What are you for?

peeplj · Post by **peeplj** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 5:45 am

America, at least current America, isn't about rebellion.

It's about conformity.

People like me who question the government (and the doctors, and the corporations, and the preachers) are in a minority.

This was conclusively proven in the last Presidential election, remember? The fact that Bush was ahead where electronic voting machines were used and Kerry was ahead just about everywhere else was really just coincidence.

--James

anniemcu · Post by **anniemcu** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 7:42 am

perrins57 wrote:One American friend of mine puts his country's troubles down to its early ideals. He believes that America was born in simple rebellion. The British paid unfair taxes (everybody did) and were poorly represented (everybody was) but they didn't rebel against their leaders. Since being founded on rebellion Americans have kept the right to bare arms to use against those they disagree with. Americans have no more arms per capita than the Canadians, but the Canadians rarely resort to using them on those they disagree with (either internally or abroad). The violence that created America, has continued. As the colonists were successful in their rebellion, they got to write the history, thus the American constitution is idealistic spin that tries to give high moral principles as justification for simple rebellion. ...

Interesting perspective... and certainly plausible.

anniemcu · Post by **anniemcu** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 7:48 am

peeplj wrote:America, at least current America, isn't about rebellion.

It's about conformity.

People like me who question the government (and the doctors, and the corporations, and the preachers) are in a minority.

This was conclusively proven in the last Presidential election, remember? The fact that Bush was ahead where electronic voting machines were used and Kerry was ahead just about everywhere else was really just coincidence.

--James

On one hand you are right... almost the whole of corporate advertising is aimed at the narcisitic-yet-insecure, with the carrot of 'acceptance by your peers'... I.E. : conformity ... yet, the initial attraction of that 'style', or 'fashion' is the *appearance* of rebelliousness, or at least uniqueness. Another interesting facet of this behavior is the assimilation of that which is at first seen as radical, diluted to become the norm *without* actual progress and change... interesting, if depressing.

As to your second point... I'm not so sure we are actually in the minority - I think we, as a whole, just haven't figured out that we'd better stand up and be counted or the rest will will us out of existance.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 7:51 am

DaleWisely wrote:
dapple wrote:
I am not planning on debating any of these points publically, just sharing a personal perspective.
I think that if intergalactic aliens were to gain their only impression of the US by reading this board and they were so inclined and had the power to do so, they would destroy the US and, from reading some posts here, I believe that some C&F members would applaud the destruction.
I don't know why in the world I'm engaging you. (Surely it was somebody's responsibility to stop me).

But this is an entirely obnoxious remark. You couldn't defend it if your life depended on it, so you'll simply hide behind it being "your opinion." As a loyal American on the left side of political center, I resent it personally. I resent it for what it claims about all kinds of good Americans who might believe, for example, that the current administration isn't good for America. I resent it for what it claims about many of my own friends and members of my own family. You're alternating between this kind of hateful and destructive language and then a kind of oh, I'm just seeking the other perspective and, just give me a "short post" on "What are you for?" It's just ridiculous.

You could also always blame it on Alan.

Or the crystal peopakfhak.432257142hkfahkss/////////disabled security

Wormdiet · Post by **Wormdiet** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 8:13 am

perrins57 wrote:One American friend of mine puts his country's troubles down to its early ideals. He believes that America was born in simple rebellion. The British paid unfair taxes (everybody did) and were poorly represented (everybody was) but they didn't rebel against their leaders. Since being founded on rebellion Americans have kept the right to bare arms to use against those they disagree with. Americans have no more arms per capita than the Canadians, but the Canadians rarely resort to using them on those they disagree with (either internally or abroad). The violence that created America, has continued. As the colonists were successful in their rebellion, they got to write the history, thus the American constitution is idealistic spin that tries to give high moral principles as justification for simple rebellion.

Moreover, our bare arms have the world's most fearsome tattoos!

dapple · Post by **dapple** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:22 am

I don't know why in the world I'm engaging you. (Surely it was somebody's responsibility to stop me).

