The Patriot Files Forums  

Go Back   The Patriot Files Forums > General > General Posts

Post New Thread  Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-24-2021, 02:47 PM
Senior Member

Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 9,080
Angry The Subversion of Truth


(personal opinions)

“Two wrongs never have made even a single right – and that is just the way that it is!!”

But if you listen to all of those talking-heads (and other politicians) out there, you have just got to believe that what they are saying is the absolute truth and that the other side of the aisle are naught but absolute, nation destroying liars and cheats?

“I, therefore, have to assume that one lie makes a person a prevaricator, two lies makes for debate, and three or more lies, make for the foundation of a political party?”

This is, of course, not the way that it should be, nor is it the way that “Our Founders” intended it to be! It is rather, just the way that “A Former President” once conceptualized “Our Gallant Founders”, when he erroneously referred to them as “Just a Mob of Terrorists?”

Well let me put it to you this way; “If Our Founders Were Indeed Just a Mob of Terrorists”, then Our Nation will always have a need for many more gallant and courageous terrorists –

“Just Like Them!”

sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 01-24-2021, 04:01 PM
Boats's Avatar
Boats Boats is online now
Senior Member

Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 17,366

The phrase 'no man is an island' expresses the idea that human beings do badly when isolated from others and need to be part of a community in order to thrive.


The phrase no man is an island means that no one is truly self-sufficient, everyone must rely on the company and comfort of others in order to thrive. ... The phrase is a quote from a sermon written by the poet John Donne.

Do you agree that no man is an island?

The human brain is wired to interact with other human beings and we need to do so to keep us healthy. ... In conclusion, yes, it is true, no man is an island. No one person can survive on their own. People should learn in their lifetime to accept help from others and not to isolate themselves, for their own good.

Many on the planet suffer from these points.


By: Frank Fahrendorf, IT Security Consultant -Answered February 3, 2020
Originally Answered: There is such a thing as the best government for the people?

I like to think that there is. It has been shown that the most prosperous societies are those that are the most economically and politically inclusive for as many people as possible. Ref: Read the book “Why Nations Fail”.

It basically means that a society that allows everybody access to resources for pursuing their economical undertaking and also allow everybody to influence politics are the most prosperous of all.

Now, this does NOT mean that a society should just give everybody all the money they want, to do whatever. Obviously, if the society can afford that then why not, but we do not have unlimited resources, so… No, “access” means that there are the same barriers for all. No preferential treats, no buddy networking. The playing field is level for all.

These two requirements

1. Economically inclusive & #2 Politically Inclusive

Both have far reaching implications. Taking today’s society then does a child in a rich family and a poor family have the same opportunity for building the skills necessary to participate fully in the economical and political life of a society? In most societies the answer is no. You can ask this same question on for example health and a whole host of different areas.

Let’s take one step back. When we talk about prosperity, we talk about a long term effect. Easily more than 30 years before we can say that the difference between two societies are due to intrinsic parameters of economical and political inclusion.

With that out of the way … If as many people as possible must be able to participate in political life then it is difficult to see how to avoid democracy and I’d even say a very open democracy.

With regards to the economical inclusion we run into a dilemma. If we all have the same access to all resources then it very much sounds like communism. It probably is. The problem with that is that we know it doesn’t work. We also know why it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because it removes the incentive for all of us to excel, simply because whenever one of us achieve something then we all achieve something. That sounds great, except that why would we want to work if we don’t get to profit from working harder than those who work less hard? Perhaps that can be mended somehow - I don’t know, but capitalism has shown itself to be remarkably succesful - to the extent that even China (which claim to be communist) has adopted quite a lot of capitalism in certain areas.

So, until we find something better, capitalism it is. Capitalism is best served when the money is put on where the “action” is. Just look at our notion of disruptive technologies. Wealthy people and corporations invest in ideas that can make money. It doesn’t matter what ideology a “creator” of a disruptive technology follows or what his or hers skin colour is. If it holds promise to make money then we want to invest in it.

This is where political inclusiveness comes in, because why not just steal the idea?! Well, that would certainly not be a very level playing field and it would certainly put, not just that inventor, but also others, of even trying - hence a societal economical loss.

Yes, political inclusiveness also means that we all protect each other.

So there you go. The best possible society is some kind of a very fair “rule of law” type of democracy that is as open (for men, women, black, red, yellow and blue people) as possible and where access to resources is as unhindered as possible.

Or in other words: EQUALITY.


Q: There is such a thing as the best government for the people?

Interesting question, and answers will be based only a poster's opinion of what works best.

So here is my opinion...based on the ever conflicting view of whether a government creates a society or the other way around. (I can argue both sides…)

IMO, the best governing system for "the people" depends entirely on what their society wants...meaning the "majority" of society, since there will never be total agreement among humans.
(IE, a government run by a minority is detrimental to any society, and normally devolves into a dictatorship...which never lasts. Average is 12.5 years.)

— A society in which majority members expect (and willingly) subjugate individual desires/wants/ambitions for the good of the community will feel most comfortable in a collective system.

Members will accept/create a paternal form of government, one that is given the power for and is expected to take care of members of society.
The individual may lose certain freedoms under such a government but willingly accepts that in exchange for order, continuity, and safety in their community.

It's a self-perpetuating system in that individualistic characteristics are discouraged by family and/or educational systems…or worse case, the individual is simply "disappeared"...leaving behind only members with the collective personality traits to populate the gene pool.

