Jessy wrote: My goodness Ron, may I suggest an anger management program?

You condescend to me when you can't even get my name right? I don't have an anger problem. That's a woman for you. Presume, presume, presume...wrong, wrong, wrong. Ever since Eve! She *presumed* that it was okay to eat apples...then soon knocked up. We all know the rest. Seven billion of us now! The apple-eating has never stopped.

Anger management program. I can go you one better, Jessy. You know those machines that scan heads? MRI? There's something in there needs looked at, I figure. Maybe bat in the belfry? Shrug. Dunno. They might find one. :)
TheLadyL wrote: Ron, enjoy, and rant.
Life is short, so rant on !
Laurie


Thank you, Laurie. Now there's a lady. Who also reads 'd' as 'n', but so what. I don't care! Just don't call me Rob; because that's our mayor and he's a cocaine-snorting, booze-swilling obese idiot Toronto clown. Ron is better. :)

Fact is...any gal who likes to read a good rant gets me smiling. You've ranted a bit yourself, I know. And you had me thinking...right on, Laurie! I find myself agreeing with most of what you say. Pretty good head and big heart in you, it seems. Concerned about the Republic. Warranted. Hug back.
stardaisy wrote: Does hate bring on war?


War is part of the political system that I have condemned in this thread. It could be eliminated with a move to a new system. The one I've described; no leaders; we all have equal say and equal power. But the pyramid system - think back to ancient Egypt, forever at war with its neighbours, conquering people and enslaving them - promotes war; empire. And it takes only one twit or psychopath at the top - Hitler is a good example - to say: we're going to war. And so there is war. There is also tons of money to be made, by the military-industrial complex. The arms manufacturers love war. Big money in it! Here's a stat that stunned me. In the U.S., there are about six billion bullets manufactured every year; and many of them are big bullets, not small ones. As in about two-thirds of a foot long.

Every time a bomb is dropped, every time a missile is fired, somebody makes some money. (Actually before it's dropped or fired. But then they need to buy another one, to replace it.)

Money and our dysfunctional system of government create war. Much more than hatred does. Racism helps. Wars waste enormous resources, and their only product is death, destruction and misery. I say no good ever comes from them. I could also say lies create wars. Spanish-American war...World War Two...Vietnam...Iraq...(just part of a long list)...they all started with lies. And mob mentality. Or a mix of many crazy things. Fanaticism. Leader has no brain to speak of.

I'm totally anti-war. But I believe the only way to stop it is move to a new system. Then, I'm convinced, other countries would also move to a system they'd soon envy; and war would finally become a thing of the past. If the common man had a say, there'd likely be no wars. The problem is: they don't have a say. Only governments - a relatively few people - have the say. And they seldom care what the common man thinks. That's why that system has to go.
"War is part of the political system that I have condemned in this thread. It could be eliminated with a move to a new system. The one I've described; no leaders; we all have equal say and equal power."

Once upon a time, I was a member of a food co-op in Toronto which was run on the principles you describe. It was on the verge of collapse, and why? Becausse nobody was in charge, and nobody had the authority to make the necessary decisions, and set priorities. Every time somebody actually came up with a sensible suggestion, it was talked to death.

It survived because a few of us took charge, instituted rules of order so that decisions could be made and implemented. It's still in business, forty-odd years later.

That experience confirmed what I had always known; that a system such as you propose is sheer lunacy. If a small roomful of people couldn't run a part-time business under that system, What hope would there be that a country run on your principles could survive?

By the way, what you're proposing is not in any way original. The theory even has a name. It's called anarchy,
Now Rod...
With a D....
Not Ron....
With a N.........
Thank you for your kind comments....
But remember to rant without clear thought or a good subject....well just makes you ummmmmmmm "government".....LOL
griffith7x57 wrote: a food co-op in Toronto...on the verge of collapse...because nobody was in charge


Yeah, well, what in Toronto does run properly? I'm always amazed when something does. Toronto is the most pathetic city in Canada, and Ontario is the most pathetic province. I say that having lived many places. Just because that group squabbled away their time...or were so into egos that nothing could gt agreed on...I know ego is huge in Toronto (despite they're mostly adolescent children)...and really self-centred...Toronto people tend to be really 'me me me', so if I don't get my way, I'm outta here...waaa...I can see it. Oh yes. It's not even a reasonable response to the system I've proposed. Adults don't need daddy or mommy to tell them what to do. But adolescents do. And Toronto is mostly adult adolescents. I've lived here long enough to know. To mean a true grown-up here...I'm generally shocked. Most of them are from Europe; not even born in Canada. Then I can have a pleasant conversation. Why am I here. I should be in Europe. Then I could seeing adults I figure should wear Pampers.

