|
|
|
|
|
| OPRAH FOR PRESIDENT
Posted: 10/6/2005 3:51:42 AM | Nah child, let me enlighten you. If you want examples of being anal or overly sensitive, look at messages 27,29 and 56. | |
|
| OPRAH FOR PRESIDENT
Posted: 10/6/2005 4:07:35 AM | ^Great original material.
Have a great day. You'll have to find someone else to take your personal frustrations out on.
Hang in there. | |
|
| OPRAH FOR PRESIDENT
Posted: 10/6/2005 4:10:42 AM | | ^ That's the best you can do after 20 minutes? Good luck to you, my Oprah lackey! You go, girl! | |
|
| OPRAH FOR PRESIDENT
Posted: 10/6/2005 6:45:23 PM | If you want examples of being anal or overly sensitive, look at messages 27,29 and 56
I would have said it, but thank you.
| |
|
| |
| OPRAH FOR PRESIDENT
Posted: 10/6/2005 8:28:30 PM |
If you want examples of being anal or overly sensitive, look at messages 27,29 and 56
I would have said it, but thank you. Typical. | |
|
| OPRAH FOR PRESIDENT
Posted: 10/6/2005 9:35:57 PM | | In all fairness to Oprah, she deserves more respect than the like of Maury Povich in my humble opinion. I don't particularly like what she has to say about anything but as far as her program is concerned it's the only class act out there. | |
|
| OPRAH FOR PRESIDENT
Posted: 10/6/2005 10:02:43 PM | OK, I started this thread this way because I knew it would make people THINK. I really do respect this woman, but I don't think she has any politics motives. I just think this is is a good way to think about how 'we' think.
dallasguy99 (I like to pick on him cuz he's a tough but good guy who often 'disagrees' with me),
Is there a woman you know of (besides me ;) haha ) who would make a great leader?
Wonderin? | |
|
| OPRAH FOR PRESIDENT
Posted: 10/6/2005 10:03:05 PM | | aaaaah ..............................no better yet he** no | |
|
| OPRAH FOR PRESIDENT
Posted: 10/6/2005 10:42:56 PM | Here is another idea... (and maybe a much BETTER idea...?)
10 CORE IDEAS OF THE GREEN PARTY
*Grassroots Democracy
Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives; no one should be subject to the will of another. Therefore we will work to increase public participation at every level of government and to ensure that our public representatives are fully accountable to the people who elect them. We will also work to create new types of political organizations that expand the process of participatory democracy by directly including citizens in the decision-making process.
*Ecological Wisdom
Human societies must operate with the understanding that we are part of nature, not separate from nature. We must maintain an ecological balance and live within the ecological and resource limits of our communities and our planet. We support a sustainable society that utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will benefit and not suffer from the practices of our generation. To this end we must have agricultural practices that replenish the soil; move to an energy efficient economy; and live in ways that respect the integrity of natural systems.
*Social Justice and Equal Opportunity
All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment. We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and heterosexism, ageism and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law.
*Nonviolence
It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to our current patterns of violence at all levels, from the family and the streets, to nations and the world. We will work to demilitarize our society and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments. We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations. We promote nonviolent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and global peace.
*Decentralization
Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system that is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.
*Community Based Economics
We recognize it is essential to create a vibrant and sustainable economic system, one that can create jobs and provide a decent standard of living, for all people, while maintaining a healthy ecological balance. A successful economic system will offer meaningful work with dignity, while paying a "living wage" which reflects the real value of a person's work. Local communities must look to economic development that assures protection of the environment and workers' rights, broad citizen participation in planning, and enhancement of our "quality of life". We support independently owned and operated companies which are socially responsible, as well as co-operatives and public enterprises that spread out resources and control to more people through democratic participation.
*Feminism
We have inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics. We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control, with more cooperative ways of interacting which respect differences of opinion and gender. Human values such as equity between the -sexes, interpersonal responsibility, and honesty must be developed with moral conscience. We should remember that the process that determines our decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want.
