Socialism, Tyranny, Venezuela... proven right again.

Maybe you should revisit Europe and I do not mean Albania. Point is that by all metrics they are happier, healthier and less stressed.

 

Ironically, despite being less stressed and healthier, Europeans have higher cancer rates than Americans.

 

I don't let my own mother tell me my own thoughts, I'll be DAMNED if I'm going to let some Conservative on a political forum tell me about myself when I haven't even fully developed my ideology.

Yes, I believe in some socialist principles, but every principle I believe in would be checked by a Legislature elected using a proportional representation method, a President elected by a proportional Electoral College, and a Supreme Court populated by Justices selected for judicial acumen, not ideological reliability. The system of the United States Constitution was never designed for humans, let alone groups of humans bound together by ideology. What arose from the summer of 1787 only worked insofar as people would put patriotism ahead of personal interest. It's ironically, essentially the same reason communism could never succeed in human society.

I am currently working on a book to delineate further, which I hope to send to various people free of charge for their critique before I put it on Amazon.

I certainly don't put much stock in trying to change minds here, half of the minds here are made up for their owners by Rush Limbo and Fixed News, while most of the rest don't really believe that the system can be changed.

Then again, many people never thought that the Revolution would succeed, a ragtag bunch of colonists against the most powerful military in the world at the time. Hell, the Declaration of Independence was assessed as basically the death warrant of everyone who signed it, which is exactly why John Hancock made his signature so large and ornate, he wanted to directly challenge the monarch.

 

Matriarchy VS Patriarchy is when who wears the pants spends the money.

The Feminist Sexual Revolution was actually women demanding more for sexual favors by forming a Womens' Network or Union.
The basic result was that only men how served the woman's expectations were distributed the sexual benefits all controlled by who these women favored for such deliveries.

Ultimately, a male dominated world transfigures into a matriarchy run by a second set of rules called Political Correctness:


Suggested Reading:

 

Happiness is a state of mind. I've met people who worked minimum wage that were happy. In fact, I've worked minimum wage and been happy.

Healthier has nothing to do with economics, or standard of living. Our life expectancy is higher than that of Japan, when you account for auto fatalities, and homicide.

As far as less stressed... that depends. If you mean the government pensioners living off the crushing weight of social security taxes... why yes, they do have lower rates of stress. If you mean the 25 or younger, who have a 26% unemployment rate, and can't afford to survive and pay the social security taxes.... my interaction with those people did not show as quite a stress free life.

Now let me back up a minute.

Some morons on this forum, have concluded that my remarks about Europe, is that life is horrible. That is *NOT* my point. Europe without any doubt or question, is a million times better than that of the socialist countries around the world. There are no mass graves from starvation, like that of North Korea. I am not trying to say that Europeans live in trash huts like Malaysians or something.

Europeans are without any doubt, have a standard of living in the top 10% of the world.

Nevertheless, as compared with the US, the facts are, we have a higher standard of living. There is no measurement I can think of where our economic standards are not higher.

Again, not suggesting that Europe is "bad". I'm just saying that if you want to compare economics systems and policies, ours is better.

- - - Updated - - -

And lower survival rates.

 

I don't understand that. Why do Europeans have higher cancer rates than Americans?

 

No no no. They never thought that their system would only work if patriotism was ahead of personal interest. No one ever believed that. The original colonies were an experiment of this exact thing.

When the people first landed in Massachusetts in 1620, they created the Plymouth Plantation. The colony was a socialist Utopia, where there was no private property, land was cultivated by equally by everyone, food was collected and distributed to everyone equally, women washed everyone's clothes, and dressed and cooked everyone's meals, from each according to their ability, and to each according to their need. A true Commune.

But all socialism always fails. Always.

The Governor of the Plymouth Plantation, William Bradford, found that the plantation was not producing enough food, and soon they would face starvation.

From the Chronicles of William Bradford.

Now let's review. They were operating on the "Patriotism" system, where everyone was going to do their best, just for the sake of being great, pro-colony, people, and they were starving to death.

So they ditched the communal land system, and gave complete control of plots of land to individual families. Although it wasn't a full ownership system yet, it was this model that led to it. But whatever they got from their land, they kept.

