@Qbone
21 Years10,000+ PostsVirgo
This Planet Suxs?.
I Love My Earth
An unhappy genius that thinks the world sucks. Run of the mill.
Since you couldn't believe that ignorance is bliss (and neither do I), it's time to figure out shapes in the clouds again.
Such carefully prepared sarcasm, even if humor has to have a note of truth to be funny.
Belinda
Since you couldn't believe that ignorance is bliss (and neither do I), it's time to figure out shapes in the clouds again.
Such carefully prepared sarcasm, even if humor has to have a note of truth to be funny.
Belinda
well... that sux...
Qbone, the planet doesn't suck. Just some people on it do.
That sucks too...
🙂
🙂
in 2012 this planet should be blown to bits if you believe the mayans so rejoice in the thought of an end coming soon.
wow.. that sucks too...(BIG TIME)...!!
Are you another prophets of THE END is comming..??
Are you another prophets of THE END is comming..??
Times don't change, people do.
People who are in control suck, there are a lot of them in history.
You always here about someone wanting what someone else has, and what someone has is never enough.
We're not a happy people, are we.
Divide and conquer, and by damn if we won't still be fighting over the scraps that are left.
People who are in control suck, there are a lot of them in history.
You always here about someone wanting what someone else has, and what someone has is never enough.
We're not a happy people, are we.
Divide and conquer, and by damn if we won't still be fighting over the scraps that are left.
Ladydane
"People who are in control suck, there are a lot of them in history."
Granted..! And I love your comment?!! But?are you promoting the Anarchy lady..??
As I do..!!
And NO.. Sadly we are not a happy creatures, because we have no clue what happiness is (happiness) if it exist, must be shared equally to all beings around the globe.
"People who are in control suck, there are a lot of them in history."
Granted..! And I love your comment?!! But?are you promoting the Anarchy lady..??
As I do..!!
And NO.. Sadly we are not a happy creatures, because we have no clue what happiness is (happiness) if it exist, must be shared equally to all beings around the globe.
I am not promoting anarchy, Qbone, as you cannot control the human spirit.
If we were a happy people around the globe, anarchy would be the norm because everybody would have that sense of self that doesn't desire what someone else has. But there will be people that do till the end of time. So something of some order has to be in place, not to curtail us, but them. The problem is, we're getting sucked into the mix; not treated as individuals, but as rats in a lab.
Karl Marx is alive and well on Planet Earth.
We are being trained and managed by people in small rooms who have nothing better to do with their time than train and manage people.
Anarchy, no. Revolution, yes.
If government isn't happy, nobody's happy. Talk about a paradox.
If we were a happy people around the globe, anarchy would be the norm because everybody would have that sense of self that doesn't desire what someone else has. But there will be people that do till the end of time. So something of some order has to be in place, not to curtail us, but them. The problem is, we're getting sucked into the mix; not treated as individuals, but as rats in a lab.
Karl Marx is alive and well on Planet Earth.
We are being trained and managed by people in small rooms who have nothing better to do with their time than train and manage people.
Anarchy, no. Revolution, yes.
If government isn't happy, nobody's happy. Talk about a paradox.
Hi Ladydane
Anarchy:
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
The rules above are about Anarchy, and if you think about it.. They are in fact promoting "human spirits".
I agree with you there must some rules that should stop the "CHAOS" but Anarchy is not the Chaos, nor promoting the chaos.
Rules must be set from "free human spirit", not based upon religions or from some greedy bastard agendas.
In this way this planet "may be saved" from its inhabitants.
Until that day?this planet sux.
🙂
Anarchy:
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
The rules above are about Anarchy, and if you think about it.. They are in fact promoting "human spirits".
I agree with you there must some rules that should stop the "CHAOS" but Anarchy is not the Chaos, nor promoting the chaos.
Rules must be set from "free human spirit", not based upon religions or from some greedy bastard agendas.
In this way this planet "may be saved" from its inhabitants.
Until that day?this planet sux.
🙂
But you are conservative.
It is wrong to view Anarchy from Conservatism stand points.
😢
It is wrong to view Anarchy from Conservatism stand points.
😢
Ok, say the earth had only 1,000,000 inhabitants. None of them ever met each other for their entire lives. They ran their lives exactly as they wanted, alone. Would they be happy?
