I've heard so many times if X wins this next election it's all over and I'm only 37. It is what it is I don't let it bother me anymore. Neither party is control government or rolling back spending so I just work to earn more and keep ahead of inflation what other choice is there?
(09-19-2022, 06:10 PM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]I've heard so many times if X wins this next election it's all over and I'm only 37. It is what it is I don't let it bother me anymore. Neither party is control government or rolling back spending so I just work to earn more and keep ahead of inflation what other choice is there?
Complain on a Jags message board that you’re going to cause a violent revolution to help save this country?
(09-19-2022, 06:52 PM)Jags Wrote: [ -> ] (09-19-2022, 11:37 AM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]Mikey sounds like he can't wait to eat a grasshopper burger or drink some [BLEEP]roach milk...Here you go buddy, be a sport and get started a little early.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/coc...-nutrition
You said it, not me.
LOL, they bleeped cockroach…but, but…
(09-19-2022, 06:10 PM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]I've heard so many times if X wins this next election it's all over and I'm only 37. It is what it is I don't let it bother me anymore. Neither party is control government or rolling back spending so I just work to earn more and keep ahead of inflation what other choice is there?
What happens when leftist policies prevent you from earning a livable wage? Don’t say it won’t happen, because their are lots of exist of exactly that happening. This is what the American left is working towards.
(09-19-2022, 08:00 PM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ] (09-19-2022, 06:52 PM)Jags Wrote: [ -> ]You said it, not me.
LOL, they bleeped cockroach…but, but…
(09-19-2022, 06:10 PM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]I've heard so many times if X wins this next election it's all over and I'm only 37. It is what it is I don't let it bother me anymore. Neither party is control government or rolling back spending so I just work to earn more and keep ahead of inflation what other choice is there?
What happens when leftist policies prevent you from earning a livable wage? Don’t say it won’t happen, because their are lots of exist of exactly that happening. This is what the American left is working towards.
It'll happen but not much we can do about it. Look the day is coming when the working class will own nothing. Housing is getting close to it already in about 10 years it'll be much more obvious. Whats my plan, keep my little house on 3 acres which is just about paid off. Don't over extend myself financially and save more then I think I'll ever need. Teach my children lost skills harvesting farming hunting mechanics and so on. Know that they will never own property on their own so I buy it now and hold.
As for some romantic revolution that's fools gold. Prepare your house now and survive, this will pass as it does everywhere else and those with the foresight to sustain it will position their families for generational change.
There's no where else to go, there's no coming uprising to change it, no politician to fight it. Just prepare and sustain thats the only realistic option. Perhaps it all works out and the preparation is for nothing.
(09-20-2022, 05:26 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (09-19-2022, 02:11 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I didn’t say your signature is bull shot. I was merely expressing the dichotomy of your judgement of Drifter’s post concerning manipulation and your signature’s assertion that we are not in full control of ourselves.
I guess what I’m saying is you’ll have to explain your meaning of free will is an illusion.
Your point is well taken. We are certainly subject to manipulation, and the statement "Free will is an illusion" would mean we are completely manipulated. Excellent point.
Okay, here is my explanation of "Free will is an illusion."
Think of these two basic scientific principles:
1) Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
2) An object at rest remains at rest, or if in motion, remains in motion at a constant velocity unless acted on by a net external force.
What these two principles tell us is that nothing occurs spontaneously. Since the big bang, there is no event anyone can cite that occurred without being caused by some preceding event. So all events are caused by preceding events. If all events are caused by preceding events, then even your thoughts and your decisions are caused by preceding events. If your decisions are caused by preceding events, then you are not actually controlling your decisions. You have the illusion of control. You don't actually have free will in the sense of -
"[b]free will[/b], in philosophy and science, the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe. " https://www.britannica.com/topic/free-will
What I am talking about is called "determinism."
