitution as it is today. The difference being that some see the Constitution as a living document that is able to change with the times, and some particulary the Tea Party and Libertarian Part tend to use an origionalist perspective that is based off the origional "intent" of the founders. As you know an origionalist rendering would not necessarily take into account the enormous changes that our country has undergone since its founding. I brought up the Federalists and anti Federalists for that reason. The Tea Party in particular aims to go back to the time of the drafting and using the Federalist Papers, tries to reconstruct the origional intent of the drafting. The problem with that is that the Federalist Papers is not a complete compilation of the thoughts and reasonings of all the founders.
In that respect, many people today use only The Articles of Confederation as a basis for comparison to the laws and Supreme Court rulings that have added to what is"Constitutional".
This is the primary difference between us and probablly where most people disagree.
I believe that the Articles of Confederation gave room for times changing and left the interpretation of future cases to the Judiciary. It is precisly this reason that we have the Society we have today. You want to call it Socialist, but in reality, if that were true, then you must consider that it has always been true. Heres why:

You complained that the Strong, centralized Govt. "Federal Govt" is controlling everything. They regulate banking, agriculture, labor, foreign trade, transpostation....etc.
Yet the Articles of Confederation, specificaly Art 1, Sec. 8, allows Congress to regulate commerse, coin money and regulate the value of, borrow money etc.

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

Furthermore, Article 1, Sec. 8, Clause 18 contains the "necessary and proper" which allows Congres the discretion to make and pass laws that are "necessary and proper".


Early America did have its share of homeless and poor/destitute, ages and ill. To think the kindness of community citizens and churches handily took care of the issue and it should be easily addressed by churches today is really naieve. It was a complex problem than as it is today.
The early Americansystem of Poor Laws was based on the English Poor Laws. In America, they were ill funded almshouses. Work was mandatory for all those deemed capable, and relegated the sick, handicapped, and very old to hospitals,and institutions (also sanatariums) and asylums.

Old age pensions came about because of a need to care for Americas soldiers after the Civil War. Mothers pentions, enacted by 40 states between 1911 and 1920 santioned local governments to grant direct payments to poor single mother.
*poor houses and mothers pensions had a terrible history of abusing the needy and poor and discriminating against them as well.*

The following are topics to research, and web links for further information if anyone so chooses.
*History of the disabled in America.
*U.S. Housing Act of 1937
*Poor Houses of America
*Almshouses in early America.
*The Revenue Act of 1861 enacted by President Lincoln
*Direct and indirect taxes in the Constitution......
Article1, Section 8, Clause1
Article1, Section 2, Clause3
Article1, Section9, Clause4
Also see the 16th ammendment.

Just a note about Section8 housing.......Section 8 (HUD) and the Veterans Administration provide Section 8 housing Vouchers to 10,000 homeless Veterans a year although there are estimated over 100,000 homeless Veterans in need of safe, clean housing. The Republican controlled House tried to cut funding for all Sec8 housing. Including that of our Veterans.
My point of bringing up almshouses was directly related to Guardians complaint about Sec8 housing not being an "American ideal" and that it is "socialist".

[kaligirl001]

I hate how everythings "cancerous" now, according to "scientists" and "investigators" it's REALLY TRUE. BAHAHAHA Are you kidding? Next your going to tell me air is cancerous, so don't breathe! Some people just can't seem to realize that you can't live your life fearing everything all the time.

Actually they have said air is cancerous because the amount of pollution in it... But I totally understand what you mean. Its gotten way to out of hand, how about they spend the money people are donating on actually finding a cure and to help pay for treatments instead of finding new cancerous things... In some way shape or form everything if brought under a microscope is going to be cancerous so lets work on a positive instead of a negative and stop being such a money hungry scam.

[Guardian7347]

Yet the Articles of Confederation, specificaly Art 1, Sec. 8, allows Congress to regulate commerse, coin money and regulate the value of, borrow money etc.

Article 1 names the confederated states as "The United States of America". Article 9, sec. 4 allows Congress to coin money, a right also permitted to the states. Congress was authorized to regulate commerce...with the indian nations....so long as their regulations didn't infringe on any states laws. Congress' powers were almost exclusively military related powers. There were few other powers they had, save the standardization of weights and measures, the creation of a US postal service, foreign affairs, and acting as a court for state disputes. Even the powers exclusively granted to the Congress(there was no executive branch or judicial branch, just this weak little congress) were still subject to the approval of the states. Any action chosen by the Congress had to have the approval of 3/4 of the states(9/13 technically), and a few legislative actions required all 13 states to approve. In other words, Congress was limp and powerless. The states held supreme power.