System I've proposed: we all have a vote...which would constitute a decision...it would work. Because nothing could stop it from working! The idea is a collective decision-making process, which is people get to shut their mouths...(generally always in operation more than ears)...and just VOTE, on some issue...yes/no, or one of a few options. That's way different than Barry at the food co-op can't agree that the soup cans belong on shelf 4. And blah blah blah blah, debating where they should go. Or whatever the issues were. Better if people had just shut their mouths and gotten the work that needed done, done, right? But meetings...we gotta sit around the table and B.S. for four hours. That's really effective at getting things done; not. May as well just set the food out on the street. If you have any.

My system would work. And work well. It couldn't not work. You're talking about committees...lets hack issue X to death and get so bored, some people are falling asleep. Yeah, been there! I know about those. Small wonder I always hated meetings. In general, not much gets accomplished. I always thought, in meetings: here we go again, more wasted time. I'd like to back to work, actually. But meetings are important so people can display their egos. The ego show. Jolly good!

Should Canada support Israel? There is a simple YES/no question. Currently it gets answered for us, by the government - a *few* people get to say - YES - but that's the wrong answer, in my opinion. Majority need educated, if not a wack to the head. My idea is sound. By talking about that pathetic food co-op, that didn't run well, presumably because people couldn't get their brains together so they needed Daddy to tell them what to do....(my eyes are rolling).... It is not the same thing as what I've talked about, at all. Not even close. Your example is ridiculous, in fact.

I'm not talking about people sitting around spending their time 'blah blah blah'. People love to run mouths, yes? I sure do. But system I'm talking about: everybody shuts their mouth. And just VOTES. They can do all the 'blah blah' with their friends. How are you gonna? Oh, I'm gonna be dense and vote the wrong way. :)

But if we voted only on ISSUES - mind: that's not discussion, there would likely be many discussions ongoing, in many forums, leading up to a vote (but not always) - instead for whichever humanoid seems to be the most human. Better. But let me tell you: most politicians are orangutans who knows how to wear suits, kiss babies, take bribes, misuse public funds, snort cocaine, swill booze, think dumb, knock street cars when they're obese as hell and hardly ever walk, sell out the country, flush a billion dollars down the toilet, etcetera.

Food co-op management and voting on issues: very different! Shut your mouth and vote YES or NO. And everyone who is a citizen gets to vote. But not kids, they have yet to develop brains, which is why we restrict them. Anyone could propose issues, to vote on. Same as a poll system. They get pushed before our faces all the time. But htey have no effect. Doesn't matter what the public; government does what it wants to do.

There's virtually always a clear majority view in polls. There wouldn't be any "it's on the verge of collapse, for lack of majority view". Every poll I've ever seen, one side or another wins. Clear outcome. Sometimes close, but more often a distinct swing, one way or the other. Not every question could be answered with YES or NO. So give multiple choice.

And that would become a formal vote, instead of just poll, with millions of people able to click on the answer they like most. And then binding on civil service, to implement as policy. Question: Should we euthanize politicians, for example? But there'd be no need, once they were out.

It's not like genius Toronto-ites can even elect a proper mayor, hey? We know that. What did we get? Bozo the boozehound. But that's the fundamental problem with the elect-a-dimwit clown system. Duh disappears once you have not somebody can run their mouth and make themselves sound good - rather than telling the truth (to wit: I'm a dishonest beer-swilling coke-snorting rich man's son who will be forever an adolescent, but I can run the biggest city in Canada, yes!)

They had to tear off Rob's fairy wings, he was bad. Yes? He's basically powerless now. The problem isn't Rob Ford; it's the brainless system that let him become mayor, when he really should have stuck to playing football without a helmet, and making labels, like his daddy did.

All the problems are avoided - they go away - in the system I want. With majority will always prevailing and solid protection for minorities...there are no problems unsolvable then. The cost? Minimal. Almost nothing. Photons flowing through fibre optics. Instead of ignorant clowns with big pay-cheques. What is government (be it municipal, provincial or federal)? Basically incompetence.

The guy who recently messed up several B.C. lakes..he has personal assets of roughly $2.2 billion. But he could not afford to make sure his huge mine tailings pond didn't release it's heavy-metals-laden water and sand into nearby lakes, rivers and creeks. B.C. government warned Imperial Metals repeatedly. Lots of letters sent. Huff, huff. No action, though. So it happened. You name the heavy metal, it's there.

