Forum Thread

2 suggestions: IQ test for voters - & a new DUAL presidency (one man & one woman)

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 26 1 2 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I am beginning to think we should have a mandatory IQ test before people can vote. Why should the rest of us have to suffer & have our economy wrecked and our air we breathe, and our entire planet destroyed by unnecessary warfare, just because we allow total morons to vote? I am sure the founding fathers would not allow things to deteriorate to this point. After all, they did NOT even allow slaves to vote, or women to vote, or men who did not own property. They had some kind of standards -- a lot different standards than ours, in the 21st century, I acknowledge, But the founders DID set a "precedent" that maybe it is NOT good that any human being with a pencil - can determine who can get elected to the world's greatest super-power, .Too much is at stake, in the nuclear age, and when important issues like global warming are being decided. No intelligent species should think their leaders should be picked by millionaires from communist Russia (ie: Koch Bros) --- & then "voted" for by neanderthals who have been brain-washed by a "paid misinformation expert" (Rush Limburger).

    It is positively suicidal of the United States, to allow psychotic brain-washing to continue on right-wing radio & TV (& you know who they are) ---- paid for by the Communist-trained Koch clan, who have already decided how to "bribe" most of our Congress, & pay for a sell-out Supreme Court. Thank God we have a few priceless human beings on the Supreme Court, who did the right thing once very recently. THANK YOU. -- YOU ARE A NATIONAL TREASURE.

    This may well be our LAST United States ELECTION coming up. -- The FIX IS IN. --- The Koch Brothers have "rigged" their right-wing candidates, to be the most crooked people -- whose votes can be bought & sold --- and who will "BETRAY THEIR COUNTRY" for a few lousy bucks. -- IF ONLY WE had a really intelligent population, who could see the signs, & STOP THIS CHARADE = (Twenty plastic ducks on a stage, all in a row, like the puppets they really are).

    BUT HERE IS THE MIRACLE. --- We DO HAVE A HERO, and MOST of YOU, Have SEEN the LIGHT !! Of course, I do STILL adore Hillary & Bill Clinton, & they are some of the best people we have ever had in the White House.

    BUT then --- MAYBE IT IS TIME -- to realize that in the 21st century, we can have a DUAL Presidency, one a man & one a woman, to lead our country with true equality. MAYBE IT IS TIME ------ I am proud to present this IDEA to you ------------------------------------------ {{ PRESIDENT Bernie Sanders - & - Hillary Clinton }} !!

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Well we already tried that. It was the Commander-in-Chief Dick Cheney and the AWOL President Bush. It didn't work. Bush claimed to be the "decider", but Cheney usurped his authority and ran with it while Bush was cutting mesquite at his ranch. It will be interesting to see how the husband-wife Clinton relationship works out if Hillary is ultimately elected president.

    I also don't see Hillary choosing Bernie as her running mate (or vice versa). They will both likely choose a Latino, but I suppose Bernie could choose Elizabeth Warren if he wants a "think-a-like".

    But hey...a Donald Trump-Chris Christie combo would be interesting. Ha!

    PS -- I didn't take your IQ test seriously.

  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    All I can I say to Eternal is Wow!!, Dual presidency huh?, 1 male ,1 female, you mean like a King and Queen, I don't think so, as far as an IQ test , we can't even get a voter photo ID in place, let alone a IQ requirement although a similar requirement for candidates should be a condition for running for an elective office.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Good Morning, Schmidt ---- Thanks for your input. I must not have made my intentions very clear. The whole POINT of my suggestion, was for there to be a DUAL presidency ---- One had to be a MAN, and the other had to be a WOMAN, --- & no need for them to be married (to each other). This would create a condition for a Presidency that would represent both MEN and WOMEN, (equally) instead of always being just a MAN , (as it has always been for 240 yrs).

    It would also allow both Bernie and Hillary (the best choices we could possibly have) to both get elected, so we don't have to choose between one or the other. I think their ideas would be very compatible, & that the world today is getting too complex, for just having one person (alone) at the helm. Also, if one of them got sick or needed a day off, the post would be filled by someone equally qualified to handle any crisis. I SINCERELY would LIKE TO SEE THIS (duo Presidency) occur during my lifetime. But THIS particular time of CRISIS, in our world, would be a very good time to START. (Anything but the clown circus, from GOP : )

    Hi Johnnycee: Thanks for your input. No, I do not want a King or Queen, both would have to be normally educated & experienced people, not necessary to be married to each other, (actually it would be better if NOT) but just normal good people, capable of working at the top level of government. Certain levels of education & govt experience would be necessary --- just like with Hillary & Bernie. (They are just IDEAL, aren't they?) -- My dream come true.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    eternal flame Wrote:

    Good Morning, Schmidt ---- Thanks for your input. I must not have made my intentions very clear. The whole POINT of my suggestion, was for there to be a DUAL presidency ---- One had to be a MAN, and the other had to be a WOMAN, --- & no need for them to be married (to each other). This would create a condition for a Presidency that would represent both MEN and WOMEN, (equally) instead of always being just a MAN , (as it has always been for 240 yrs).