The Constitution as we know it today was in response to the inevitable bankruptcy of the fledgling nation. Few of the states payed sufficent taxes, and a couple refused to pay anything at all. The Constitutional convention was thus concerned with writing a document that would address the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation while maintaining it's strengths. They still didn't trust a strong central government. This is why they divided it into so many parts. The Congress itself was divided into two parts and given different powers for a reason. All this hype about "congress working together" is contrary to their intent. Congress isn't one body, it's two. Granted, the federalist papers don't list the views and opinions of all the federalist founding fathers, as neither does the anti-federalist, but there are enough there to get a good understanding of what their hopes and concerns for this new government were. The biggest difference between the two groups is that the federalists held great faith in the character of those who would be appointed to the new posts and were certain that they were unlikely to abuse their powers. In hindsight, that's an extremely naive viewpoint, but the two rival groups wanted essentially the same thing. Power to the people, strong states' rights and limited government.

The powers granted Congress by the Constitution are far inferior to what Congress lays claim to today. They were granted the authority to regulate interstate, foreign and indian commerce. This was to prevent states from engaging in unfair trade practices amongst each other, not to allow the federal govt to demand everyone purchase health care. Prior to FDR, the Supreme Court typically ruled against more liberal interpretations of the commerce clause. In fact, they struck down many of his "New Deal" provisions that were passed under the auspices of the commerce clause. It wasn't until his threat to pack the court with additional justices in his favor that they suddenly started being more liberal with it.

You complained that the Strong, centralized Govt. "Federal Govt" is controlling everything. They regulate banking, agriculture, labor, foreign trade, transpostation....etc.
Yet the Constitution, specificaly Art 1, Sec. 8, allows Congress to regulate commerse, coin money and regulate the value of, borrow money etc.

Correct, to manage the finances of the nation. Not to have direct control over the activities of the states or individual industries. No where in the powers vested in Congress does it mention regulating agriculture, labor, transportation, natural resources, or businesses operating solely within a single state.

Furthermore, Article 1, Sec. 8, Clause 18 contains the "necessary and proper" which allows Congres the discretion to make and pass laws that are "necessary and proper".

That's a disingenuous wording of the necessary and proper clause. That wording makes it sound as if they have the right to make whatever laws they feel are needed....period. The actual wording is "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States." There are strict limitations put upon their rights to make laws, and the "foregoing powers" didn't include the much of what Congress currently rules. In fact, NONE of the social programs currently funded with taxpayers dollars are covered under those powers(general welfare was defined as being for matters of national welfare, and the well-being of a segment of the population isn't a national issue, it's a local, or state, issue, but who really wants to fight THAT fight?). Govt subsidies are a direct violation of their powers, as is the EPA. In fact, many government agencies are unconstitutional. I'll concede that some are necessary, such as the FCC, but only in a very limited stance. The use of the FCC as a censor is outside of the spirit or intent of their powers. It's thought policing. A socialistic hallmark.
The Constitution was far from being a socialistic document. The founding fathers goal was maximum freedom of the average man from the constraints of the government. That stands in stark contrast to what we have today. You can't tie one to the other.
I don't see where an originalist rendering of the Constitution is limiting or wouldn't take into consideration the changes of time. Wanting to hold true to the intent of the founding fathers doesn't limit our ability to grow, only the federal governments. As previously stated, between the federalist and anti-federalist papers, taken in conjunction with the Articles of Confederation, and when attached with the papers and letters of many of those same men, you can get a remarkably good picture of their intentions and hopes for this nation, and where we are and where we're heading isn't it.

[St. Dymphna]

The Kinsey Syndrome youtube

[Guardian7347]

The Kinsey Syndrome youtube

Who decides this is something that needs researched?!? Who allows this sort of research to go on, and what sick fuck participates?

[St. Dymphna]

The majority of people are too lazy to try and understand why society is in the state that it is, and even worse are those who look into it, then either through stupidity or denial, make excuses as to why people like me are wrong for pointing it out to them. i have roughly 3 give a fucks left in me, so i won't waste one on the youth

[Nostalgic]

Parisians in the trains really piss me off, then getting out of the metro to avoid dog poo disgusts me, then trying to avoid cars when crossing the road even though it's green for pedestrians really does my head in. Seeing rubbish on the ground saddens me.
I love Paris.