Then they gave each person some corn, and said here ya go, do with it as you will. But made it clear no more corn was coming.

Suddenly, all these people, who before were not working, started working! Shockingly the people who claimed they couldn't work before, suddenly magically had the ability to work, and got their butt's out in the field. Even women and children, who were thought too weak an unable to work, made their way out in the field to plant, and grow corn. These were people that culturally would never have worked in the field. Yet for the sake of self-interest, they got their butt's working.

Patriotism is nice. Great ideal. Wonderful thought. In reality, self-interest is how everything in the entire world works. Self-interest is how every single economy on this planet works. Self-interest is what drives growth and advancement.

There is no way that the founding fathers of this country, created a system based on Patriotism, when barely 100 years before, that system nearly destroyed itself, and self-interest is what saved the colonies from starvation. Not a chance.

 

This is due to Muslim population of Albania, where the men are still wearing the pants, and they are happier, healthier, and less stressed by the neurotic demands of their women.
But given time, Albania will be infected with Western proselytizing of the feminists in Europe and on the fringes of Islam, we will see changes made in the culture.

 

How can these people be "less stressed" when unemployment is 50% and civil strife can be seen in the streets of Greece, demanding that other people, outside of Greece, let them use their money now that they have run put of the money their own people had???

 

Personally, I think the majority of cancer rates is due to genetics. I read a thing on Singapore, where they found massively different cancer incidence rates, between races within Singapore. Since all three races all live in the same small (physical location) society, it's hard to imagine that their cultures would be wildly different. And all three races were from Asia too. Chinese, Vietnamese and Singapore native. (if I remember right). The only fundamental difference was race.

Why else would they recommend you step up your cancer screenings, if you have cancer in the family.

 

To some extent and depending on the individual.

But it is a good way to sum it up as confirmed by your earlier statement, thus rendering economics almost irrelevant to the topic.

You got that wrong.

US poverty rate is 16% Europe 16.4% hardly the difference you are implying.

Then why aren't we the happiest?

 

How dare you use logic on a leftist! Don't you know you could harm him?

 

WOW,..
So you are FOR a democratic outcome through election processes, but bias against other points of view already,... " I haven't even fully developed my ideology."

Isn't it more rational to NOT have an ideology initially, then, listening to all sides before you will have "developed my ideology?"

 

Its not a Left Right thingee, tho.

The Religious Right person, first, joins a Church, then they read the Bible.

The result is the same as those ho join the Liberals and then read the Constitution.

They search the Bible for any verse that concurs with what the selected Church preaches and support that Church the same way people say, "My country, (Party), right or wrong."

 

Perhaps you would prefer a true democracy.

Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

 

You misunderstood my post, my apologies I should have been more precise. Albania is a (*)(*)(*)(*) hole, it is the Europeans (other than Albanians) that are happier and less stressed.

 

Explain to me, then, if Patriotism was not the overriding prerequisite for the Constitution to work as intended, then why was the LOSER of an election originally slated to become Vice President, when most likely, the LOSER of an election would have a different slate of ideological values from the winner, and thus potentially stymie the Senate from passing legislation which the President supports?

It was not until the Twelfth Amendment in 1804 that the original language in Article II, Section I was overridden. It is no coincidence that the Election of 1800 was the first such contest between two candidates backed by political parties. That single election was the biggest disaster in the history of American politics, and the date it was ratified should be looked upon with contempt as the day on which the United States Constitution started down the long, dark road to complete irrelevance, to be followed or dismissed at the whim of those in power.

If patriotism wasn't the main prerequisite, then WHY did they omit term limits from the Executive? Many of the Framers understanding that a single executive often becomes tyrannical if left unchecked, and by remaining silent on the issue of term limits, they acquiesced to there being no term limit.

If patriotism wasn't the main prerequisite, then WHY did they spend the least amount of time on Article III? That ONE article, what could have been the LAST LINE BETWEEN DEMOCRACY AND TYRANNY, was written in such vague terms as to be interpreted in such a broad way as to be legally moot. The only broader portion of the Constitution is the Tenth Amendment, which the Supreme Court once declared added nothing to the Constitution since it was a restatement of the entire principles already contained within the seven Articles.