*Respect for Diversity
We believe it is important to value cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious and spiritual diversity, and to promote the development of respectful relationships across these lines. We believe the many diverse elements of society should be reflected in our organizations and decision-making bodies, and we support the leadership of people who have been traditionally closed out of leadership roles. We acknowledge and encourage respect for other life forms and the preservation of biodiversity.
*Personal and Global responsibility
We encourage individuals to act to improve their personal well being and, at the same time, to enhance ecological balance and social harmony. We seek to join with people and organizations around the world to foster peace, economic justice, and the health of the planet.
*Future Focus and Sustainability
Our actions and policies should be motivated by long-term goals. We seek to protect valuable natural resources, safely disposing of or "unmaking" all waste we create, while developing a sustainable economics that does not depend on continual expansion for survival. We must counter-balance the drive for short-term profits by assuring that economic development, new technologies, and fiscal policies are responsible to future generations who will inherit the results of our actions. Our overall goal is not merely to survive, but to share lives that are truly worth living. We believe the quality of our individual lives is enriched by the quality of all of our lives. We encourage everyone to see the dignity and intrinsic worth in all of life, and to take the time to understand and appreciate themselves, their community and the magnificent beauty of this world.
http://www.greenparty.org/ | |
|
| OPRAH FOR PRESIDENT
Posted: 10/6/2005 10:48:20 PM | Besides you? hmm... Here is a short list, sure there are more:
Michaelle Jean (Canada), Luisa Diogo (Mozambique), Dame Silvia Cartwright of New Zealand, Mary McAlease (Ireland), Chandricka Kumaratunga (Sri Lanka), Christine Todd Whitman, Marsha Blackburn of Mississippi, Katherine Harris from Florida, Jennifer Dunn from WA, Deborah Pryce of Ohio, and Kay Granger from TX.
These are good leaders in my opinion. All women. I am sure I left out a few, but these certainly stand out. And the lovely Dharma.
Oprah... eh. Think she should be chairman and CEO of Pillsbury or Pepperidge Farm.
Or both.
| |
|
| |
| OPRAH FOR PRESIDENT
Posted: 10/6/2005 11:28:17 PM | | Green Party just lost my vote. Way too pie in the sky. I can already hear the kumbaya chant.... | |
|
| OPRAH FOR PRESIDENT
Posted: 10/6/2005 11:48:56 PM | | Gotapulse (or anyone else, for that matter): And why do you disagree? What about that ethic bothers you? And WHY? I am not talking about what 'can win' until enough people believe this is a good ethic. What about the values do you think are 'wrong,' if any. Then, I'll discuss. | |
|
| OPRAH FOR PRESIDENT
Posted: 10/7/2005 1:25:00 AM | Okay, we'll go through the list:
Grassroots democracy: Huh ? As it stands this is precisely what we have. You vote or you don't vote. Are we talking about constant plebiscites here ? We could use more I suppose but as rule, no. That's the path to zero change. People aren't going to vote for things they don't like. Consider gay marriage. If it had been put to a vote here in Canada, it never would have passed. Poll after poll reflected this. Gay unions yes...marriage no. Capital punishment ? When Canada abolished this back in the mid seventies (I believe, or it could have been a few years before that) only twenty five percent of people were in favor of its abolishment. Even now over thirty years later it's still split about fifty fifty. Either way, you can't guarantee majority rule if everybody gets their wish simply because you can't please everyone ergo you can vote or you can choose not to vote. Frankly, I see alot of double-speak and fluff there and nothing much concrete.
Ecological wisdom: No problems with this one at all. All for it really. Moving along though...
Social Justice and Equal Opportunity : This one sets off alarm bells. Having just come out of an insane social experiment with political correctness and programs designed to guarantee equal outcomes (as opposed to equal opportunities) I am more than just a little suspicious of any organization that feels there is a dire need to push us back along this path even further. That's the first reason these guys get an automatic pass as far as I'm concerned. I fear the same overzealous pursuit of ambiguous goals here as we were subjected to in the past decade.
