“We must stop thinking...”
The full quote is,
“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.”
- Hilary Clinton
To stop thinking, we need to evade reality. Then we can all agree that divining what is best for society can't be individually decided by all those people within society – For this would allow individuals voluntary choice to collaborate or not. No, such decisions would require some nebulous super group think mind that is more than willing to use any means necessary to achieve its glorious ends. It is then about effectively utilizing the psychological and physical tools of terror to compel mass sacrifice for the greater goodness of the social welfare, where more and more individuals in society would be continuously pulled down until the goals of fairness and equality are executed.
- back to thinking -
In this world village above who do you think would rule well above the rest?
Hint: Her initials are H.C.
“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.”
- Hilary Clinton
To stop thinking, we need to evade reality. Then we can all agree that divining what is best for society can't be individually decided by all those people within society – For this would allow individuals voluntary choice to collaborate or not. No, such decisions would require some nebulous super group think mind that is more than willing to use any means necessary to achieve its glorious ends. It is then about effectively utilizing the psychological and physical tools of terror to compel mass sacrifice for the greater goodness of the social welfare, where more and more individuals in society would be continuously pulled down until the goals of fairness and equality are executed.
- back to thinking -
In this world village above who do you think would rule well above the rest?
Hint: Her initials are H.C.
"Every individual... neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it... he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."
The Wealth Of Nations, Book IV, Chapter II, p. 456, para. 9.
Jan
Last night we were fortunate enough to get inlaws, steps, etc all together for a family gathering. Somebody asked me across the dinner table, "Who would you vote for?" Everybody stopped and listened... "At this time probably Rand Paul." The response was a unified, "Oh no! He's too radical!" I asked my step mom why he's too radical. "He's a man from Kentucky. He's a good-ole-boy." My dad, "I don't know what he said that was radical but I'll get back to you in a few weeks on that." My mother in law...more of the same blather. Nobody could point out what Paul said that gave them that conclusion. Nobody. I realized that, even among voters who are in the top 50-percentile we're pretty much doomed.
Then, they asked me who the GOP will put forward and I said (semi-sarcastically) "Probably a ticket with Jeb Bush and Chris Christie", and everybody laughed - except me. I think they'll do it.
Anyody got $100 burning a hole in your pocket?
As for stopping drugs from coming over the boarder is not a swap for believing in freedom of choice so long as it's not hurting anyone else. But I do believe West would make that a priority, closing the boarder...but I want to hear his plan for doing so, how, when, and by who will this get accomplished. Also, identity fraud arrests for illegals using ssn of Americans to ANY purpose. Deportations.
The candidate pool was contaminated last time..I made the same argument... which really boils down to the lesser of two evils...and I will not vote for the lesser of two evils every again. If they don't earn my vote, they don't get it.
Those who are so inclined [I'm SO avoiding "we ought"] should say this more, and louder, and defy anyone present to even make an argument that holds together against it.
Let's take it back to first principles, and make people discuss the issue THERE.
I sure hope the boat gets rocked quick like, it may be the only thing that can save us.
Besides, Hillary will lose in a debate. Her only hope is the young college kids, and they just don't know who she is other than, a) a woman, b) someone their parents liked.
But, the college kids are starting to shift as well.
I think Jeb/Christi will be suicide for the GOP.
Rand Paul is radical because the MSM told me so. What more does anyone need? :-)
Judge Judy for Pres and VP - 2016!!! "Ummm is not answer!"
Do I think she's electable? I hope that Benghazi is the proverbial noose around her neck, but there are enough who are willing to back her no matter what that I can't expect sanity or reason to prevail.
In addition, the current psychological state of the union is to reject new thoughts about government and its role in our lives.
Rand would have to single-handedly change this collective mindset.
It's not going to "take a village" ... It's going to "take a miracle".
-- Sylvester Stallone in "Oscar"
People go "Stallone? Comedy? not a chance!" and miss a fine time!
Fair enough. What's best for society is 1) Hillary is not elected President, and 2) we start thinking of the individual.
It's nice to be able to agree with Hillary for once. :-)
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/ri...
I know it's considered distasteful to call your ideological opponent a Nazi, but if it looks like a duck (well, it looks like the illustrations Mary GrandPré did of Dolores Umbridge in the Potter books and the similarity doesn't stop there, but that's beside the point,) and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
"COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD
#25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.
The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.
The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives."
Her just-released book has been a sales disaster, and the media coverage hasn't exactly been enthusiastic. Simon & Schuster shipped over 1M copies, but only 60K sold the first week (well below the 150K they were counting on).
Terry Gross of NPR's Fresh Air tried repeatedly tried to pin Clinton down on her ever-changing position on gay marriage.
The public didn't stand in line to buy her book, and NPR wasn't playing nice in an interview.
Maybe I'm being a bit naive, but I just don't think the public is all that much enamored with her.
It would be very exciting to have her facting of with Rand Paul. But I doubt that the GOP is together enough to make a clear and clean choice. They will likely come out with some other fossil or a modern businessman deeply in bed with government. I swear that the last couple of elections they really had no interest in winning.
The problem for Warren is that she is a nobody politically. She's never been a politician. Never had to campaign or debate. She's an academic that has spent her time hiding behind her false status as a minority. I'm betting that putting her in the limelight would make her melt faster than the Wicked Witch of the West after Dorothy threw a bucket of water on her.