- This topic has 220 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 11 months ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 20, 2010 at 4:12 PM #621915October 20, 2010 at 4:16 PM #620847
(former)FormerSanDiegan
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=jstoesz]
One note about a pet peeve I have…”need” is such an overused word. I need air. I do not need medical insurance, or a free bus pass. Those are things I steal…[/quote]That’s the difference between you and me.
When someone is sick that person needs medical insurance.
When a person must get to work to a job that doesn’t pay much and is located where real estate is expensive, that person does need a bus pass.[/quote]
People also need food and shelter.
The real deifferences lie in what people believe should be provided for them by the rest of the country and what people should provide for themselves and their family.
October 20, 2010 at 4:16 PM #620927Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=jstoesz]
One note about a pet peeve I have…”need” is such an overused word. I need air. I do not need medical insurance, or a free bus pass. Those are things I steal…[/quote]That’s the difference between you and me.
When someone is sick that person needs medical insurance.
When a person must get to work to a job that doesn’t pay much and is located where real estate is expensive, that person does need a bus pass.[/quote]
People also need food and shelter.
The real deifferences lie in what people believe should be provided for them by the rest of the country and what people should provide for themselves and their family.
October 20, 2010 at 4:16 PM #621485Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=jstoesz]
One note about a pet peeve I have…”need” is such an overused word. I need air. I do not need medical insurance, or a free bus pass. Those are things I steal…[/quote]That’s the difference between you and me.
When someone is sick that person needs medical insurance.
When a person must get to work to a job that doesn’t pay much and is located where real estate is expensive, that person does need a bus pass.[/quote]
People also need food and shelter.
The real deifferences lie in what people believe should be provided for them by the rest of the country and what people should provide for themselves and their family.
October 20, 2010 at 4:16 PM #621606Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=jstoesz]
One note about a pet peeve I have…”need” is such an overused word. I need air. I do not need medical insurance, or a free bus pass. Those are things I steal…[/quote]That’s the difference between you and me.
When someone is sick that person needs medical insurance.
When a person must get to work to a job that doesn’t pay much and is located where real estate is expensive, that person does need a bus pass.[/quote]
People also need food and shelter.
The real deifferences lie in what people believe should be provided for them by the rest of the country and what people should provide for themselves and their family.
October 20, 2010 at 4:16 PM #621925Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=jstoesz]
One note about a pet peeve I have…”need” is such an overused word. I need air. I do not need medical insurance, or a free bus pass. Those are things I steal…[/quote]That’s the difference between you and me.
When someone is sick that person needs medical insurance.
When a person must get to work to a job that doesn’t pay much and is located where real estate is expensive, that person does need a bus pass.[/quote]
People also need food and shelter.
The real deifferences lie in what people believe should be provided for them by the rest of the country and what people should provide for themselves and their family.
October 20, 2010 at 4:16 PM #620842NotCranky
Participant“lesser of two evils” is something I can’t easily argue with. The only place to go with it is, are we really capable of discerning that from two evils, or is it an excuse to vote how we would anyway? Is it anything different from acceptance of the status quot?
Flu’s point, “limit change as much as possible”, is also interesting( probably why I limit my revolutionary activities to not voting and how I “get and spend”). “Status quot” is also prone to being used for convenience by the current batch of “winners”.
It does seem easy to find examples or “proof” of this idea of the destructiveness of change, over any improvements that come of it. Even in our lifetimes there are many examples,domestically and internationally, from which experience could be drawn to lend support.
A full fledged “non-political” orientation is starting to have more complete appeal to me. I have met many older people who eventually did this and were probably better off for it.It’s less angry and no more powerless than voting in the current system. Of course, if it really caught on that would be a “change”.
October 20, 2010 at 4:16 PM #620922Participant“lesser of two evils” is something I can’t easily argue with. The only place to go with it is, are we really capable of discerning that from two evils, or is it an excuse to vote how we would anyway? Is it anything different from acceptance of the status quot?
Flu’s point, “limit change as much as possible”, is also interesting( probably why I limit my revolutionary activities to not voting and how I “get and spend”). “Status quot” is also prone to being used for convenience by the current batch of “winners”.