 

Hey, go for it, at least you will walk your talk

 

Because our women are.

We compete with each other to get the attention of the girls we chase until they receive so much that we are financially bankrupt as husbands who can not pay the big mortgages, meet the Charge Credits Cards from the department store, nor pay for the beautiful car in the driveway we thought would impress the girl who won't stop complaining and looking at younger, better looking more successful men as the bench mark we could not meet.

While she has managed to get a better job, and is talking to lawyers about her "half" of the assets she already has replacement offers which all sums to men being not so happy as they were in 1950, before the Sexual Revolution, which thought meant Free Sex, not Pay Later.

 

Yeah,...
Albania is the poorest country in Europe, not that it equates to unhappiness because their lives are still more 20th century than ever in the past, and most of happiness is just an absence of complaints, criticisms, and blaming people rather than being positive, as most men usually are, in spite they, unlike their wives, could live in a cave and be content if the criticism, blaming, and complaining was prohibited by the Sharia laws.

Nevertheless, the 5 nations which can't pay for t[all the free things that made the PIIGS so happy before now are almost half of the 12 Western European countries you claim are happier NOW.
That would 7 out of 12 so far, or 60% of them are still happier while they continue the same policies of the other 5.

Does that make sense to you, that they are headed for more happiness or less???

 

The reasoning was that the checks and balances on tyranny was to be found in the Legislature and the Court System.

The framers realized that finding a good man is difficult, but keeping him is very harder to do.
What they feared most was politics would become so profitable that competition between just two parties would allow one bad apple to be replaced by the next bad apple from a supposedly different Party, when they were all in the same party of Mammon.

 

Half of almost all deaths are due to Heart Disease, while the other half is due to Cancer.

These are the two end of life means by which we die.
It we found a cure for Cancer, the result would be death from heart attacks.

The ONLY barometer that has any meaning is Life Expectancy.
This tells us that the people who die either way, do it later than other people.

 

Except that, when both the legislature and the executive have the power to determine who sits in the judiciary with no respect for the jurist's competence on legal matters, the entire system's premise is perverted in an undemocratic way. In fact, there is a legal term for this concept, "conflict of interest".

So, in effect, what they feared, by the time the Constitution turned 100, had already occurred. Proves my entire thesis that the United States is undemocratic and would entirely benefit from a proportional representation system.

I'll put it in allegorical terms many people here can understand: buying a truck.

You know you need a truck with a manual transmission, a V8 engine, and an extended cab. What you haven't yet decided is whether you want to spend the extra money on the navigation system, the iPod dock, or the color.

With me, I have decided the best system is one based on a proportional-representation form of democracy with strict limits on the conduct of those elected, that would be the proverbial engine in the analogy I have constructed for you. Following along? Good.

I determined further that, the best way to maintain a steady growth is to have some form of limited socialistic features within the economy. For the poor, a workfare program aimed at public works, and for everyone else, a progressive tax system. If Marx got one thing right, it was that classic phrase "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Yet the motivation for that is not to establish Marxism, but to ensure that there is an adequate flow of money at all times. The rich pool money, which soon after, becomes stagnant. Stagnant money acts as a weight to the economy, hampering its ability to function. It works very similarly to hooking a large trailer up to your truck, the larger the trailer, the less responsive, agile, and powerful your truck seems.

What I have dismissed is the one-, two-party, three-, or four-party systems, because, as we have undeniably seen, the dichotomous nature thereof tends not just to a legislature with deep-set ideological differences, but to a system that soon acts as if there is only one party. George Orwell's Animal Farm is not just a good analogy to the history of communism, but of our own collective history since the end of the French and Indian War. We have traveled a road for two-plus centuries, only to end up in almost the same situation as we started. At least, this time, the revolution would be almost entirely peaceful, and but for some lunatics who ignore the fact that the future Constitution will retain the same principles as the one signed by the likes of Washington, Madison, and Morris, will occur without a shot being fired.

