[pfiltz]

Maybe because I'm older now, but I've reached the point in my life where I hate to even hear or see a politician.

I'm not a democrate nor republican, because I don't endorse theives, liers, cheats, perverts, and on, and on, and on. Nor do I think any of them have my best interest in mind.

What amazes me, is that we still have people living on streets homeless, drug rampid neighborhoods, seniors who flip a coin as to whether they spend money on food or medicine, but our great government, has no problem turning over millions of dollars to other countries when their in need -vs- taking care of it's own people, whether their black, yellow, red, blue, green or white.

I hate to even fathom what this country will be like in 50 years....

[BanditFlyer]

Pretty sure there were people who made similar remarks as to the declining state of society 1,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago and more.

Usually, when a person gets older, they START to care about politics, rather than stop caring.


Edit:

Monty Python's Flying Circus -
"Four Yorkshiremen"
[ from the album Live At Drury Lane, 1974 ]

The Players:
Michael Palin - First Yorkshireman;
Graham Chapman - Second Yorkshireman;
Terry Jones - Third Yorkshireman;
Eric Idle - Fourth Yorkshireman;

The Scene:
Four well-dressed men are sitting together at a vacation resort.
'Farewell to Thee' is played in the background on Hawaiian guitar.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:
Aye, very passable, that, very passable bit of risotto.
SECOND YORKSHIREMAN:
Nothing like a good glass of Château de Chasselas, eh, Josiah?
THIRD YORKSHIREMAN:
You're right there, Obadiah.
FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN:
Who'd have thought thirty year ago we'd all be sittin' here drinking Château de Chasselas, eh?
FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:
In them days we was glad to have the price of a cup o' tea.
SECOND YORKSHIREMAN:
A cup o' cold tea.
FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN:
Without milk or sugar.
THIRD YORKSHIREMAN:
Or tea.
FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:
In a cracked cup, an' all.
FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN:
Oh, we never had a cup. We used to have to drink out of a rolled up newspaper.
SECOND YORKSHIREMAN:
The best we could manage was to suck on a piece of damp cloth.
THIRD YORKSHIREMAN:
But you know, we were happy in those days, though we were poor.
FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:
Because we were poor. My old Dad used to say to me, "Money doesn't buy you happiness, son".
FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN:
Aye, 'e was right.
FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:
Aye, 'e was.
FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN:
I was happier then and I had nothin'. We used to live in this tiny old house with great big holes in the roof.
SECOND YORKSHIREMAN:
House! You were lucky to live in a house! We used to live in one room, all twenty-six of us, no furniture, 'alf the floor was missing, and we were all 'uddled together in one corner for fear of falling.
THIRD YORKSHIREMAN:
Eh, you were lucky to have a room! We used to have to live in t' corridor!
FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:
Oh, we used to dream of livin' in a corridor! Would ha' been a palace to us. We used to live in an old water tank on a rubbish tip. We got woke up every morning by having a load of rotting fish dumped all over us! House? Huh.
FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN:
Well, when I say 'house' it was only a hole in the ground covered by a sheet of tarpaulin, but it was a house to us.
SECOND YORKSHIREMAN:
We were evicted from our 'ole in the ground; we 'ad to go and live in a lake.
THIRD YORKSHIREMAN:
You were lucky to have a lake! There were a hundred and fifty of us living in t' shoebox in t' middle o' road.
FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:
Cardboard box?
THIRD YORKSHIREMAN:
Aye.
FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:
You were lucky. We lived for three months in a paper bag in a septic tank. We used to have to get up at six in the morning, clean the paper bag, eat a crust of stale bread, go to work down t' mill, fourteen hours a day, week-in week-out, for sixpence a week, and when we got home our Dad would thrash us to sleep wi' his belt.
SECOND YORKSHIREMAN:
Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at six o'clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of 'ot gravel, work twenty hour day at mill for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would thrash us to sleep with a broken bottle, if we were lucky!
THIRD YORKSHIREMAN:
Well, of course, we had it tough. We used to 'ave to get up out of shoebox at twelve o'clock at night and lick road clean wit' tongue. We had two bits of cold gravel, worked twenty-four hours a day at mill for sixpence every four years, and when we got home our Dad would slice us in two wit' bread knife.
FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN:
Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah.
FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:
And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they won't believe you.
ALL:
They won't!