A poll system - vote on issues only - the public could vote to shut that company down, and even vote to seize some of that fat cat's whopping assets to clean things up, even make him get out there with a shovel, and it could all get done fast. Orders from the public to the civil servant (which would basically remain intact, except they would take direction from the public): act. Today. There'd likely be more people out surveying, what's wrong, to present as issues, and bad would start rapidly going away. Result: better country. You want to paint it as a country that would collapse. No. The opposite would be the case. You support a system that lets a billionaire be irresponsible and harm the environment. (As just one little example.)

I've been unimpressed with Toronto as long as I've lived here, which is too long. (Free feel to add, obviously.)

...more to respond to
"Nuts"
Beginning of comment.


"Who knows the what evil lurks in the hearts of men?"
The Shadow Knows..........
I have read your rants, and hope the blood is flowing, the sinus is clear, and your food is digested.


"Nuts"
End of comment.
:)
Laurie
griffith7x57 wrote: Every time somebody actually came up with a sensible suggestion, it was talked to death.


But in a shut yap, vote system...nothing gets talked to death! And sensibile suggestions would tend to prevail. With the public in charge - all of us - instead of few bozos (because that's all I see in government)...any country would run better. Unless you assume everyone's stupid. That is often my assumption; but I know it's wrong. Except in Toronto. :)

griffith7x57 wrote: and nobody had the authority to make the necessary decisions, and set priorities.


Right. Daddy and Mommy weren't there, to tell their children what to do. How sad that story! It almost has me crying.

griffith7x57 wrote: It survived because a few of us took charge, instituted rules of order so that decisions could be made and implemented.


Well then take charge of me then, and get this thread working properly. You sound like a can-do kinda guy. Rules of order in the big sense is law. The rules exist. Far too many, even. And despite we're already drowning in law, what is the business of GOMMENT? Make even more laws...so some day it will be an offence to even burp.

You know what my response to that system is? It's time to break wind. Rules of order used to be known as common sense. Since it's so rare now that it ought to be called uncommon sense...owing to the feudal system we live under doesn't like common sense - that means people think for themselves (no good in a feudal system)...it might take a while for people to stop being bleating sheep - ba-a-a-a-a - and start thinking again.

My proposed system *is* a decision system; inherently. So you could never fault it for indecisiveness, the way a pathetic group had their little co-op. They obviously *weren't* cooperating, and I know how that happens. Too much ego, not enough sense. Or...born in Toronto. Amounts to the same.

I wasn't born here. Can you tell? :)

griffith7x57 wrote: a system such as you propose is sheer lunacy.


Your argument against me has all the weight of a butterfly's wing.

griffith7x57 wrote: What hope would there be that a country run on your principles could survive?


Hey, Canada won't survive much longer, the way things are going. We have a Prime Minister - so-called - who seems to be very intent on turning us into just another U.S. state. He's working hard at destroying the socialistic elements in Canada that have long made a better country than the U.S.A. (Where inequality has reached terrible proportions. Dimwit U.S.A. can't even get their act together in terms of medical care. They make it sound another Manhatten Project. Dear me, it's gonna take a lotta scientists to figure this tough medical stuff out. Groan.)

Harper is working hard at destroying the formerly stable climate system, too. So the U.S. will in only a couple of decades be so hot, summer-times (Death Valley temperatures, 45+C) (that's predicted by the climate computers by 2040) that there will probably end up being more Americans than Canadians living in Canada, within just two or three decades. Why drop dead from the heat when you can move north? And so what if Canadians don't like it? Americans tend to not knock, they just boot in the door.

Currently, our federal government seems intent on destroying Canada. In various ways. And a lot of people know it. It's not just my opinion. This clown Harper has set a record for outraging the people he's supposed to serve.

So my proposed solution is ditch that stupid system; where we vote for Duh; dump it; abandon it. Flushit. It's fit for the dumpster/toilet. It does not work. It inhibits progress. We're sliding back, in fact. Harper is the Canadian Taliban, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe you're happy with voting for people, but my reading of public opinion on government is: it's at an all-time low, in opinion, both in Canada and in the United States. Fewer and fewer people have any faith in government. The proper solution is abandon that form of it. It's from the time of Pharaohs. Archaic. And as I've said, it's great at creating war. As well as poverty, inequality. It has a long list of sins. I say my system would be the ultimate in fairness. No fairer system could exist. Nor any cheaper and more efficient. More capable of solving problems.

griffith7x57 wrote: anarchy


There is nothing wrong with anarchy. The word doesn't mean or imply chaos. Not at all. It just means no leaders. Little groups are free to have their leaders. I don't object to it across the board. But in terms of government at any level, it stinks bad. Much better to be governed by principles, rather than by people.