    It would also allow both Bernie and Hillary (the best choices we could possibly have) to both get elected, so we don't have to choose between one or the other. I think their ideas would be very compatible, & that the world today is getting too complex, for just having one person (alone) at the helm. Also, if one of them got sick or needed a day off, the post would be filled by someone equally qualified to handle any crisis. I SINCERELY would LIKE TO SEE THIS (duo Presidency) occur during my lifetime. But THIS particular time of CRISIS, in our world, would be a very good time to START. (Anything but the clown circus, from GOP : )

    Hi Johnnycee: Thanks for your input. No, I do not want a King or Queen, both would have to be normally educated & experienced people, not necessary to be married to each other, (actually it would be better if NOT) but just normal good people, capable of working at the top level of government. Certain levels of education & govt experience would be necessary --- just like with Hillary & Bernie. (They are just IDEAL, aren't they?) -- My dream come true.

    Eternal and everyone else; I think the elections in 2016 will be a total mess; I don't even want to bet on any horse in that race; so keep on dreaming Eternal; for all I know it may be Trump; people here are crazy enough. Don't forget we got Mr, Scott here again in FL while everyone knows he claimed the "fifth" a million times by robbing hospitals, so it does not matter if you are a criminal; people here still elect them, with the help of the "one" percent.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Eternal flame -- Guy is proposing a 12 person executive branch (6 men and 6 women) and you are proposing a two person executive (one man and one woman). I don't see either officially becoming into law because both would require a Constitutional Convention, and if one can get the necessary 2/3rds of state legislatures to call such a convention, the ratification of any changes to the constitution would then require 3/4ths of the state legislatures to ratify.

    Republicans right now control over 2/3rds of state legislatures, and there is indeed a movement amongst some conservatives to call an Article V Convention, but not along the lines that you and Guy propose but rather to "rein in the power of the US Government" by passing a balanced budget amendment, which if it were to happen would be an economic disaster for the poor and middle class of America.

    US News and World Report: Ignorance is Risk

    The Constitution itself is not the problem. Ignorance of the masses is. Be careful what you wish for...

  • Strongly Liberal
    Independent
    Seattle, WA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Eternal flame -- Guy is proposing a 12 person executive branch (6 men and 6 women) and you are proposing a two person executive (one man and one woman). I don't see either officially becoming into law because both would require a Constitutional Convention, and if one can get the necessary 2/3rds of state legislatures to call such a convention, the ratification of any changes to the constitution would then require 3/4ths of the state legislatures to ratify.

    Republicans right now control over 2/3rds of state legislatures, and there is indeed a movement amongst some conservatives to call an Article V Convention, but not along the lines that you and Guy propose but rather to "rein in the power of the US Government" by passing a balanced budget amendment, which if it were to happen would be an economic disaster for the poor and middle class of America.

    US News and World Report: Ignorance is Risk

    The Constitution itself is not the problem. Ignorance of the masses is. Be careful what you wish for...

    As I said in a comment on my thread, Why America Does Not Yet Have Real Democracy, as things are now it is easy to assume that it would be impossible to bring about a Constitutional Convention that would alter and reform our government (as is needed and is our right and duty to do). However, that assumption is based on the assumption that the partisan political climate will remain as it is -- rife with bitter conflict and division that causes the American people to fight for power over each other..

    Both assumptions are based on the current partisan political climate in which the Republican Party and the Koch Libertarian Tea Party are somewhat at odds but both entrenched on the far right, representing the rich forces of greed and self-interest which operate under the Reaganite cloak of "patriotism and religiosity."

