Glow BULL WAR ming

[Pineygirl]

Originally Posted by Arius

Oh, so those worried about wealth are not as real as the ones concerned with raising their children, holding onto their jobs and having some time left over to relax?

Hey, YOU'RE the one who said "most Real American Citizens" are "so concerned about money and wealth."

I think too few Americans are concerned enough about it. Our savings rate is abysmal; our credit card debt is astounding; and our retirement plans are so anemic we'll all be eating cat food in another 10-15 years.

Most Americans focus on their personal needs for that day. It's only a minority who truly dedicate themselves to building wealth.

And power? What a laugh! Even fewer people understand the nature of power, let along try to earn some.

[Arius]

Originally Posted by Pineygirl

Most "Real American Citizens" are concerned about raising their children, holding onto their jobs, and having some time left over to relax.

Oh, so those worried about wealth are not as real as the ones concerned with raising their children, holding onto their jobs and having some time left over to relax? Perhaps now you can see the fallacy of labeling...it is a matter of perception.

To some, the animals at Enron were more concerned with wealth...WorldComm....Bernie Madoff...Exxon...all representative of I guess "fake" American values. Or perhaps they aren't real?

I will venture a guess that just as many Americans worried about the issues you raise are worried about getting a newer and better car...a bigger house...more in the bank...WEALTH while their kids are alone in their bedrooms talking on myspace or "sexting". Anyway, it would seem the quest for wealth drives the American economy, so therefore the quest for wealth drives the average American.

[Arius]

Originally Posted by Pineygirl

Hey, YOU'RE the one who said "most Real American Citizens" are "so concerned about money and wealth."

I think too few Americans are concerned enough about it. Our savings rate is abysmal; our credit card debt is astounding; and our retirement plans are so anemic we'll all be eating cat food in another 10-15 years.

Most Americans focus on their personal needs for that day. It's only a minority who truly dedicate themselves to building wealth.

And power? What a laugh! Even fewer people understand the nature of power, let along try to earn some.

What you are describing isn't a lack of concern over wealth...it is an inherent redefining of wealth. Many Americans are more concerned over the outward APPEARANCE of wealth...the expensive car, the big house, the fancy clothes because that is what they define as wealth. The neighbors can't see the amount in your savings or investment accounts...

Just because people don't understand what you may consider the true nature of something doesn't mean they cease to search for their perception of that something. For example, it would seem that when Jesus said, "the Kingdom of Heaven is in your midst, but you wont' see it" he was talking about being so focused on what one's perception of heaven was as to not see what IS. So, if your perception of wealth and power (and YES, SECURITY) is faulty...it is still your truth as you see it, so your path to that wealth and power (and YES, SECURITY) becomes faulty. Yet, you can still achieve wealth, power and security if you achieve them in your perception.

Ever wonder why finance isn't a mandatory course in our schools but gym is? Go figure.

[oldhardhead]

Arius,

Did you say Worldcom? Enron?

ENRON-stung GOPers are discreetly eyeing the collapse of GLOBAL CROSSING [which on Monday became the 4th largest bankruptcy in history] and its Chairman Gary Winnick, a top Democrat donor who helped DNC head Terry McAuliffe turn a $100,000 stock investment -- into $18,000,000!

MORE

McAuliffe arranged for Winnick to play golf with President Clinton in 1999 after his cash windfall. Winnick then gave a million dollars to help build Clinton's presidential library.

A top White House source noted to the DRUDGE REPORT, with irony, the direct McAuliffe connection with Winnick and GLOBAL CROSSING.

TERRY MCAULIFFE, DNC CHAIRMAN GRIFTED $100k INTO $18 MILLION

former DNC head DNC head Terry McAuliffe

Terry McAuliffe, national campaign director for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign last year, lost his own debut in electoral politics in Tuesday's race for governor of Virginia.

Does McAuliffe's loss cap end of the Clinton machine? - Los Angeles Times


Enron... WorldComm... Global Crossing...

Blame it on Republicans. Blame it on Bush!!!


HAHAHAHAHahahaha!



.

[Arius]

Odd OHH, but I did not mention Bush or the GOP in that post you replied to.

And here is the reason I would.

