it is time for change in politics…we need a third party that will break the logjam between dems/reps…big money owns both parties…
we need a non-violent election in 2016 that will bring hope for us…a third party that cant be bought…
There are third parties, many.
Cooperation between them would work but, cooperation is in short supply my friend.
How about we just abolish money and watch all of the problems dissolve.
You have so many doctors, but are they doctors because they genuinely care about people or are they doctors because they get a nice pay check? Taking away the money is weeding the greedy from the passionate. Make it happen then sit back and observe the good of the human race step and stand on top.
How about we abolish money and watch a new trade and monetary system occur.
Don’t need a new monetary system that distributes unfairly.
And humans are fair?
They can be. Everything we have is gathered and made from the resources that were here long before us. They either A. Don’t belong to any of us or B. They belong to all of us. They aren’t to be distributed in such an unfair method.
Especially when a living creature has no choice of being.
In this magic world were a third party comes in (and is not just an extreme wing of already existing parties, cannot be bought, gets everything right for everyone and is an answer to all our problems) can I have super powers? I’d love the ability to freeze time, I’ve got some really great prank ideas that require it.
Change is inevitable. We only have the option of delaying or helping it go faster.
maybe the change could come thru Elizabeth warren…if she is supported maybe the democratic party could be reformed some…maybe she cant be bought…
I hope for this but it is not probable…both parties stink…
Except that roughly 50% of the country disagree’s with her, so even if she runs under the Progressive Party, it will naturally lead to a second group of people that gather, to oppose her actions. The parties are not written into the system, they are simply the natural, consequences of disagreement among people.
I sure as hell will never vote for her. I do not like her policies. They are nonsense…
do you agree with any of her policies…
That is a very good, and difficult question. I would be hard pressed to think of any off the top of my head, yet, I don’t know all of them. I’ll look an see. What I’ve heard from her, and from her representatives have not led me the believe so at this point.
I’ll get back to you.
I enjoy this one because it’s a complete waste of time. And the alternative to wasting time is getting something done… I don’t approve of that.
good pipe…were the banks too big to fail in 2008
I don’t agree with modern “politics”
But politics consits of everything from tne grass roots of foundemental human interaction all the way to interaction at the highest levels. At what level does Your disagreement abide? Most will try to ignore all but the very basic and the most acute intellectual level. the middle grond of the independent relies on niehter one. At least not effectively so, and is amiss at really engaging one with the other. That is the problem. The down and outs have no real representation with the ones calling the shots. The middle class’s concerns consume everyine, not realizing that there may not, soon, be a middle class,.
I can say that the difference is increasingly wiped out by the rate of change between the two exgtreme classes. The time at this stage, may not ever be realized in this scenario, because of this disengagement, most of which is caused by inflationary rhetoric, as way to compensate to the ascent of virtual , artificial reality over the accustomed for, yet , oddly, longed for values of the past.
Their debates don’t really matter when they’re already all paid for and what not, lobbied and rigged. They don’t really do much leading or governance anyways, they seem pretty interested in the conflicts of other countries more than the problems of which they were elected to address. I say we ship them to govern the other countries of which their problems matter most to them.
^ Politics should not be about how much power one or a group hope to achieve/gain, but how much power can be distributed to the ones who need it in your country to keep your province balanced. Power not necessarily being money either. Knowledge is x10 more powerful than money.
I have always liked the quote “You can give a man a bowl - He smokes for a day. You can teach a man to grow his own - He smokes for a lifetime.” ← This quote shits all over simple giving and can be used for other things if not everything.
Knowledge > Giving.
Knowledge > Materials.
A good example is the American invasion ofm ILP. Looking back at it’s beginnings, scents, sights and sounds of the so called British Invasion were evident, in the early years of ILP. It seemed more an international forum then it appears now, and there
was still remnants of hope, base on that early British cognitive element of change. In America, change is suited more for the whim full, the alienated, and the
naive. Just when Timothy Leary began his course on
alienation for its own good, it’s own cognitive logical sep toward self actualiztion, and he admitted later on, he was disappointed with new recruits consiting
of naive, misguided juveniles who based their motive
in irresonsible and juvinile rebellion minus the depth from which Leary’s appraisals of social discontent originated:/ It is not, a lost cause, but it is increasingly lacing in insight into the universal rather
than the individual situatons within which; political expediency is missing it’s place to stand on.
When Peter ,Paul and Mary sang their politically
hidden songs into folk cnsciousness, the wind was
stirring , but nowadays, the winds are loaded with the erotic fulfillment of weighed interpretations, counterbalancing the good, for which, everyone
for.
Nope, the should have failed and bad things happen. Changing who pays the costs is all the accomplished with their stupid laws. The natural result will be more risks taken. It pissed me off greatly.