Non-violence: Too complicated to get into but basically, here in Canada we don't have any weapons of mass destruction. Slingshots are practically illegal up here. Come to think of it, yeah, they are actually depending on their capability. In the US ? You definitely can't afford to get rid of your nuclear arms.
That aside, how precisely do they plan on getting us all to sit around a campfire singing songs instead of blowing each others' brains out ? More social programs of course. I'm assuming that this is the US platform I'm looking at here but even so, I can tell you that if their goal is to achieve crime rates on par with Canada, it's going to cost you guys a fortune. You can't afford it. Sorry, it would pretty much bankrupt the US if it was ever attempted to be implemented. You could do it if you weren't a superpower and your society was more like say, that of Canada or Europe but I can guarantee you that the majority of Americans would NEVER go for this. Sorry, just not feasible if you want to stay on top of the world (which is the point by the way. Those in charge are not going to let it go this easily)
Decentralization: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ....they just described Soviet-style communism perfectly. Not the style that was practiced of course...just the one that was promised. A)It doesn't work and that much has been proven already through the collapse of the USSR and China's rejigging to become a capitalistic society.
B)This is the exact OPPOSITE of decentralization. They are talking about central planning here. They nationalize the industries and redistribute the jobs and wealth to the masses. Eventually, thanks to human nature, an upper class (powerful) re-emerges anyway. That's what happened every other time this was tried.
C)It's basically theft. Do they plan to buy up every industry in the US through party funds here ? Not likely. So how else could they possibly take the wealth from the rich and redistribute it to the poor ? Ask them nicely ? Ha ha ha ha ha ha....not a chance. Couldn't be done unless they were given a mandate from the voting public to do so...which would still make it state sanctioned theft of course...it would just be called nationalization of industry.
D)Lastly, the part about reducing the bureaucracy. Okay, now this is just laughable. So on the one hand they talk about decentralizing society (somehow...?) yet at the same time claim that while doing this the machine that runs all of this would be reduced. Well, since they've described central planning to a tee here, how could they possibly reduce the bureaucracy that makes it all work ? In the US you already have a fairly lean bureaucracy all things considered. The next step down would be quasi-anarchy.
Not to mention that this part basically sounds alot like hippie talk frankly. How is it that centralization destroys the environment exactly ? I'd like to see the direct line between these two (although I'm sure it could be drawn that's not the same thing as saying it's actually the case)
Community Economics : I'm not sure what that was supposed to mean to be honest. I guess it sounds alright although I have no idea what they're actually talking about or (more importantly) how they plan on achieving this stuff without hiking taxes through the roof and destroying the economy in the process. Kinda fluffy there again.
Feminism: Okay, this one is the biggest red flag there could be. Feminism in its modern form may be great to women but frankly, the version that's been put forward in the past twenty years is starting to show some seriously bad side effects especially for males. Few women (although the number of anti-feminist women is higher than I would have thought and rising) see anything wrong with modern feminism. Men on the other hand are steadily building a solid case against it and every day their numbers are growing. Not going to get into a discussion or debate on this one but rest assured, putting that in there is pretty much the nail in the coffin for this party's chances of ever actually getting any major numbers.
Geez...this whole platform looks like it was drawn up over a hooka session during frosh week, but anyway...
Respect for Diversity : Fluff again. Unless these guys plan on tying people to chairs and force feeding them hour after hour of PC film classics like "Sexual Harassment....are you a Victim or a Perpetrator?" and "Don't Say Black ! Shhhhh....you might offend someone" (even if the viewers are black) until their heads explode, things are going to have to keep going at the rate they are.
Personal and Global Responsibility: Sure. Sounds nice.