[cap1015]

The majority of people are too lazy to try and understand why society is in the state that it is, and even worse are those who look into it, then either through stupidity or denial, make excuses as to why people like me are wrong for pointing it out to them. i have roughly 3 give a fucks left in me, so i won't waste one on the youth

Please ST. don't waste your remaining "give a fucks"! All kidding aside, I tend to disagree and don't think people are "too lazy" but in my opinion "too self absorbed", by that I mean so many people can only see what/how something affects them and that is their only motivation I call it the "what about me" group. And when I combine that with "fuck patience, just like the interwebz and cell phones, and media I want everything instantly and for free!" group.....and unfortunely, these groups are not specific to a certain age!...............

Please St. use the give a fucks wisely, we need you on the frontlines!

[BLUE]

Ever feel unappreciated? The nice girl that will always be there. Blow her off...ah she's cool. It won't matter. No biggee. I'll see her later. ...or the "oh honey, I'm gonna go do this thing over here." Only to leave you standing in the same spot so long you feel...forgotten. Like you just don't matter.

Hurts

[BLUE]

Bye it was nice meeting all of you. I'm taking off.

I wish you lots of love and light

[cap1015]

Ever feel unappreciated? The nice girl that will always be there. Blow her off...ah she's cool. It won't matter. No biggee. I'll see her later. ...or the "oh honey, I'm gonna go do this thing over here." Only to leave you standing in the same spot so long you feel...forgotten. Like you just don't matter.

Hurts

I hope this is temporary, and I hope it is a misunderstanding. Sometimes people think that if you look strong, you must not have alot of feelings, my point being our outward appearance/actions may cause people to misunderstand us..........i knwo this is true, from the time I was 15 until almost out of college i can't tell you how many actual physical fights i got into, and it was mostly because even though i thought I was nice, easy going, my outward appearance was perceived as agressive and hostile, took me a long time to learn and realize that how I felt on the inside was not translating to my face/expressions.........

Plus Blue you're way too pretty to be the "nice girl in the corner"...........

[alteredmind]

competition, it is evil. It divides people, it kills people. It may be the reason why the economy can't revive itself other then the fed. Everybody wants to compete, compete for jobs, compete for sex, schools compete for the best education, "nations" compete against other nations, even philosophy has been taken over by competition when Game theory was introduced. Almost everything in this world has to do with competition, Its a jocks world. no one wants to live the natural way, the mutual exhange way, the harmonious way. The rulers don't want it that way, politicians don't want it that way, the military industrial complex doesn't want it that way either. If only it was that way the world would be better off and could evolve. When will people stop and realize that not everything is dam game.

[RockPillow®]

Alteredmind, it's human nature. For an economy to exist there must be scarcity. Competition happens as a result. And we abuse each other for our own gain. You can't escape your economy.

[Guardian7347]

competition, it is evil. It divides people, it kills people. It may be the reason why the economy can't revive itself other then the fed. Everybody wants to compete, compete for jobs, compete for sex, schools compete for the best education, "nations" compete against other nations, even philosophy has been taken over by competition when Game theory was introduced. Almost everything in this world has to do with competition, Its a jocks world. no one wants to live the natural way, the mutual exhange way, the harmonious way. The rulers don't want it that way, politicians don't want it that way, the military industrial complex doesn't want it that way either. If only it was that way the world would be better off and could evolve. When will people stop and realize that not everything is dam game.

Competition IS natural. Nature encourages competition. Plants compete for space and sunlight. Animals compete for space and food. Males compete for reproductive rights. There's nothing natural about NOT competing, unless you're alone. Competition drives improvement. evolution is a result of competition...unless you're looking for downward evolution.

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

@ guardian.... Its my turn to bang my head, but only in regard to referring to The Articles of Confederation by accident or oversight or fatigue. What ever the reason, I meant and was referring to The Articles contained in The Constitution. My fault through and through.
*bangs head on wall*

I have to say though that looking at the federalist papers in contexts with the Constitution and taking into account the legal precidents that have led us to where we are as a country today only solidifies the notion that the United States is not a Socialist Country. In economics or otherwise. We are a Republic governed by legislative, judicial, and executive branches. With a mixed economy based on capitolism and a liberal attitude. No the liberal term bandied about as if its some sick disease, but the word defined.
I very much disagree with you on the intent of the founders in regard to interstate commerce. Hamilton was pretty clear in his rebuttal against the anti federalists in regard to taxes, interstate regulation of commerce and the need for the states to be United as one.