Furthermore, I have dismissed the notion of having a judiciary that is beholden to the whim of the politicians who determine the laws, instead, the laws must be adjudicated by those best equipped to determine whether a law is just or not. I figure the best way to do this is to have a judicial council made up of all the judges of the federal Circuit Courts and the justices of the Supreme Court to vet potential candidates for federal judgeships and then forward those recommendations to the President for his choice, which is limited only to those choices. For Supreme Court seats, the only eligible persons would be either from the Circuit Courts or from the State Supreme Courts provided they have been on that bench for at least five years. For Circuit Courts, the only eligible candidates would be those who have been District Court Judges for five years, or judges from a state court for at least ten. For District Courts, the eligibility would be for state court judges who have sat on the bench for five years, or lawyers who have practiced law for at least ten consecutive or fifteen non-consecutive years at any level. Furthermore, judges at any level should retire at seventy-five. Most of these regulations would, if enacted, prevent the appointment of justices like Elena Kagan, who only got on the Court because of favoritism. She, for example, invoked the Ginsburg Precedent during her confirmation hearings despite never having once issued an opinion as a judge, unlike Ginsburg herself, who had a sizable compendium of decisions the Senators could rely on to determine her judicial expertise.

Wow....um.....democracy is solely an invention of humans, other animals (even some humans, as it now seems) are incapable of understanding the concepts however social they are. Wolves have a hierarchical social organization, however, their organization is based upon a primitive structure where physical strength is dominant over mental acumen. Sheep are an example of weak-minded adherence to instinct.

Honestly, I wasn't going to respond to this idiotic comment, but I figured I'd point out the lunacy of your statement.

 

A true democracy enables the majority to ignore the rights or wishes of the minority. If you don't understand the analogy, I can't help you.

 

Again, happiness is a state of mind.

It reminds me of a story where they were interviewing married couples sex lives. They found that a couple could be having sex once a week, and think they have a great marriage. Then they found out another couple had sex twice a week, and then felt horrible about their sex lives. Equally, that couple found out another couple had sex ever other day, and felt horrible about only having sex twice a week.

Each couple were very happy with their lives. Then after being told someone else had something different, then they were unhappy.

Happiness is a state of mind. You can be dirt poor, and be very happy. You can be the top 1% wealthiest on Earth, and be suicidal. That's the truth. Did you know, that if you earn just $34,000 a year.... That is one married couple, both working at Wendy's, and you are the top 1% of wage earns on the planet?

Jonathan Wraith. Net worth around $46 Million dollars. Shot himself with a shotgun.
Huibert Boumeester. Salary of $700 Thousand a year. Shot himself with a shotgun.
Paul Castle. Multi-million dollar property tycoon, played polo with Prince Charles. Threw himself in front of a subway train.
Howard Worthington. Multi-millionarie Steel Industry tycoon. Shot himself with a shotgun.
ReiJane Huai. Data Storage company CEO. Shot himself with a pistol on the front lawn of his $2.5 Million dollar home.

What's my point?

My point is, wealth does not automatically equal happiness. Never has, never will. We could have the best economic system that has ever exist in the history of the entire human race. That does not mean everyone will be happy. Happiness is a state of mind.

Having a worse system will not result in happiness. The reason Americans are not happy, is very simple. Americans have become selfish, spoiled, arrogant, narcissistic brats. This country is the most wealthy, most advanced, most decadent society that has ever existed. The poorest people in our society, have a better, higher standard of living, than 90% of the people on this entire planet.

There is no excuse for people being unhappy, except they are simply, and completely, spoiled selfish brats. That's the reason. Pure and simple. We have raise a generation of entitlement driven, don't want to work for anything, brats, who think everyone owes them something because they are able to suck air. Well when you have that mentality, and then people don't give you everything you want, then you are unhappy, because your expectations of a bed-of-roses everything on a silver platter, is not being met.

When you read of the childhood of the people of the generation before, they had the exact opposite view, and they were happy. Read the autobiography of Alex Spanos, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Ronald Reagan. These people were handed nothing. They worked harder, and went through tougher things, than this current generation has ever known, yet those people have been very happy, and our generation is not.

Spoiled brats. That's the problem.

No, it's actually a fairly well established fact.

That factoid is not actually relevant to anything I said.