As soon as you look, talk to, argue with, have sex with, kill with another person of any kind, anywhere, the scenery changes for maybe only one brief moment, or for the rest of your life.
The ones who win are the ones who have the courage of their convictions enough to die for. The rest of us follow them, regardless of the loss.
But we are resigned to being lazy in thought as well as deed. The ones in control are the ones who force the rest of us to do for them.
As to your definition of anarchy, the 2nd and 3rd will have to happen before the 1st. The 3rd means war.
I'm afraid that there are no longer enough of us left to "promote the human spirit". The few of us there are are labeled 'anarchists'.
Find yourself a secure place with a very few people you can trust, and wait for the signs and seasons. They will come.
A believer in God, definitely, but not as most people think of Him.
As soon as you look, talk to, argue with, have sex with, kill with another person of any kind, anywhere, the scenery changes for maybe only one brief moment, or for the rest of your life.
The ones who win are the ones who have the courage of their convictions enough to die for. The rest of us follow them, regardless of the loss.
But we are resigned to being lazy in thought as well as deed. The ones in control are the ones who force the rest of us to do for them.
As to your definition of anarchy, the 2nd and 3rd will have to happen before the 1st. The 3rd means war.
I'm afraid that there are no longer enough of us left to "promote the human spirit". The few of us there are are labeled 'anarchists'.
Find yourself a secure place with a very few people you can trust, and wait for the signs and seasons. They will come.
A believer in God, definitely, but not as most people think of Him.
Ladydane
-------------------------------
"Ok, say the earth had only 1,000,000 inhabitants. None of them ever met each other for their entire lives. They ran their lives exactly as they wanted, alone. Would they be happy?"
-------------------------------
Of course they are happy. They have what they need what is wrong with it..?? Unless what they need is not what they've got -->> (exploration), once they achieve their goals, then they set for the higher and higher goals -- >> (advancements), more explorations bring more advancement?. If the leader of that community act as a leader and "defeat" the "greed" both in her/himself and the community, I don?t think the "happiness" ever leave that community.
-------------------------------
"As soon as you look, talk to, argue with, have sex with, kill with another person of any kind, anywhere, the scenery changes for maybe only one brief moment, or for the rest of your life. The ones who win are the ones who have the courage of their convictions enough to die for. The rest of us follow them, regardless of the loss."
-------------------------------
I am sorry you lost me here, I don?t get it? why they have to kill to proving their leader leadership..?? if someone does not agree with me means I have to kill her/him..?? or even argue with..??.
A true leader never interfere with the local dispute, hence the "locally accepted limits" that covers the community in whole and EQUALLY, without "special attentions for the special someone".
As an example:
2570 years ago "576 B.C." a Persian King called Cyrus (the great) expand the Persian Empire westward and defeated every nation that existed like Babylonian, Assyrians, and Egyptians etc. But, he never made change to any local rules, faith or way of living or cultures.. in fact he was the VERY FIRST king that brought us VERY FIRST written human and civil rights now that's what I call a TRUE LEADER, and great communities. And at that time weren?t so many humans around. He didn?t destroyed anything, like that "barbarian Greek general Alexandra" did, Cyrus (the Great) is a fine example of true leader.
About the Anarchy;
No one can define that better than, "Ali Hassan Massoud". If you care to check it out for yourself please visit this link, because if I posted here it will be long post.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/massoud/massoud2.html
I hope this will explain it deeper and better.
-------------------------------
"Ok, say the earth had only 1,000,000 inhabitants. None of them ever met each other for their entire lives. They ran their lives exactly as they wanted, alone. Would they be happy?"
-------------------------------
Of course they are happy. They have what they need what is wrong with it..?? Unless what they need is not what they've got -->> (exploration), once they achieve their goals, then they set for the higher and higher goals -- >> (advancements), more explorations bring more advancement?. If the leader of that community act as a leader and "defeat" the "greed" both in her/himself and the community, I don?t think the "happiness" ever leave that community.
-------------------------------
"As soon as you look, talk to, argue with, have sex with, kill with another person of any kind, anywhere, the scenery changes for maybe only one brief moment, or for the rest of your life. The ones who win are the ones who have the courage of their convictions enough to die for. The rest of us follow them, regardless of the loss."