Article about Free Will and Determinism
It seems to me that, unless you believe that supernatural forces intervene in the natural world, you have to believe in determinism. And at that point, I have to stop because we would go into religion if I go any further.
This is the kind of philosophical stuff I stay away from. It serves no purpose whatsoever than to create a continuous loop of existential contemplation that sucks the life out of life.
(09-20-2022, 07:24 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (09-20-2022, 05:26 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Your point is well taken. We are certainly subject to manipulation, and the statement "Free will is an illusion" would mean we are completely manipulated. Excellent point.
Okay, here is my explanation of "Free will is an illusion."
Think of these two basic scientific principles:
1) Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
2) An object at rest remains at rest, or if in motion, remains in motion at a constant velocity unless acted on by a net external force.
What these two principles tell us is that nothing occurs spontaneously. Since the big bang, there is no event anyone can cite that occurred without being caused by some preceding event. So all events are caused by preceding events. If all events are caused by preceding events, then even your thoughts and your decisions are caused by preceding events. If your decisions are caused by preceding events, then you are not actually controlling your decisions. You have the illusion of control. You don't actually have free will in the sense of -
"[b]free will[/b], in philosophy and science, the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe. " https://www.britannica.com/topic/free-will
What I am talking about is called "determinism."
Article about Free Will and Determinism
It seems to me that, unless you believe that supernatural forces intervene in the natural world, you have to believe in determinism. And at that point, I have to stop because we would go into religion if I go any further.
This is the kind of philosophical stuff I stay away from. It serves no purpose whatsoever than to create a continuous loop of existential contemplation that sucks the life out of life.
I think it's interesting, but you are right that it serves no particular purpose, because even if we have no free will, we still have to live as if we do have free will.
(09-20-2022, 07:09 PM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]Iranians are fighting back against their totalitarian government, this time is “different”
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/ir...n-protest/
Democrats strike again. Carter's ineptitude doomed the Shah and ensured the Islamic Revolution took power. Obama ignored Green protests in 2009, concentrating instead on the Arab Spring, which he felt a cultural kinship with. The whole thing is an unnecessary shame. Iranians are descendents of a proud Persian empire. They would throw off the shackles of Islam in a minute if they were empowered to do so. Islam hijacked them and thier country. They were, and still could be, natural allies of the US, but we are too shortsighted to recognize it.
(09-20-2022, 09:01 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ] (09-20-2022, 07:09 PM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]Iranians are fighting back against their totalitarian government, this time is “different”
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/ir...n-protest/
Democrats strike again. Carter's ineptitude doomed the Shah and ensured the Islamic Revolution took power. Obama ignored Green protests in 2009, concentrating instead on the Arab Spring, which he felt a cultural kinship with. The whole thing is an unnecessary shame. Iranians are descendents of a proud Persian empire. The would throw off the shackles of Islam in a minute if they were empowered to do so. Islam hijacked them and thier country. They were, and still could be, natural allies of the US, but we are too shortsighted to recognize it.
I really don't think a better US President would have been able to stop the Iranian revolution of 1979. Not everything is about us!
The Arab Spring began in 2011. Obama didn't choose one over the other, they happened at different times.
What are you talking about? Carter was almost directly responsible for the Iranian revolution in 1979. Even my liberal professors taught it that way. But, I'm sure there's some revisionist history we can grab onto... enlighten me, Mikey.
(09-20-2022, 10:23 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]What are you talking about? Carter was almost directly responsible for the Iranian revolution in 1979. Even my liberal professors taught it that way. But, I'm sure there's some revisionist history we can grab onto... enlighten me, Mikey.
My memory is a little foggy on this subject. My recollection is that the Iranian Revolution had been brewing for many years prior to Carter taking office, and it was a result of Iranian repression, religious fundamentalism, and resentment about the Shah being put in place by the West. How was Carter directly responsible? I'm not arguing, just asking.