    At the same time, the Democratic Party is also divided, because in 1992, in order to do what was politically expedient and get elected, Bill Clinton moved to the right of middle, forced to do so by the popularity of Reaganism. (In fact, President Clinton went along with a Republican-dominated Congress to enact such legislation as the so-call "Welfare Reform" of 1996, which proved disastrous for the poor in America.) Since then, many Democrats have been called "Republicrats" and "Corporate Democrats," as opposed to the fewer Democrats who are more attuned to the principles of Roosevelt's New Deal.

    Today both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are considered by many liberal progressives to be Corporate Democrats, while Elizabeth Warren and Independent-turned-Democrat Bernie Sanders still advocate policies that are more in tune with Roosevelt's New Deal. That's is, like FDR they want to institute greater and more effective reforms and regulations to deal with the unbridled greed and corruption that has nearly ruined this country (again), and they want the wealthiest few to at least pay their fair share of taxes.

    Democrats have either been unable or unwilling to deal with the cloaked wickedness of Reaganism. In fact, Barack Obama has invoked Reagan's name on several occasions, and he perpetuated several of the Reaganite-Bush policies. Thus Reaganism was continued and expanded to the point where the five right-wing Justices on the Supreme Court felt comfortable in making the rulings on Citizens United and McCutcheon that blatantly enabled the rich to do as they please to buy elections. And the Federalist Society and the Koch brothers and their Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Americans for Prosperity Foundation and Tea Party have essentially had their way in shaping the American mainstream political climate.

    THAT is why we need to reform and alter our government, because as it is, the whole political economic system is rigged to favor and entitle the rich.

    We CAN do that, but it is going to take a grass roots populist movement to do it, and Americans are going to have to let go of the idea that a conquering hero is going to come along to save them. American's are going to have to face the fact that in order to have government that is actually of the people, by the people, and for the people, we are going to have to MAKE IT SO, and stop perpetuating the divisive contest for the throne.

    If America continues to perpetuate the divisive contest for the throne, we could save America for awhile -- by electing another FDR type like Bernie Sanders. But, even if we were able to do that, how long would the reforms and regulations last?

    Remember, Reaganism has nearly destroyed the great legacy of Roosevelt's New Deal. And another Reagan-type demagogue could come along in time to wipe out any reforms and improvements a Sanders might be able to make.

    This is so clear to me. I don't know why I'm the only one.

    .

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Guy Dwyer Wrote:
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Eternal flame -- Guy is proposing a 12 person executive branch (6 men and 6 women) and you are proposing a two person executive (one man and one woman). I don't see either officially becoming into law because both would require a Constitutional Convention, and if one can get the necessary 2/3rds of state legislatures to call such a convention, the ratification of any changes to the constitution would then require 3/4ths of the state legislatures to ratify.

    Republicans right now control over 2/3rds of state legislatures, and there is indeed a movement amongst some conservatives to call an Article V Convention, but not along the lines that you and Guy propose but rather to "rein in the power of the US Government" by passing a balanced budget amendment, which if it were to happen would be an economic disaster for the poor and middle class of America.

    US News and World Report: Ignorance is Risk

    The Constitution itself is not the problem. Ignorance of the masses is. Be careful what you wish for...

    As I said in a comment on my thread, Why America Does Not Yet Have Real Democracy, as things are now it is easy to assume that it would be impossible to bring about a Constitutional Convention that would alter and reform our government (as is needed and is our right and duty to do). However, that assumption is based on the assumption that the partisan political climate will remain as it is -- rife with bitter conflict and division that causes the American people to fight for power over each other..

    Both assumptions are based on the current partisan political climate in which the Republican Party and the Koch Libertarian Tea Party are somewhat at odds but both entrenched on the far right, representing the rich forces of greed and self-interest which operate under the Reaganite cloak of "patriotism and religiosity."

    At the same time, the Democratic Party is also divided, because in 1992, in order to do what was politically expedient and get elected, Bill Clinton moved to the right of middle, forced to do so by the popularity of Reaganism. (In fact, President Clinton went along with a Republican-dominated Congress to enact such legislation as the so-call "Welfare Reform" of 1996, which proved disastrous for the poor in America.) Since then, many Democrats have been called "Republicrats" and "Corporate Democrats," as opposed to the fewer Democrats who are more attuned to the principles of Roosevelt's New Deal.

    Today both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are considered by many liberal progressives to be Corporate Democrats, while Elizabeth Warren and Independent-turned-Democrat Bernie Sanders still advocate policies that are more in tune with Roosevelt's New Deal. That's is, like FDR they want to institute greater and more effective reforms and regulations to deal with the unbridled greed and corruption that has nearly ruined this country (again), and they want the wealthiest few to at least pay their fair share of taxes.