It does seem easy to find examples or “proof” of this idea of the destructiveness of change, over any improvements that come of it. Even in our lifetimes there are many examples,domestically and internationally, from which experience could be drawn to lend support.
A full fledged “non-political” orientation is starting to have more complete appeal to me. I have met many older people who eventually did this and were probably better off for it.It’s less angry and no more powerless than voting in the current system. Of course, if it really caught on that would be a “change”.
October 20, 2010 at 4:16 PM #621480Participant“lesser of two evils” is something I can’t easily argue with. The only place to go with it is, are we really capable of discerning that from two evils, or is it an excuse to vote how we would anyway? Is it anything different from acceptance of the status quot?
Flu’s point, “limit change as much as possible”, is also interesting( probably why I limit my revolutionary activities to not voting and how I “get and spend”). “Status quot” is also prone to being used for convenience by the current batch of “winners”.
It does seem easy to find examples or “proof” of this idea of the destructiveness of change, over any improvements that come of it. Even in our lifetimes there are many examples,domestically and internationally, from which experience could be drawn to lend support.
A full fledged “non-political” orientation is starting to have more complete appeal to me. I have met many older people who eventually did this and were probably better off for it.It’s less angry and no more powerless than voting in the current system. Of course, if it really caught on that would be a “change”.
October 20, 2010 at 4:16 PM #621601Participant“lesser of two evils” is something I can’t easily argue with. The only place to go with it is, are we really capable of discerning that from two evils, or is it an excuse to vote how we would anyway? Is it anything different from acceptance of the status quot?
Flu’s point, “limit change as much as possible”, is also interesting( probably why I limit my revolutionary activities to not voting and how I “get and spend”). “Status quot” is also prone to being used for convenience by the current batch of “winners”.
It does seem easy to find examples or “proof” of this idea of the destructiveness of change, over any improvements that come of it. Even in our lifetimes there are many examples,domestically and internationally, from which experience could be drawn to lend support.
A full fledged “non-political” orientation is starting to have more complete appeal to me. I have met many older people who eventually did this and were probably better off for it.It’s less angry and no more powerless than voting in the current system. Of course, if it really caught on that would be a “change”.
October 20, 2010 at 4:16 PM #621920Participant“lesser of two evils” is something I can’t easily argue with. The only place to go with it is, are we really capable of discerning that from two evils, or is it an excuse to vote how we would anyway? Is it anything different from acceptance of the status quot?
Flu’s point, “limit change as much as possible”, is also interesting( probably why I limit my revolutionary activities to not voting and how I “get and spend”). “Status quot” is also prone to being used for convenience by the current batch of “winners”.
It does seem easy to find examples or “proof” of this idea of the destructiveness of change, over any improvements that come of it. Even in our lifetimes there are many examples,domestically and internationally, from which experience could be drawn to lend support.
A full fledged “non-political” orientation is starting to have more complete appeal to me. I have met many older people who eventually did this and were probably better off for it.It’s less angry and no more powerless than voting in the current system. Of course, if it really caught on that would be a “change”.
October 20, 2010 at 7:26 PM #620886scaredyclassic
ParticipantI find anyone who strongly identifies with a major political party tedious and I immediately suspect some mental issue. Have you guys seen the candidate from the rent is too damn high party running forcgov in NYC? There’s a debate video on YouTube which is great. His partys main position is the rent is too damn high
October 20, 2010 at 7:26 PM #620967ParticipantI find anyone who strongly identifies with a major political party tedious and I immediately suspect some mental issue. Have you guys seen the candidate from the rent is too damn high party running forcgov in NYC? There’s a debate video on YouTube which is great. His partys main position is the rent is too damn high
October 20, 2010 at 7:26 PM #621525ParticipantI find anyone who strongly identifies with a major political party tedious and I immediately suspect some mental issue. Have you guys seen the candidate from the rent is too damn high party running forcgov in NYC? There’s a debate video on YouTube which is great. His partys main position is the rent is too damn high
October 20, 2010 at 7:26 PM #621646ParticipantI find anyone who strongly identifies with a major political party tedious and I immediately suspect some mental issue. Have you guys seen the candidate from the rent is too damn high party running forcgov in NYC? There’s a debate video on YouTube which is great. His partys main position is the rent is too damn high
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.