But this is an entirely obnoxious remark. You couldn't defend it if your life depended on it, so you'll simply hide behind it being "your opinion." As a loyal American on the left side of political center, I resent it personally. I resent it for what it claims about all kinds of good Americans who might believe, for example, that the current administration isn't good for America. I resent it for what it claims about many of my own friends and members of my own family. You're alternating between this kind of hateful and destructive language and then a kind of oh, I'm just seeking the other perspective and, just give me a "short post" on "What are you for?" It's just ridiculous.

My objective was not intended as a political stance or to offend anyone but to try to move the course of discussion beyong mere complaining. And, for the record, I'm not thrilled with the current administration either.

I apoligize for coming into your house and offending you.

People like me who question the government (and the doctors, and the corporations, and the preachers) are in a minority.

If that is true, one wouldn’t know it by watching or reading TV news or the newspaper or the internet or the posts here or talking to people on the streets or at work. People are constantly griping and complaining and grumbling and carping about every aspect of society. What those gripers and complainers seldom do is suggest anything constructive. They are against many things, but they do not say what they are for and what they would do to get there. Complaining is easy. Sure the complainers largely want everyone to have health care, more than two choices for president, and CEO’s to make less and hourly-wage workers to make more. But guess what? Almost everyone does, so join the club. You may as well display a “Save the Wales” bumper sticker on your car. It’s safe, reasonable, largely agreed upon by all, and totally useless.

Complaining exclusively is worthless unless you favor anarchy. People are quick to say what they don’t like; I ask C&F members to state what they want and how they would achieve their goals. I appreciate the responses to my post, but the responses are largely “Save the Wales” bumper stickers.

Some people are admired or put on a pedestal for their constant complaining. But not by me. I will save my respect for someone who offers reasonable solutions to problems even if I don’t agree with those solutions.

Do you favor a law that prevents privately owned corporations from paying those who run the companies more than five or ten times what the average worker makes (that’s a favorite among complainers)? Is that wise? Wouldn’t that disincent people to strive for achievement? Do you favor government controlling all large corporations and using those corporations as jobs programs? Would a company survive that control? Does it even matter because we should be guaranteed an income by the government anyway? What happens to your years of hard work, savings, and investment then? If that is where we are heading, please tell me now because I’m going to stop working and wait for my governments benefits to kick in when I’ll be given by the government-corporation a nice retirement bungalow on the beach right next to my father who worked damn hard and saved all his life to buy his bungalow. So what do we do about it?

Universal health care sounds good to me. How do we get there? Let’s start by looking at the Canadian system as a model and how we can change it to work in the US. That’s a start. This past year I reevaluated my beliefs about healthcare and recently wrote to my congressman about it. I believe that the time has come for national health care, and I provided a suggestion, albeit a small one, about how we achieve that? Can someone suggest what we do next? Or do you just want to complain more about what we have or don’t have now?

You want more than two choices for president? What specifically do you propose we do about it? What specifically are you doing about it?

Most people constantly complain and offer very few specific, constructive answers because, I believe, they either have not thought through what they are complaining about, have no ideas, or are afraid because stating specifically what a person believes in would open up his or her own ideas to attack. So they attack and criticize and offer nothing constructive. I ask that people stop complaining and have the courage to state their goals and, more importantly, how to achieve them. The worst that can happen is that they get discussed and go nowhere. The best is that they might lead to change.

peeplj · Post by **peeplj** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:32 am

The real question is what can you do about it?

Precious little. This is a society where the squeaky wheel gets thrown away and replaced, not greased. If you open your mouth too much, all you do is trash out your own life and that of those you love.

--James

jbarter · Post by **jbarter** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:33 am

I'm for nuthin'. Whatever it is, I'm agin it!

missy · Post by **missy** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:40 am

dapple - I think your question is fasinating - and so have been the answers.