    Democrats have either been unable or unwilling to deal with the cloaked wickedness of Reaganism. In fact, Barack Obama has invoked Reagan's name on several occasions, and he perpetuated several of the Reaganite-Bush policies. Thus Reaganism was continued and expanded to the point where the five right-wing Justices on the Supreme Court felt comfortable in making the rulings on Citizens United and McCutcheon that blatantly enabled the rich to do as they please to buy elections. And the Federalist Society and the Koch brothers and their Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Americans for Prosperity Foundation and Tea Party have essentially had their way in shaping the American mainstream political climate.

    THAT is why we need to reform and alter our government, because as it is, the whole political economic system is rigged to favor and entitle the rich.

    We CAN do that, but it is going to take a grass roots populist movement to do it, and Americans are going to have to let go of the idea that a conquering hero is going to come along to save them. American's are going to have to face the fact that in order to have government that is actually of the people, by the people, and for the people, we are going to have to MAKE IT SO, and stop perpetuating the divisive contest for the throne.

    If America continues to perpetuate the divisive contest for the throne, we could save America for awhile -- by electing another FDR type like Bernie Sanders. But, even if we were able to do that, how long would the reforms and regulations last?

    Remember, Reaganism has nearly destroyed the great legacy of Roosevelt's New Deal. And another Reagan-type demagogue could come along in time to wipe out any reforms and improvements a Sanders might be able to make.

    This is so clear to me. I don't know why I'm the only one.

    .

    Guy, you are absolutely not the only one; it is very clear to me as well. However I've got bad news for you. Since "money" runs this country, as well as power blocks like the Pentagon, NRA, churches etc. it is an impossible task. Sorry to say this country will follow the same lessons of any country which did think they were number one in the world, Check your history books on how it ends. I guarantee it.
  • Strongly Liberal
    Independent
    Seattle, WA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Dutch,

    That too is based on the assumption that the partisan political climate will remain as it is. And why make such a pessimistic and cynical assumption? If you just give up and assume nothing can be done, nothing will get done.

    Granted, history shows that empires fall, and the U.S. Religious Military Industrial Empire will no doubt fall. But the fall of the American Empire may just be caused by the great majority of the American people when they are finally sick and tired of Plutocracy.

    Who's to say that America cannot change and rise up as a real Democracy, reformed and improved by a government that will be of, by and for the people?

    Why not have hope, faith and confidence in the great American spirit of independence, innovation, and humanitarian motivation?

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Guy Dwyer Wrote:

    Dutch,

    That too is based on the assumption that the partisan political climate will remain as it is. And why make such a pessimistic and cynical assumption? If you just give up and assume nothing can be done, nothing will get done.

    Granted, history shows that empires fall, and the U.S. Religious Military Industrial Empire will no doubt fall. But the fall of the American Empire may just be caused by the great majority of the American people when they are finally sick and tired of Plutocracy.

    Who's to say that America cannot change and rise up as a real Democracy, reformed and improved by a government that will be of, by and for the people?

    Why not have hope, faith and confidence in the great American spirit of independence, innovation, and humanitarian motivation?

    Guy, I wished it was true; but look around you; may be you and I want change for the better, but ask Schmidt how many people think like we do? Most people here have an "herd" mentality or were trained to say "Yes Sir" all their life. Don't forget the "south" redneck mentality as well in-difference in thinking for themselves. May be the more educated people see what we both observe, but the " money" culture here runs the show; sorry to say due to that, if you are not in the same "wealthy" state you are just dirt to them. "Greed" runs this country, so people can be bought. Sorry to say I see that all around me. As long as that is the case, then you or I can dream to be positive, but it remains a dream since you and I don't have a "herd" mentality, then you can't create a "herd/followers" if you don't have the resources to change the "1% percent" influence because they will have you cornered/killed before you know it. Not only it will remain as it is, but will get worse; just observe the GOP clown car right now.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Yes I agree with Dutch.

    Adding to Dutch's discussion, while it is easy to point the finger at the Executive branch of government, would the Constitutional Convention ignore the bigger problem, in my mind, of the broken Congress? Getting rid of a single point executive and installing instead an executive committee of 12 (or two in EF's proposal) doesn't really solve the underlying problem. And if the executive committee is split, who is the decider?