I don't expect conservative Republicans to act like liberal Democrats. I expect conservative Republicans to ACT conservative...not "less liberal" than Democrats. I expect a "faith based" ideology professed to be "pro-life" to be less likely to use violence to achieve security. I expect a "faith based" ideology to be ethically stronger than one that is not. I expect conservatives to not use government in promotion of anything except the rule of law, and to not bastardize law in order to give them the moral right to enact their own sense of morality. I expect them to fight for LIBERTY, not choose what version of liberty they will allow us to have.

And I expect them to allow me to keep what is mine...not choose what is mine to take to further their own brand of liberalism.

So, in my way of "thinking", I would rather vote for the wolf who doesn't dress like a sheep than one in sheep's clothing. I see the Republican and conservative "selling out" of their ideology as nothing more than faux conservatism, more dangerous in its phoniness than Democrats acting like Democrats. I trust the Republican Party much less than I do the Democratic Party, and view the GOP as it is now as much more dangerous to our way of life than liberalism.

And if that makes me liberal, so be it...I will be liberal. But it changes nothing.

So, while you are busy acting like you know something, acting like everyone who sees your Party as the monster it has allowed itself to become as silly, moronic dopes you FAIL to be able to fix what is broken. YOUR ideology (or at least how you portray it) is the reason Democrats are in power today. The FAILURE of your party is why Obama is President today. It isn't that he is our "Savior" or "God-like", it is that your party and your ideology are THAT BAD.

So blame me for that too...after all, nothing is YOUR fault. You know, it goes back to your post condemning the lack of opposition on the ballot...that is YOUR fault too. Perhaps if you stopped waiting for others to make mistakes or change you wouldn't have so much to whine about on here. And remember, without you on here I cease to exist here as well...and that is fine by me.

[Pineygirl]

So, in my way of "thinking", I would rather vote for the wolf who doesn't dress like a sheep than one in sheep's clothing.

You mean you would rather vote for an admitted thief than one who is a sneak thief?
Or an admitted sociopath than one who hides it?

Doesn't make any sense to me at all.

[Arius]

Originally Posted by Pineygirl

You mean you would rather vote for an admitted thief than one who is a sneak thief?
Or an admitted sociopath than one who hides it?

Doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Of course it doesn't, so allow me to help.

If my only real choices are two thieves, why would I compound the problem by voting for a liar AND a thief? So yes, I would vote for the more honest thief than the lying thief if they were my only real choices.

See, we both allow the lie to change our perception...you seem to allow it to make a candidate more acceptable and I allow it to make the candidate less acceptable. At least that is what your reply would suggest.

And given the sociopath example, the one who admits it is a bit less of a sociopath...so he would be my choice as well.

Hope this clears it up.

[Pineygirl]

Originally Posted by Arius

If my only real choices are two thieves, why would I compound the problem by voting for a liar AND a thief? So yes, I would vote for the more honest thief than the lying thief if they were my only real choices.

You've forgotten that you always have another choice: To not vote at all and let the others sort it out. Of course there could be a third candidate, but in this example there are only two.

If I had a choice between two thieves, and I knew they were both horrific thieves, I would simply refrain from voting rather than give my approval to one or the other.

I would not compromise my own values by supporting a thief, no matter who.

[Arius]

Originally Posted by Pineygirl

You've forgotten that you always have another choice: To not vote at all and let the others sort it out. Of course there could be a third candidate, but in this example there are only two.

If I had a choice between two thieves, and I knew they were both horrific thieves, I would simply refrain from voting rather than give my approval to one or the other.

I would not compromise my own values by supporting a thief, no matter who.

So I should shun my responsibility and leave the choice to others to make? Seems so "liberal" of a view for you Piney.

If a choice needs to be made, I would choose not to run from my responsibility to make it, but make the best choice I could given what I know. But that is just me.

[Pineygirl]

Originally Posted by Arius

So I should shun my responsibility and leave the choice to others to make? Seems so "liberal" of a view for you Piney.

If a choice needs to be made, I would choose not to run from my responsibility to make it, but make the best choice I could given what I know. But that is just me.

Choosing not to participate in a fraud is not shunning one's responsibility. It can be the act of making the responsible choice.

Sometimes, if people are determined to take a disastrous course, and they will not listen to reason, the best thing to do is get out of their way and let them have their way.