The Ratification of the Articles was necessary not only to pay for the Revolutionary War, but also to strengthen our new nation against future attacks by countries wishing to lay claim to the new country. As well as provide written evidence of a stable Nation so that funds could be borrowed from (namely) France at the time. In order to be seen as credit worthy to potential foreign lenders, the founders feverishly but yet with great conteplation formed our Constitution to provide proof of not only legitimacy and strenght, but also credit worthyness.
I know why we have the social programs we have today and they were never meant to be some conspiracy to turn the United States into a "Socialist" country. There are some social programs that need revising sure. However without them we would be a nation most likened to those we hate. Regimes that care only for the able bodied and financially secure, and leave the rest to die in misery. A third world nation...No thanks!

I do see where the problem of states being overshadowed by the Fed is problematic. I also found that many states are in the midst of Supreme Court battles against the Federal govt. That is exactly where they should take their issues and let it be vetted there.
Our republic is working for the most part as intended. Vigilance is always needed, and there is always room for improvement.
For me, I am satisfied that the threat of "Socialism" is just a gimmick meant to sway individuals into thinking with a base of fear and not a base of common sense.

[alteredmind]

competition, it is evil. It divides people, it kills people. It may be the reason why the economy can't revive itself other then the fed. Everybody wants to compete, compete for jobs, compete for sex, schools compete for the best education, "nations" compete against other nations, even philosophy has been taken over by competition when Game theory was introduced. Almost everything in this world has to do with competition, Its a jocks world. no one wants to live the natural way, the mutual exhange way, the harmonious way. The rulers don't want it that way, politicians don't want it that way, the military industrial complex doesn't want it that way either. If only it was that way the world would be better off and could evolve. When will people stop and realize that not everything is dam game.

Competition IS natural. Nature encourages competition. Plants compete for space and sunlight. Animals compete for space and food. Males compete for reproductive rights. There's nothing natural about NOT competing, unless you're alone. Competition drives improvement. evolution is a result of competition...unless you're looking for downward evolution.

actually evolution is the result of natural selection. Most of the competition between people these days are artificial constructs like football.

Alteredmind, it's human nature. For an economy to exist there must be scarcity. Competition happens as a result. And we abuse each other for our own gain. You can't escape your economy.

but it doesn't have to be that way. mutual exhange, cooperation or tit for tat is an alternative to competition, this video explains it well(the title is irrelevant)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6rgWzYRXiI

[Guardian7347]

@ guardian.... Its my turn to bang my head, but only in regard to referring to The Articles of Confederation by accident or oversight or fatigue. What ever the reason, I meant and was referring to The Articles contained in The Constitution. My fault through and through.
*bangs head on wall*

I have to say though that looking at the federalist papers in contexts with the Constitution and taking into account the legal precidents that have led us to where we are as a country today only solidifies the notion that the United States is not a Socialist Country. In economics or otherwise. We are a Republic governed by legislative, judicial, and executive branches. With a mixed economy based on capitolism and a liberal attitude. No the liberal term bandied about as if its some sick disease, but the word defined.
I very much disagree with you on the intent of the founders in regard to interstate commerce. Hamilton was pretty clear in his rebuttal against the anti federalists in regard to taxes, interstate regulation of commerce and the need for the states to be United as one.

The Ratification of the Articles was necessary not only to pay for the Revolutionary War, but also to strengthen our new nation against future attacks by countries wishing to lay claim to the new country. As well as provide written evidence of a stable Nation so that funds could be borrowed from (namely) France at the time. In order to be seen as credit worthy to potential foreign lenders, the founders feverishly but yet with great conteplation formed our Constitution to provide proof of not only legitimacy and strenght, but also credit worthyness.
I know why we have the social programs we have today and they were never meant to be some conspiracy to turn the United States into a "Socialist" country. There are some social programs that need revising sure. However without them we would be a nation most likened to those we hate. Regimes that care only for the able bodied and financially secure, and leave the rest to die in misery. A third world nation...No thanks!

I do see where the problem of states being overshadowed by the Fed is problematic. I also found that many states are in the midst of Supreme Court battles against the Federal govt. That is exactly where they should take their issues and let it be vetted there.
Our republic is working for the most part as intended. Vigilance is always needed, and there is always room for improvement.
For me, I am satisfied that the threat of "Socialism" is just a gimmick meant to sway individuals into thinking with a base of fear and not a base of common sense.