From a link posted here a while back by bomb #21, http://www.phespirit.info/montypytho...rkshiremen.htm

[pfiltz]

good choices. I care, but don't want to contribute to our current decline, and promote more thieves into the political areana.

[BanditFlyer]

You mean there are no good choices between the two major parties.

There's always Ralph Nader. Or Libertarians. Or ...

A vote for honest politicians seems to be a revolutionary act, and it most definitely will not put you in the majority of voters. But it's still an option.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by pfiltz

good choices. I care, but don't want to contribute to our current decline, and promote more thieves into the political areana.

my suggestion, then, is to consider a third party vote....it's importance isn't in the dream of your candidate actually getting elected...it's registering your dissatisfaction with the current status quo

imo, a healthy portion of the current political polarization is a recognition by each side that the entirety of the political system is degrading, but an unwillingness to accept their party as being a part of it....we humans are soooo good a pointing fingers

the biz as usual attitude in dc thrives on our apathy...don't contribute to it.

EDIT: just wanted to say that what i said above i said to me, as well

[Paquadez]

PF:

The rapid Neo-Cons on these boards will tell you that simply, the poor are responsible for their own condition.

Perhaps it is that as we become older, the flush of youth and achievement has all but passed and we start to ponder on meanings?

It has always been of great interest to me, how mega-wealthy men of the past, as they reached mature age, invariably founded charities and focused on good works.

Why?

Some eminent philosophers have suggested that it is a delayed guilt complex: having spent their lives screwing everyone and concentrating on pennies, almost suddenly, they adopt the personna of the philanthropist.

My conclusion about politics is that we may believe, early on, that one party will change things for the better: then, as we become older and have some little experience, we hope they might change things a bit for the better.

Then once clarity and reality dawn, we realise that none of them will change anything much, except for their own benefit and the benefit and advantage of a few special interest groups which just happened to fund their election campaigns.

Paq

[pfiltz]

Both parties have held office for years, and look at the mess the country is in on a BIG PICTURE take of things. That's why I have no desire to elect any party. But that's the nature of our BEAST isn't it.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by pfiltz

Both parties have held office for years, and look at the mess the country is in on a BIG PICTURE take of things. That's why I have no desire to elect any party. But that's the nature of our BEAST isn't it.

Even if you're not happy with choices vote! Do a write in, at least do something. If you don't you contribute to the further decay of our election system.

[BanditFlyer]

Originally Posted by iltos

EDIT: just wanted to say that what i said above i said to me, as well

I would think that as a person ages, they care more about politics, rather than less. The most apathetic voters are those under 25, and the most influential segment of society(you can see this in the issues and campaign ads) are retirees.

[Edit]:

Originally Posted by Paquadez

PF:

The rapid Neo-Cons on these boards will tell you that simply, the poor are responsible for their own condition.

I don't know about you, but when I meet a person who has exploited 50 % of the opportunities, I am shocked to have met such a rare creature. Simply because in my own experience as well as that of most people I have met, we take advantage of less than 10% of all the opportunities we have access to.

Most people simply choose to ignore most of the opportunities that life offers them. And it's dificult to NOT think that their life is in it's current state due largely to those choices. But I'm only speaking of American society. I have relatives in other nations for whom that would most certainly not hold true.

[/Edit]

Originally Posted by Paq

Perhaps it is that as we become older, the flush of youth and achievement has all but passed and we start to ponder on meanings?

It has always been of great interest to me, how mega-wealthy men of the past, as they reached mature age, invariably founded charities and focused on good works.

Why?

Some eminent philosophers have suggested that it is a delayed guilt complex: having spent their lives screwing everyone and concentrating on pennies, almost suddenly, they adopt the personna of the philanthropist.