-------------------------------
I am sorry you lost me here, I don?t get it? why they have to kill to proving their leader leadership..?? if someone does not agree with me means I have to kill her/him..?? or even argue with..??.
A true leader never interfere with the local dispute, hence the "locally accepted limits" that covers the community in whole and EQUALLY, without "special attentions for the special someone".
As an example:
2570 years ago "576 B.C." a Persian King called Cyrus (the great) expand the Persian Empire westward and defeated every nation that existed like Babylonian, Assyrians, and Egyptians etc. But, he never made change to any local rules, faith or way of living or cultures.. in fact he was the VERY FIRST king that brought us VERY FIRST written human and civil rights now that's what I call a TRUE LEADER, and great communities. And at that time weren?t so many humans around. He didn?t destroyed anything, like that "barbarian Greek general Alexandra" did, Cyrus (the Great) is a fine example of true leader.
About the Anarchy;
No one can define that better than, "Ali Hassan Massoud". If you care to check it out for yourself please visit this link, because if I posted here it will be long post.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/massoud/massoud2.html
I hope this will explain it deeper and better.
post it*
sorry typos early in the morning.. need more tea..
hehe
sorry typos early in the morning.. need more tea..
hehe
I guess I tend to see things the way they are.
Interaction with any human at some point is inevitable, and I think necessary. But one will always be weaker or stronger on any given point of character or perception.
Leaders are simply put. We either let them lead, or we lead ourselves.
After World War II when the US DECIDED to rebuild Japan and other places, I believed we goofed up here. Our leadership extended beyond the rights of other people, even if their government endorsed it.
I do think leadership should be left within small groups; we know what happens as they get bigger.
Those who are 'happy?' living totally alone just gave up.
Interaction with any human at some point is inevitable, and I think necessary. But one will always be weaker or stronger on any given point of character or perception.
Leaders are simply put. We either let them lead, or we lead ourselves.
After World War II when the US DECIDED to rebuild Japan and other places, I believed we goofed up here. Our leadership extended beyond the rights of other people, even if their government endorsed it.
I do think leadership should be left within small groups; we know what happens as they get bigger.
Those who are 'happy?' living totally alone just gave up.
I definitely believe in equality for all, but we'll never have it as long as any human is a leader of anything.
But we would be a lot better off if all of us made our own, did our own, supported our own, and died leaving what we had to our own.
But we would be a lot better off if all of us made our own, did our own, supported our own, and died leaving what we had to our own.
My hero was 74 when he died. He owed two months rent was over drawn 23 pounds at Barclay Ha Ha and was one month behind on his rent. and his kids had to put up the funds to bury him. Thats leaving with class.
"But we would be a lot better off if all of us made our own, did our own, supported our own, and died leaving what we had to our own."
- LadyDane
Okay. A very idealistic State. The human species was at this stage long time ago. Why did the They gave up that 'happy' state to come to this state?
Were humans always making their own? Didnt they belong to the gatherer stage to begin with? Dont we remember that the single most criticism against Karl Marx is that while giving socialism as a solution to end class struggle, he didnt acknowledge that human need to be better than the other fellow being will always continue? And why did humans progress from the gatherer stage to the producing his own food stage——??
- LadyDane
Okay. A very idealistic State. The human species was at this stage long time ago. Why did the They gave up that 'happy' state to come to this state?
Were humans always making their own? Didnt they belong to the gatherer stage to begin with? Dont we remember that the single most criticism against Karl Marx is that while giving socialism as a solution to end class struggle, he didnt acknowledge that human need to be better than the other fellow being will always continue? And why did humans progress from the gatherer stage to the producing his own food stage——??
Looneybird
The problem with MARX is, he was a Jew and he was picky with the Jew's wealth and their greed, he didn?t see the whole humanity as one? and failed. Same goes for the Lenin?
No offence (with Jews) its just the history.
The problem with MARX is, he was a Jew and he was picky with the Jew's wealth and their greed, he didn?t see the whole humanity as one? and failed. Same goes for the Lenin?
No offence (with Jews) its just the history.
So, do we acept that it is human beings desire to do better that led to progression form the food gatherer to food producer? And later the struggle for the fertile land between different societies? Is it okay to go back to the stage where there was no electricity, phone & LOL dxpnet?
If it is possible. once again why did we as humans reach where we are?
If it is possible. once again why did we as humans reach where we are?