I figured what you were referring to, but couldn't resist the opportunity to bust your figurative balls just a little bit! No harm, no foul.

I have to say though that looking at the federalist papers in contexts with the Constitution and taking into account the legal precidents that have led us to where we are as a country today only solidifies the notion that the United States is not a Socialist Country.

As much as you lean towards the Federalist stance, in order to get a fuller understanding of the founding fathers intent, you have to look at both sides, because it was both that formed and signed this document. It's easy to look at "your teams" views and see their thumbprint in our nation's document, but see the other side as well. I said federalist AND anti-federalist papers in context with the Constitution itself. If you look at the legal precidents leading us to where we are today, the socialism that has invaded our nation remains hidden in plain sight. It has permeated our government(and in turn our culture) through small degrees and benevolent actions. A Constitutional violation, regardless of how benevolent, is still a violation of the Constitution. I take great offense at the presumption that without all the social programs we would degrade into a "regime that cares only for the able-bodied and financially secure, and leave the rest to die in misery". Americans are extremely generous people, and quickly open up their wallets to give to worthy causes. Churches often support those less fortunate as well. A large percentage of the tax money collected for Social Security is eaten up by beauracracy anyway. Put the money back into the hands of the people and let them give as they see fit. It IS their money to begin with. Thomas Jefferson said it best, "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.", and yet that is what our government is doing even now.

I very much disagree with you on the intent of the founders in regard to interstate commerce. Hamilton was pretty clear in his rebuttal against the anti federalists in regard to taxes, interstate regulation of commerce and the need for the states to be United as one.

And Hamilton's was but one voice. Are we to presume then that his was the only one that mattered or was taken into consideration? After all, the anti-federalists(AF) did get some of their concerns added to the Constitution.

I do see where the problem of states being overshadowed by the Fed is problematic. I also found that many states are in the midst of Supreme Court battles against the Federal govt. That is exactly where they should take their issues and let it be vetted there.
Our republic is working for the most part as intended. Vigilance is always needed, and there is always room for improvement.

I have no argument with this. I actually liked this little piece and thought it bears repeating.

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

Ha...I have read them both. Gotta go to a B Day party. Ill ..be ..back.

[tropicalheatwave]

http://youtu.be/giA_lXMPKzA

[cap1015]

The CSI Television factor is absolutely ruining our ability as a society to understand an allready complex and less than peferct Judicial system!
When you combine what jurists expect to see in a trial with the almost criminal biased media, the best system in world (again flawed and bowed yet better than any current alternative) is becoming an absolute nightmare. I am not waving any flags on any particular case, just the sitation in general.

I recently was called for Jury duty, the people in the pool were absolutely shocked when they were told a simple burglary trial might take a week! Why, they were not shocked because of the real reason ( that due to teleivision that to get a conviction or acquital the trial even for a burglary case had to have smoking guns, scientific evidence, and long speeches by attorneys), they were shocked because on TV the trials always only last a day or two, even in murder cases. SEE HOW FUCKED UP THAT IS? Now don't get me wrong there were some very vigilant jurors, and most people took this seriously and understood the difference between real life and TV, but the number that were already skewed so badly they almost would never make it on an actual jury was scary.

Just for grins and giggles here's a few things about CSI ( A show I love for entertainment purposes but hate for it's effect on peoples' opinions):
CSI investigators never interogate a suspect ( it violates the chain of evidence and is not part of their duties)
CSI investigators when perfoming evidence duties would not arrest or particpate in an active police chase, gun fight or any other interaction with a suspect.
CSI investigators only investigate "crime scenes" that have been established and do not go and "look for new ones or investigate the crime by trailing witness, suspects, etc).
CSI investigators in that role would never be part of a swat team interaction or act as a sharpshooter or sniper.

And lastly almost all of the confessions seen on these shows would never be allowed or would not be admissable due to the conflict of interest of the CSI investigators participating in the interogation.

End of rant!!!!

[Justsumdude]

ever had those days where you just dont give a shit about anything and do not feel like talking for whatever reason and its obvious to others that you dont want to talk and then... they try to talk to you...I dont know about anyone else but it INFURIATES me when people do this and it doesnt matter if i say "screw off" or "just please dont bother me right now" im automaticly deemed grumpy or unsocial. Thats probably one reason why I love solitude, because there is nobody to give me any shit about anything.

[LifeChanges]

The Kinsey Syndrome youtube

I thought I knew about the Kinsey Reports, but wow. That is so fucked up.