Psychology textbooks suggest that people have a different raison d'etre at different ages. In the retirement years, the goal becomes to contribute to one's family, society, etc. (actually, I think it might have been worded , "seeking a feeling of having contributed ...")

I thought it was a much broader segment of society than just "mega-wealthy men" that went through the experience you mentioned. I've seen lots of retirees contributing of themselves to charity with whatever means they have - if they don't have money, they contribute time, effort, skill, knowledge, etc.

Interesting thing about that - there are actually clubs for retired executives to contribute their business knowledge to young entrepreneurs.

So I'm not sure I agree with you on the above.

Originally Posted by Paq

My conclusion about politics is that we may believe, early on, that one party will change things for the better: then, as we become older and have some little experience, we hope they might change things a bit for the better.

Then once clarity and reality dawn, we realise that none of them will change anything much, except for their own benefit and the benefit and advantage of a few special interest groups which just happened to fund their election campaigns.

Paq

I started a thread about that - it seemed to me that voting was too little to influence how politics works and that the individual can do much more. Ciberblade has made mention in these threads about who contributes money to the campaigns of which politician and I thought that perhaps that was a way of excerting more influence - meaning, boycott the organizations supporting interests you disagree with.

Kinda wish I had more time to get into your brain and wander around a bit more.

[BanditFlyer]

Originally Posted by pfiltz

Both parties have held office for years, and look at the mess the country is in on a BIG PICTURE take of things. That's why I have no desire to elect any party. But that's the nature of our BEAST isn't it.

Perhaps that's why two TSGers so far have mentioned something about a third party.

Originally Posted by bassetman

Even if you're not happy with choices vote! Do a write in, at least do something. If you don't [vote] you contribute to the further decay of our election system.

Excellent point!

Anyone who understands how fractions work will tell you that if you don't vote, you are helping the guy who wins(by decreasing the denominator).

[Ciberblade]

Originally Posted by pfiltz

Both parties have held office for years, and look at the mess the country is in on a BIG PICTURE take of things. That's why I have no desire to elect any party. But that's the nature of our BEAST isn't it.

Look back...and try to name a time when these issues did not exist.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by BanditFlyer

I would think that as a person ages, they care more about politics, rather than less. The most apathetic voters are those under 25, and the most influential segment of society(you can see this in the issues and campaign ads) are retirees.

and that was true for me, up to a point...in my 20's, i was very apolitical (being privvy to the campus wars of the sixties, which were so heavily attacked and defended with political rhetoric, turned me against any thoughts of politics making a difference.

then i grew up a little bit, and gained a little distance from that time, and decided to give it a try.

today, i'm not so much apolitical as becoming more staunchly libertarian....politics sucks, in my view, because it has become a career...and i trace that back to our desire to measure our health as a country primarily on an economic scale....when a government is dependant on a definition of progress that is defined principally by material growth, it has become to apparent that ANY other value, whether it be "family values" as described by more conservative christains, "ecological values" as taken up the environmentalists, or "human rights values" as espoused by more liberal democrats, fall into a no man's land of universal support.

certainly there are moral and ethical issues that stand as apparent roadblocks between these viewpoints...but aren't they all, at their heart, talking about very simple and fundamental things that have loads of common ground...the freedom of the individual to nourish and enjoy their lives, irrespective of economic determinants

seems to me that, as important as all the convienences and toys out there are to our sense of well being, these issues describe something far more necessary...why is that we can only seem to agree on opprotunity when it has something to do with money?

[Paquadez]

Originally Posted by BanditFlyer

I would think that as a person ages, they care more about politics, rather than less. The most apathetic voters are those under 25, and the most influential segment of society(you can see this in the issues and campaign ads) are retirees.

Well, in the UK many retirees have given up voting; many younger people are activists, particularly Grads, as they always have been. How many older people on these boards rant on about Libs and Dems (i.e. support one or the other)? Most older people tend to rubbish both.
[Edit]:

I don't know about you, but when I meet a person who has exploited 50 % of the opportunities, I am shocked to have met such a rare creature. Simply because in my own experience as well as that of most people I have met, we take advantage of less than 10% of all the opportunities we have access to.