Just my own 2 cents here..
I don't think masses can handle true freedom, but only the appearance of freedom or the notion of choice. Anything more than that, and there is chaos. Too many choices-- or too many people living out their idea of freedom is actually more destructive than a one small group telling the larger group what to do. It's not "right", it may suck-- but it is, what it is.
I don't think masses can handle true freedom, but only the appearance of freedom or the notion of choice. Anything more than that, and there is chaos. Too many choices-- or too many people living out their idea of freedom is actually more destructive than a one small group telling the larger group what to do. It's not "right", it may suck-- but it is, what it is.
I didn't say that what we've achieved is wrong (in technological sense). But in political arena we suck? and the way we handle the disputes.
You can not defeat the evil unless you become the evil, once you get there is no way back.
You can not defeat the evil unless you become the evil, once you get there is no way back.
wait.. if you become evil, while you're trying to defeat evil-- then in reality-- isn't it evil that has defeated you?
Well.. I should have been more careful about the Evil term.
I don?t believe the religious terms of Evil nor God, but I believe the balance in nature and those forces (we call it light and darkness) must be in balance all the time, or everything seize to exist.
Evil in human term is MAD MIND. That cannot be killed unless you get MAD once you get MAD you can't be normal again.
I don?t believe the religious terms of Evil nor God, but I believe the balance in nature and those forces (we call it light and darkness) must be in balance all the time, or everything seize to exist.
Evil in human term is MAD MIND. That cannot be killed unless you get MAD once you get MAD you can't be normal again.
Did this help you understand your situation?
dxpnet has hosted real conversations like this since 2000. If you value independent communities, you can support the site below.
Every contribution helps keep dxpnet independent and ad-light.
Join the Conversation. Explore Yourself. Connect with Others.
Discover insights, swap stories, and find people. dxpnet is where experiences turn into understanding.
Create Your Free Account →
Having endured the last few years of the Bush reign of Error, witnessing the breakdown of virtually everything remotely imaginable I couldn?t help but ask myself?"but what about the good ole? days?"?well, it turns out those sucked too. So I have reached the logical conclusion that BushCo ? isn?t actually the root of all things that suck, just merely some mean spirited compound interest balloon payment tacked onto the check of all things that suck dinner party?You didn?t read the fine print, did you? You would have noticed at the bottom of the menu that 18% gratuitous suck would be added to parties of 6 billion or more.
I know, you are saying to yourself, but not everything sucks (if you are reading this you probably have a higher degree of "Kewlness" about you so I am not really talking about you, unless I am), not everybody is so stooped---well that may be true, but a planet and society that is 92% suck still sucks.
"But I have my children" you say, but most likely your kids suck too. And if your kids don?t suck, they are probably asking themselves what kind of arshole would bring me down to this suck-arsed planet without consulting me first. Like some celestial Bob Barker running round with his "willy out holleri" come on? down. Here?s your gun, now run.
And what does the way-back machine have to say about this? The 90?s?fake euphoria, fake money and Lewinsky, they all sucked. The 80?s---Coke, big hair, Iran-contra republicans, and well pretty much everything sucked. The 70?s---disco, harvest gold shag carpet, and I was born making a nice trifecta of suck. I could go on, but you probably get the idea by now. This planet has sucked, well, since we got here and started fu.ck.ing it up.
Middle Ages? Sucked. Feudalism, Communism... etc. check and check. Roman Empire?.
Remember in school watching Ben-Hur and those Christians get fed to the lions? Outside of the Jewish kids chuckling under their breath everyone was looking around the classroom and saying "well, that sucked". In fact it is pretty damned hard to look throughout history and pick out an era that didn?t suck to be alive in, sure there are a few slivers of time here and there that had a nice little joy-ride; like the boomers, but the boomers suck for making everything suck even more.
So if the good ole? days sucked, then what are conservatives trying to conserve outside of their rank in the hierarchy of suck?
I figure there are two kinds of conservatives, those caught in the grip of a massive case of group Stockholm syndrome worshiping the other miniscule group of conservatives that manage to make so many things that suck.
And a word to progressives?.
GIVE IT UP.! PACK YOUR BAGS, THIS PLACE IS DUMP.
This planet suxs....
PS!
For Education/Discussion and HUMOUR Only. Not for Commercial Use.