    The current clout of the "Religious Military Industrial Empire" lies not exclusively with the executive branch, but rather our Congress that controls defense budgets and spending in general. The Party of No in Congress has clearly demonstrated by their actions that they can sabotage the executive branch's every move. They have attempted to do that with impunity by filibustering, blocking key legislation, holding up nominations, ransom demands and outright shutdowns of government...and a propaganda and hate campaign against our first African American president.

    So does it make any difference if we have one president or a committee of 12? If the Congress is not supportive, it can basically shutdown the government to a crawl. And they will do it with the blessing of their constituents who believe in the Grover Norquist idea of government...to shrink it down to virtually nothing.

    To fix the problems of government we need to start with campaign finance reform and election reform. But we can't do either with the five conservatives on the Supreme Court undermining Congress. So yes Constitutional Amendments are necessary to circumvent SCOTUS. However, Constitutional Amendments of any sort ultimately require the approval of 3/4ths of state legislatures. And you're not going to get those approvals unless you elect people who are ready to take those measures on.

    So electing the right people is difficult when maybe only 60 percent (optimistic estimate) of voters participate in Presidential election years and only 40 percent in midterm elections. So how do you get people to care? If they don't care enough now to even vote, how will they care to participate in Constitutional Reform? They have a difficult enough time now keeping up with the Kardashians, let alone the functions of government or what the proposed changes to the Constitution would mean. That's my cynical view based on having tried and tried...ringing hundreds and hundreds of door bells, sitting for hours at a table to register voters who don't care, arguing with people whose brains are wired differently than mine. And that includes liberals as well as conservatives.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Yes I agree with Dutch.

    Adding to Dutch's discussion, while it is easy to point the finger at the Executive branch of government, would the Constitutional Convention ignore the bigger problem, in my mind, of the broken Congress? Getting rid of a single point executive and installing instead an executive committee of 12 (or two in EF's proposal) doesn't really solve the underlying problem. And if the executive committee is split, who is the decider?

    The current clout of the "Religious Military Industrial Empire" lies not exclusively with the executive branch, but rather our Congress that controls defense budgets and spending in general. The Party of No in Congress has clearly demonstrated by their actions that they can sabotage the executive branch's every move. They have attempted to do that with impunity by filibustering, blocking key legislation, holding up nominations, ransom demands and outright shutdowns of government...and a propaganda and hate campaign against our first African American president.

    So does it make any difference if we have one president or a committee of 12? If the Congress is not supportive, it can basically shutdown the government to a crawl. And they will do it with the blessing of their constituents who believe in the Grover Norquist idea of government...to shrink it down to virtually nothing.

    To fix the problems of government we need to start with campaign finance reform and election reform. But we can't do either with the five conservatives on the Supreme Court undermining Congress. So yes Constitutional Amendments are necessary to circumvent SCOTUS. However, Constitutional Amendments of any sort ultimately require the approval of 3/4ths of state legislatures. And you're not going to get those approvals unless you elect people who are ready to take those measures on.

    So electing the right people is difficult when maybe only 60 percent (optimistic estimate) of voters participate in Presidential election years and only 40 percent in midterm elections. So how do you get people to care? If they don't care enough now to even vote, how will they care to participate in Constitutional Reform? They have a difficult enough time now keeping up with the Kardashians, let alone the functions of government or what the proposed changes to the Constitution would mean. That's my cynical view based on having tried and tried...ringing hundreds and hundreds of door bells, sitting for hours at a table to register voters who don't care, arguing with people whose brains are wired differently than mine. And that includes liberals as well as conservatives.

    Thanks Schmidt, sure I would love to be optimistic, but all the "signs" around me give me the impression of an up hill battle. Just on the news Jeb Bush already raised more than 108 million, which again gives me the notion that the 1% wants to use him (and others) for their plans, so they can use him as a "puppet" and manipulate and pull the strings in our "honest" government. Indeed as long as elections are run by "money" then corruption is waiting around the corner. Just like you say as long there is no election reform,( which takes all the "money" out of elections), then we will continue to "kneel" for the 1%. YES SIR.
  • Strongly Liberal
    Independent
    Seattle, WA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    At this point it would probably not be productive for me to continue this discussion.

    However, I will leave you with the following words from the beginning of a video titled What Would A Modern Messiah Say?

    (The speaker/author is the man who wrote under the name of Joseph J. Adamson, and sings and speaks as J.J. Jeffers. The name his parents gave him has not yet revealed, because according to the prophet Isaiah he is to be "hidden," as he mentions in the speech.)