What I meant here, is the perpetual rant of the Right Wing. Sure, many people could do more and learn more and risk more, however, for those living on minimum wage, subjected to Sub Prime borrowing, living in projects etc, it becomes more difficult each year for them to hoist themselves out! It was the same in the UK in the mid - late 1800s, despite the awesome wealth being created. It is not tax incentives these people need, it's access to certain core things. And it tends to be the same throughout the World, particularly Third World countries. Yet, to read and listen to the Right Wing cant, it's their own fault. They're lazy, shiftless, indolent, drunkards etc. perhaps after trying and failing so repeatedly they gave up? Can we blame them?

Most people simply choose to ignore most of the opportunities that life offers them. And it's dificult to NOT think that their life is in it's current state due largely to those choices. But I'm only speaking of American society. I have relatives in other nations for whom that would most certainly not hold true.

[/Edit]

Psychology textbooks suggest that people have a different raison d'etre at different ages. In the retirement years, the goal becomes to contribute to one's family, society, etc. (actually, I think it might have been worded , "seeking a feeling of having contributed ...")

I thought it was a much broader segment of society than just "mega-wealthy men" that went through the experience you mentioned. I've seen lots of retirees contributing of themselves to charity with whatever means they have - if they don't have money, they contribute time, effort, skill, knowledge, etc.

Yes, I agree. In fact in a very absorbing study of American charity in Businessweek, last year, they even had a feature article on a shoeshine guy and the amount he has given to charity over the years. It was astounding! Totally astounding. In diametric contrast, some of the wealthiest - younger - zillionaires had given little. The point I was making is again the contrast: a life spent being totally mean, like J.Paul Getty, even charged guests and visitors for 'phone calls! Then gives it all away??? Henry Ford; almost pyschopathic. Brought in Pinkertons to break up strikes and crippled many protestors. Set up an anti-Jewish newssheet. Then, again, sets up charities and foundations. Daniel Ludwig, same sort of scene.

Interesting thing about that - there are actually clubs for retired executives to contribute their business knowledge to young entrepreneurs.

Sure are. There are also networks and various groups in the UK for Business Angels, mentors, buddy systems, all for free. I've been involved in a few, as an adviser and coach.

However, the organisers tend to earn a nice salary (normally some form of grant! From taxes!!) and most of the "advisers" had been booted out of their companies, retired off early, put on gardening leave and hadn't much of a clue really. All the successful businesspeople I know either retire and go off and do something else, or still work and keep a Golden Share in their business. They are far too busy to play games!

A husband and wife I am involved with are both, individually, multi-millionaires and retired at 50 and 53. She re-trained as a Counsellor and helps people. He is nearly full time on international charity work and still has business interests. And still invents and designs things.

So I'm not sure I agree with you on the above.
I started a thread about that - it seemed to me that voting was too little to influence how politics works and that the individual can do much more. Ciberblade has made mention in these threads about who contributes money to the campaigns of which politician and I thought that perhaps that was a way of excerting more influence - meaning, boycott the organizations supporting interests you disagree with.

Kinda wish I had more time to get into your brain and wander around a bit more.

So do I!

Paq

[erick295]

Originally Posted by pfiltz

Both parties have held office for years, and look at the mess the country is in on a BIG PICTURE take of things. That's why I have no desire to elect any party. But that's the nature of our BEAST isn't it.

People frequently say things like "the mess the country is in," and "things are going downhill," and so on, but in all honesty, how can you look at the big picture and say we're in a mess? So we have a lower class, and things aren't perfect. That doesn't mean we're in a mess. As a whole this country is actually very successful and its people are very happy and satisfied with their lives, far more than in many other areas of the world. Nothing is perfect and everything can be improved, but if you call this success a mess, I'm not sure what you'd do if you lived somewhere that really was as mess. Everyone always thinks about what's wrong and they completely forget about what's right.

[Ciberblade]

Economically...if you live in this country, you are among the worlds top 2% wealthiest people.