Future Focus and Sustainability: This is just about the only part of this whole thing that has any real value as far as this platform goes. More of a mission statement than anything but as those go, this one isn't so bad. The first part makes plenty of sense and I would agree to it in its entirety. The second part is a little too flaky for my tastes but sure...s'alright I suppose.
Okay, so anyway, you asked for this remember that. Sorry to be such a cynic about this but actually, until you challenged me to actually critique this I never realized just how out of touch these guys actually were. This stuff looks like it came straight off the university press and should have a picture of Che Guevera on the cover page or something. Up until now I actually considered these guys because I assumed they actually had a definite and practical goal (caring for the environment without destroying society) and were concentrating on that. THIS stuff makes me think of 1984 if it were ever to be put in practice.
Seriously, I'm sorry but this just looks downright flaky to me. They're kind of scary now. | |
|
| OPRAH FOR PRESIDENT
Posted: 10/7/2005 2:42:49 AM | Oh, and anyway....
this stuff is all nice and all but apart from the fact that it is pretty much completely vague and unworkable even in a polished form (as demonstrated through historical experience) it's also at odds with human nature. Basically, we don't all want to sit around holding hands and pretending we love each other dearly and that's all we could ever want. Sadly but truly there are those that want power. Not only that, MOST people want power over something or someone. This platform (for lack of a better word since I'm not sure what this actually is by the way) completely ignores that. Humans aren't naturally equal minded despite what some people so desperately want to believe. Our natural tendency is toward hierarchies where the most powerful take the top spot. Part of the reason communism on paper doesn't work in practice is because of this very fundamental truth. People will jockey for control of anything that one could think of. Sure, YOU may not but billions would. Truth be told, I'd hate to live in a world with no opportunity to control something...particularly my own destiny. This takes that away because it assigns me :
-standard job
-standard house
-standard education
-standard...well you name it.
It's a one size fits all regimen based on what I've just read. And it assumes that I would be satisfied with what they perceive to be the loftiest goals of peace and harmony and blah blah blah. That appears to be the plan. In fact, this is identical to Soviet style communism with the slight twist that it favours the environment.
If this were ever somehow implemented we'd all end up being commune loving, folk song singing, patchouli oil wearing drones.
Not for me thanks. | |
|
| OPRAH FOR PRESIDENT
Posted: 10/10/2005 8:23:25 AM | | No really Tinman, if you don't stop yelling they'll suspend you at the least. This is all right there in the rules. Just FYI. | |
|
| OPRAH FOR PRESIDENT
Posted: 10/10/2005 9:09:36 PM | Too late. Look for him tomorrow. In the meantime: Don't feed it, report it 
Back to your regularly scheduled programming. | |
|
| OPRAH FOR PRESIDENT
Posted: 10/11/2005 12:48:43 AM |
Back to your regularly scheduled programming.
As long as it's not that dang Orca show! | |
|
| OPRAH FOR PRESIDENT
Posted: 10/11/2005 10:55:31 AM | | I don't think Oprah could handle working for less money, since she's used to a grander lifestyle. Talk about a pay cut. | |
|
| OPRAH FOR PRESIDENT
Posted: 10/11/2005 1:31:36 PM | | I can sum that book up in one word. Communism. | |
|
| OPRAH FOR PRESIDENT
Posted: 10/13/2005 2:54:31 AM | I meant to reply earlier to the 'green party' response... I posted the very general ideals... but nothing specific. I respect the thoughtful response that got... thank goodness someone is THINKING! That gave me lots of faith in people thinking, though.
I think my source of info was a bad source. MY fault. The Green party should not be represented by what I posted. Sorry about that. Part of what they are is meant to be representing what is local, so in many ways Greens are more a local government party in the US... they are something different in the rest of the world...
I don't know what 'communism' means. HONESTLY. Someone, explain. Define 'democracy,' too, while at that, if you can.