Americans are obsessed with perfection.

We implement zero-tolerance policies in our schools and businesses. We improve on the atomic clock with the quantum-logic clock that is twice as precise. We use multi-angle instant replay cameras in certain professional sporting contests to make sure the referees' calls are flawless. We spend millions on plastic surgery. We strive for higher fidelity, resolution, definition, everything.

Bookstore shelves sag with the works of people in search of the perfect birth, martini, pizza, golf swing, job, dress, financial plan, you name it.

Many famous Americans are famous for being perfectionists. Steve Jobs, for instance. "Jobs' father," writes biographer Walter Isaacson, taught young Steve "that a drive for perfection means caring about the craftsmanship even of the parts unseen. ... This passion for perfection led him to indulge his instinct to control."

Mythic football coach Vince Lombardi once said, "if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

Even the Founding Fathers sought flawlessness. The Preamble to our Constitution invokes the P-word: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union ..."

In a speech to the 1787 Convention that hammered out that Constitution, Benjamin Franklin broached the subject of national perfection. "I doubt ... whether any other Convention ... may be able to make a better constitution," he declared. "For, when you assemble a number of men, to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection."

Proto-American Franklin took perfectionism personally. In his 1791 autobiography, he writes of his own personal "bold and arduous project of arriving at moral perfection." He set out to "acquire the habitude" of 13 virtues, including order, frugality, sincerity and, yes, humility.

For our nation's heroes and our heroes' nation, perfection is not the state we live in, but it is the state we aspire to.

Successful Adaptation

Which may go a long way toward explaining our Byzantine political process — with its quirky caucuses, open and closed primaries, wacky ways of choosing candidates.

Perfection "doesn't exist in nature, in which small adaptations are occurring all the time in response to changing conditions," says Hara Estroff Marano, editor at large at Psychology Today and author of A Nation of Wimps. Systems that allow for error, she says, "produce novel changes ... innovation ... that then become the means of new, successful adaptation."

We tamper and tinker with political adaptations. Upstart group Americans Elect is planning to hold a national online primary "to nominate a presidential ticket that answers directly to voters — not the political system."

Jim Geraghty, a contributing editor at National Review and a Republican, writes in Roll Call that we should create a new primary calendar for 2016 that — unlike the present system — permits as many people as possible "to have a meaningful effect on the nominee selection process by voting."

He suggests that the nomination process for Republicans — and perhaps for Democrats — begin with less-populated states, which will have the fewest delegates, and work its "way up to the largest and most delegate-rich states. To prevent a prohibitively long and expensive 50-week primary, we would cluster the states into geographic groupings."

Some people want to fine-tune the process in other ways. In 2009, following the election of Barack Obama, the Democrats tinkered with their primary system. Leaders of the party voted to make several changes, CBS News reported, including the elimination of the so-called "unpledged superdelegates" who were not bound by the results of their states' primaries or caucuses.

Still other Americans believe the system is fundamentally sound. Susan Estrich, for instance, who was campaign manager for Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis in 1988. Now she is a Fox News commentator.

"Political scientists have spent decades explaining all the things that are wrong with this system," Estrich writes in a recent essay for Newsmax. "Folks like me, who helped craft this system (in my case, on the Democratic side), have written endlessly about the goals it was intended to serve — many of which, by the way, don't have much to do with picking the candidate most likely to win in the fall."

It is a system, she writes, "that is supposed to allow insurgents a fair chance; parties a chance to build; voters a chance to send a message; small states a say they wouldn't otherwise get. Agree or disagree, I think most students of the process, if we were starting from scratch, would never end up with it.

"But here's the truly amazing part. Time after time, it actually works."

Perceptions Of Perfection

Seeking perfection as a person or a nation is not wrong, says George Nethercutt, who was a Republican congressman from Washington state in the late 1990s. "But achieving perfection usually includes disappointments, setbacks that equal learning experiences and a fuller recognition of imperfections. Peoples and nations should strive to meet high standards that are self-imposed."

When we focus on perfection, says Nethercutt, who now leads the study group "Why Study America?" at Harvard University's Kennedy School Institute of Politics, we sometimes lose sight of the value of notions such as "improvement" and "overcoming obstacles."

Perceptions of perfection differ, Nethercutt says, particularly in a nation as broadly populated and diverse as the U.S. But, he hastens to add, that "doesn't mean we shouldn't have standards, both as a people and as a nation. Only then can we measure progress."

The forefathers set some pretty high standards. As Franklin foresaw, the union may already be perfect in its own quirky, clunky way. The challenge is to form an even more perfect union. The word "more" implies that perfection is plastic, pliable and in motion. In other words, perfect can still become more perfect.


In short we not perfect human beings. Far from it in most cases.
We tend to be skeptical of most everything in our lives. We learn
as we grow and encounter - the issues of the day. Again we all
don't agree - its human nature - individual thinking and as for
compromise - that takes us to another level. Here is the difficult
encounter in most political exchanges that we have to work out -
(no two think alike) - and - that's the human in all of us.


O Almighty Lord God, who neither slumberest nor sleepest; Protect and assist, we beseech thee, all those who at home or abroad, by land, by sea, or in the air, are serving this country, that they, being armed with thy defence, may be preserved evermore in all perils; and being filled with wisdom and girded with strength, may do their duty to thy honour and glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

sendpm.gif Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.