    Greetings to everyone – people of all nations. I speak out now about the future, because right now the future seems bleak for most of us. Our world is seriously at risk, many of us are in despair, and many of us suffer. And by now, many of you know some of the reasons why.

    So the question is this: Since there is so much corruption and unfairness in the world, and since the misleading forces of greed and self-interest use their wealth and power to their own benefit and to the detriment of the great majority, what do we do about it?

    I know that most of you feel powerless. Some of you feel helpless and hopeless, some of you are just apathetic, and many of you are angry. After all, the protests demonstrated in many countries were all fruitless, and in most instances they were dangerous. So, as our situation worsens, I understand why there is a growing search for a conquering hero.

    But, I am not a warrior -- unless you consider that the pen will ultimately prove mightier than the sword. I am just a messenger, and a counselor who tells you that you do not need anyone playing Warlord, or King, or God or Savior, because only the eternal One is the Savior, which by any other name is God, The Holy One. And its Spirit of truth will liberate and empower all of us, because it is within all of us.

    When you realize that, and what it means for us, you will come to realize this fact: We, the people, must liberate and empower ourselves. And to do that we need to establish good and fair governments that will actually be of the people, by the people, and for the people. But right now we don’t have that.

    What we have, as you well know, are governments of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. But we the people can change that, and we can do it legally and peacefully, especially in America, thanks to the Constitution which has provisions for us to do that in Article 5. And we can establish good and fair government that will promote the general welfare, as America’s Founders intended, and use the common wealth for the common good.

    Of course that will take a change of heart, mind and attitude, on everyone’s part. And it will help if everyone realizes that we are all created equal in the sight of God, which is really the Great Spirit-Parent of us all. We are all members of one diverse family that we call humanity. And we should celebrate our diversity — rather than use it as an excuse to take on attitudes of superiority and judge others as inferior, as so many misguided people do.

    I tell you that because many of you are listening to the wrong people – to self-righteous people, self-important people, bigoted people, hypocritical people, and greedy people who are very deceptive — all of whom think they are superior, whether it’s because of their wealth or religion or nationality or political party or race. But I tell you that people who take on such attitudes of superiority are obstacles to human progress, and human evolution.

    Now rather than listen to them, I ask you to seek the Spirit of truth that is within you, because the Spirit of truth comes not to condemn but to educate; not to punish but to correct; and not to destroy but to save.

    I serve the Spirit of truth, and I ask you to join me in doing so — regardless of your religion, and whether you are religious or not. After all, the Spirit of truth is universal, and the Spirit of truth is also the Spirit of love, the Spirit of freedom, the Spirit of justice, and the Spirit of Peace – all of which we so desperately need now.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    To Guy and Dutch & all others: This is a good discussion, & which should be going on all over America. People need to know all the options we have for the future, and what is at stake. Why worry about getting your kids a college education, if they are going to live in an "out-sourcing" economy that robs our kids of any chance of competing with the Chinese or Russians,-- so American kids will be broke & in debt, & still not be able to get a job? It does happen. Some of our kids are graduating so deep in debt, they would have to learn to be a Wall Street banker, to break even. MANY Wall Street bankers are "thieves" in their spare time. In some corporations, it is even a pre-requisite in order to be employed there. (ha)

    Donald Trump is an interesting man, who has more money than most of us can even imagine. But his father was in real estate, & he taught Donald the ropes, in how to make money. In fact, Donald has declared bankruptcy several times in his life. (Talk about "The Art of the Deal"). There are some business deals that are basically a "license to steal." And the scheme has always been set up to favor the "businessmen". And who am I to say if it was good or bad? Capitalism has been good for our High Levels of LifeStyle, & General Health, & Prosperity. But we can't sustain any high-profit economy, if we are always at War, or if we kill off a large number of our next generation, for the concept of War. If our wars destroy the habitat of all mankind, so there is nowhere left to live, where we could drink clean water, or breathe clean air, then what have we gained? (Obviously, the Republicans never worry about such trivial things).

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Hi Guy: THANKS for your latest comments (July 12, PM) --- It is so refreshing to the mind and spirit, to hear encouraging words of Peace & possible survival of our devastated planet. Especially for America, with so many interior enemies, steadily eating away at our heart & soul. They are so powerful, & so numerous, & so rich, we wonder how can WE prevail? But your words provide the answer, & the HOPE. I can never thank you enough for your calm responses. Please stay with us, and keep us company. You are a National Treasure, (a phrase I seldom ever use) except to the best & most exceptional people. (Even if they are very humble).