People do generally a horrid job of leading. Toronto has a crap mayor. Canada has a crap Prime Minister; about the worst in Canadian history. But laws and principles: those are excellent guidances. Public will: likewise. The two need combined, obviously. Just replace the top with public will: better. Nothing falls apart if you take away the bozos. It would just mean bozo-free government. What a relief.

Who makes the decisions then? We all do. Maybe exclude Toronto; they can't vote on issues; too many stupid people. :)

In our current system, laws are routinely broken with impunity, because the high-and-mighty are above the law. Which is foul, but that's how things are. George Bush Jr and the other POTUS goofs has killed about a milion people, owing to the cluster-f disaster they created in Iraq, but so what? Nobody is held accountable.

That would end with a fair system. And so would war. We need the public, we need civil service, but as for the catbird seat jackasses...no. We don't need them. Internet is changing everything.

Instead of taking direction from the top of the pyramid where the dumbest people in the country generally sit - we pick the dumbest ones, on average - civil servants would take direction from the bottom. Who are they supposed to be serving anyway? We, the public. That system would be akin to a hovercraft, where the power was at the bottom; it could go anywhere. The limitations on progress would be removed.

China is vastly outdoing Canada in terms of moving to alternatives to fossil fuels. They're doing far more than Canada. A higher percentage of their economy is going into that effort. The system you seem to support is actually very poor. I think it's abominable. It never gives democracy; it gives sham democracy. It's a lie. Once you vote, you're done having any say. My system: you always have a say.

I could give example after example after example of why government as it's done now has to go. If we keep our antiquated system of government, I'm convinced that humans will probably be extinct before the year 2100. There are fearsome changes coming; present course. The methane bomb is about to explode, owing to all the heat we've added to the planet (we've been adding heat at the rate of about four Hiroshimas per second), and our government seems to be blissfully unaware that there is a problem. There is a big one. It's huge. But ask Harper...duh..we're going to increase oil production, and turn Canada into an energy giant. So what if down the road we're all dead.

And under our current feudal system of government, kids aren't taught, in schools, nature, nearly well enough. So...how many people are even aware of what the real threat is? Not many. It's not CO2. It's methane. That could be easily a hundred times worse than what humans have done, in terms of the destabilizing the climate system. It's equivalent to a hundred trillion tons of CO2, when we've added only one or two. That is what nature is poised to add. We're the arrogant midget; nature is the giant. And once climate is wrecked, agriculture is wrecked. That collapses. Which will mean global famine. Even Canadians won't have enough to eat. Maybe within my lifetime, that wil be the case. We depend on nature, but that's what we're busy wrecking. We're not Homo Sapiens; we're Homo Arrogant.

Government is what has led us to this point, where we face peril actually greater than all-out thermonuclear war.

Oil is the biggest existential threat humans have ever faced. We have the temperature of the planet the hottest it's been for millions of years, currently, and we haven't seen anything yet. It's going to get much worse. And what's our government doing? Busy extracting more oil. Oil, oil, oil! Did make the world go round; now it's going to make the world fall down.

My system has yours beat every way but Sunday, and half of Sunday too. It's faster, more efficient, basically clod-proof, corruption-proof, and much cheaper. It would cost basically nothing to get things done the right way. You can condescend to me all you want, but you haven't presented even one good counter-argument. Grown-ups don't need Daddy or Mommy (leaders). And every country would be better off under my system. Egypt can't even keep its act together under government as-it-exists. It falls apart. But a poll system: that would be extremely stable. No one could say: that system is unfair. But extremely unfair is what we get now; unfair is what we have always had.
Who cares, life is to short to get into a fight, we all should enjoy what little time we have, we all may not be compatible to one another, so drop it and move on, find someone that can agree with you and enjoy what ever you have or do to enjoy life.
This is a discussion forum Miss Daisey.  There is a difference between fighting and discussing.  I find this very interesting and will eventually put my 2 cents worth on here.  :shock:
Suit yourself BigJim :mrgreen:
stardaisy wrote: life is to short to get into a fight


I don't fight. I voluntarily lie down when someone wants to take a swing at me. Deed is done. No worries.

Unless it's a woman swinging at me. Then I fight back. lol
Fight back with love? :mrgreen:
GOVERNMENT AINT THE PROBLEM WE ARE (JUST SAYIN). :|
So many people moan about their government but equally, many people do not bother to vote at all.  

For those who do vote (like me) we tend to vote for what party represents us but it seems politicians no longer represent the people and instead view their time in office as a chance to feather their own nest.  

When politicians are paid for their results rather than their promises, maybe we will get what we vote for rather than just another manifesto of lies.