(09-21-2022, 07:03 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (09-20-2022, 10:23 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]What are you talking about? Carter was almost directly responsible for the Iranian revolution in 1979. Even my liberal professors taught it that way. But, I'm sure there's some revisionist history we can grab onto... enlighten me, Mikey.
My memory is a little foggy on this subject. My recollection is that the Iranian Revolution had been brewing for many years prior to Carter taking office, and it was a result of Iranian repression, religious fundamentalism, and resentment about the Shah being put in place by the West. How was Carter directly responsible? I'm not arguing, just asking.
Carter sent Huyser to prevent the Iranian military from supporting the Shah. He had direct communications with Khomeini giving him legitimacy. He also had William Sullivan actively working to undermine Prime Minister Bahktiar's administration. Then he brought the Shah here of all places which made us appear as betraying Khomeini. He did about everything he could to make Iran hate us.
(09-19-2022, 11:28 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (09-19-2022, 11:26 AM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]First world, but for how long? At this rate, will be third world quickly... I mean we already have a third world government running things. These people are hell bent on destroying the Middle Class...
You sound like you haven't been to the actual third world.
That's a pretty obvious one there. I'd bet he hasn't been outside of the US.
(09-21-2022, 07:26 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (09-21-2022, 07:03 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]My memory is a little foggy on this subject. My recollection is that the Iranian Revolution had been brewing for many years prior to Carter taking office, and it was a result of Iranian repression, religious fundamentalism, and resentment about the Shah being put in place by the West. How was Carter directly responsible? I'm not arguing, just asking.
Carter sent Huyser to prevent the Iranian military from supporting the Shah. He had direct communications with Khomeini giving him legitimacy. He also had William Sullivan actively working to undermine Prime Minister Bahktiar's administration. Then he brought the Shah here of all places which made us appear as betraying Khomeini. He did about everything he could to make Iran hate us.
Right. Carter's administration decided to play both sides for a time because they had already assessed that it was more likely than not that Khomeini would end up in a powerful position. They were trying to salvage a bad situation. Their naivete and ineptitude could be noted, but, regardless, the Shah's power was going to reduce and the Ayatollah's power was going to increase.
(09-20-2022, 10:23 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]What are you talking about? Carter was almost directly responsible for the Iranian revolution in 1979. Even my liberal professors taught it that way. But, I'm sure there's some revisionist history we can grab onto... enlighten me, Mikey.
The 1953 coup was a very marginal affair. There were some public protests before and after, but nothing overwhelming. If the CIA decided to do things a little differently at the time, the entire coup may not have happened.
The 1979 revolution included the largest street protests in history, probably to this day. It was going to happen regardless of what some well placed diplomats and spies and generals from the US wanted to happen.
(09-21-2022, 09:18 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (09-21-2022, 07:26 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Carter sent Huyser to prevent the Iranian military from supporting the Shah. He had direct communications with Khomeini giving him legitimacy. He also had William Sullivan actively working to undermine Prime Minister Bahktiar's administration. Then he brought the Shah here of all places which made us appear as betraying Khomeini. He did about everything he could to make Iran hate us.
Right. Carter's administration decided to play both sides for a time because they had already assessed that it was more likely than not that Khomeini would end up in a powerful position. They were trying to salvage a bad situation. Their naivete and ineptitude could be noted, but, regardless, the Shah's power was going to reduce and the Ayatollah's power was going to increase.
Nonsense, keeping the Shah was immaterial. Had the US simply supported the Iranian military then military would've replaced the Shah in a bloodless coup, Khomeini would've been arrested and most likely executed, and a local strongman in the Hussein model installed. Instead Carter Fubar'd the situation because his of his naivety and horrifically bad foreign policy positions and we ended up with the worst possible outcome.
(09-21-2022, 08:25 AM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ] (09-19-2022, 11:28 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]
You sound like you haven't been to the actual third world.
That's a pretty obvious one there. I'd bet he hasn't been outside of the US.
My first visit outside the US to a third world country was an eye opener for sure