I am reading (as I post this, so I don't know my opinion on what this is, but I KNOW it is something I want to read)... http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20040323.htm | |
|
| OPRAH FOR PRESIDENT
Posted: 10/13/2005 3:46:32 AM | Daddio63, Hit the nail on the Head. And for the unitiated this is how it works. The democrates
(to use an american football analogy) are the Blockers for the rich. They put up regulation after regulation to keep competition from rising up against the currently wealthy and the republicans are the offense for the wealthy. When the rich have both the receivers & the defenders on their side, that will eventually leave the people utterly defeated. Now we have a situation where Billions upon Billions of dollars are being spent to kill people in a foreign land & the people in this country are resentful of any help to upleft the poor who are in this country. On face value, it appears that our governmental policy is only to spend or take away resources to help upon the destruction of human lives. | |
|
| OPRAH FOR PRESIDENT
Posted: 10/13/2005 3:55:32 AM | I don't know much about 'football,' but I still got enough to know to say, bless you. There are many things that are messed up. (Also many good things... when I talk about bad things... I don't mean to minimize the very good!... I want to make the bad, not bad.)
J. ;) | |
|
| OPRAH FOR PRESIDENT
Posted: 10/14/2005 2:36:22 PM | Communism is an idea whereby everybody is equal. Well, that's the idea anyway. Everybody shares and we all get along. Unfortunately it also conflicts with human nature.
Some work harder than others but get the same benefit as they do. Some want to push the envelope but communism in practice constrains this because it necessarily threatens the status quo. Essentially you subjugate yourself to the state (or as they like to think of it "the people") and accept the lot it deals you. It's very idealistic in theory and rather laudable. I suppose somebody had to try it.
To illustrate the point of its drawbacks though, consider the nationalization of industry. What that means (although I'm sure you know already but just in case) is that the state takes control of corporations and businesses. Whatever profits they make become public property essentially. Sounds good so far of course. The problem with this idea is that nobody has a vested interest in making it efficient and profitable. As well, since the state is the one running the show, an element of bureaucracy is introduced that adds to the cost of running whatever industry we're talking about here. This means red-tape and inefficiency. Got a good idea to make things run better ? Submit your proposal and watch it get lost in the mess of politics and power struggles being fought over the industry in question. Add to this the fact that the state rations the resources and doles them out based on tables. This is why you may remember hearing so much about how people would have to stand in lines two-blocks long to get basic essentials. Command economy right there. The state decides what the masses need not the individual. Want to move ? Put in a request and in a couple of years you'll get your answer. Want a new job ? Too bad, you're needed in the toilet plunging industry.
Now, as it pertains to the individual specifically, communism is stability. Stability so rigidly enforced that it paralyzes society. Nothing is allowed to threaten the status quo because there is no allowance for such things in communist doctrine. It assumes a static social body and mode of thought are best for the people. There is something to this but it's not realistic. The world is always changing and with it are attitudes.
This could go on but essentially what you get is your life planned for you. Furthermore, you can't do anything about it because you would therefore be undermining the system and that makes you a threat to it. Your freedom is removed as a byproduct of this idealism. Nobody actually thought of this back when this was first thought up because they had no freedom in the first place. Tsarist Russia was the last hold-out in what we call the feudal system so naturally this idea was a real hit with the masses. Marx never thought this whole thing through really. Yes, in his ideal world, everybody gets equality. They get an education, a home, and whatever else is needed to take care of their basic requirements. What he never factored in was what would happen when this was all achieved. What actually happens when everybody is educated and on an equal footing ? Well, that's when the power struggles begin. The old powers are simply wiped clean and those that wanted it before but had no way to gain it now have the opportunity that was denied to their ancestors. That's the human nature part of it that I mentioned in the Green Party critique. We're hierarchical creatures and as long as even one of us wants to exercise his or her ability to lead, he or she will find followers. That's why communism implies a police state. That's the only way to make sure that nobody gets more power than they could use to upset the order. The way it has to be.
Anyway, Dharma, that's communism. Hope that helps. | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 6
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Home
login 