On a federal level, I think the government has it's hands in WAY too much already - so I'm very wary of giving it even more power with things like national health care. It seems that in most cases, when the government gets involved in running things - it gets run very poorly.
I also think we need to have a flat tax or user tax and do away with the IRS. There's too many loopholes, too much corruption, and WAY too many people employed in the collection of taxes. I'd agree to having a cut off below which you pay no taxes, but for everyone else, a flat tax. No deductions.
I'd love to see every child start school ready to learn. I think we need to put a lot more emphasis on good pre-school and Head Start programs. If need be, tie any government subsidies to school attendance.

I can't do much on a federal level, so I work on a local level to make things "better". I'm a member of our local village Forum. A member of our "Quality of Life" group that looks at getting vacant property cleaned up, etc. A member of Citizens on Patrol helping the community by keeping an eye on things such as parole violators, drugs, etc. A member of ARCH - Arts Revival of College Hill - trying through music and the other arts to create a community feel to the area. Volunteered at our National Night Out. Working on a mayorial candidate's campaign.

dapple · Post by **dapple** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:51 am

I can't do much on a federal level, so I work on a local level to make things "better".

Thank you, missy. I have always believed that the large emphasis on the federal government level is misplaced: the day-to-day lives of most people are effected more by their local, county, and/or state governments than the federal level of government.

Tyler · Post by **Tyler** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:52 am

I'm anxious to read your list of solutions, dapple.

Wormdiet · Post by **Wormdiet** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:58 am

dapple wrote:
I can't do much on a federal level, so I work on a local level to make things "better".
Thank you, missy. I have always believed that the large emphasis on the federal government level is misplaced: the day-to-day lives of most people are effected more by their local, county, and/or state governments than the federal level of government.

I tend to think that when the country is faced with truly national problems (EG, Katrina, rising gas prices, pathetic performance and funding for our schools, lack of health care, etc. etc. ad nauseam) an emphasis on states' power is exactly the wrong direction to go.

Blackwood · Post by **Blackwood** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:59 am

I appreciate the responses to my post, but the responses are largely “Save the Wales” bumper stickers

Dapple, I got to tell you this is totally lame. You posted a bunch of questions and called three posters by name implicitly anti-American and then did not respond to their posts directly at all, but are then lumping the responses together in this generalized, non-specific quote above. Why would anyone want to engage with you further? You are not responsing to issues raised and are not answering questions.

You raise questions but you are ingoring answers/questions and show no answers yourself.

Wormdiet · Post by **Wormdiet** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 10:08 am

Blackwood wrote:
I appreciate the responses to my post, but the responses are largely “Save the Wales” bumper stickers
Dapple, I got to tell you this is totally lame. You posted a bunch of questions and called three posters by name implicitly anti-American and then did not respond to their posts directly at all, but are then lumping the responses together in this generalized, non-specific quote above. Why would anyone want to engage with you further? You are not responsing to issues raised and are not answering questions.

You raise questions but you are ingoring answers/questions and show no answers yourself.

Exactly. He still has not addressed the incredibly insulting premise of the thread, which at least three of us have called him on. HOw can you call someone you disagree with "anti-american" when you mean "Anti-republican?"

dapple · Post by **dapple** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 10:12 am

Dapple, I got to tell you this is totally lame. You posted a bunch of questions and called three posters by name implicitly anti-American and then did not respond to their posts directly at all, but are then lumping the responses together in this generalized, non-specific quote above. Why would anyone want to engage with you further? You are not responsing to issues raised and are not answering questions.

You raise questions but you are ingoring answers/questions and show no answers yourself.

You are right, Blackwood. I should not have name people in my original post. I apologize to you, jGilder, and S1m0n. My post was not supposed to be about you or about me; it was an attempt to elevate the discourse beyond complaining to a higher lever. I’m afraid that I became very frustrated reading so many of the posts here and my frustration came out in my original post.