Political Crossfire Forums

[Doowstados]

Hence, perfect is an opinion based on whatever the persons desires are, some desires are direct conflict.

[Sallust]

xsuite wrote: a perfect society is absoluteley possible but is extremeley hard to start. Has anyone ever read the book "the giver" by lois lowry. in that book a utopia is the setting. its really hard to explain so i suggest reading int spark notes>herehttp://www.sparknotes.com/lit/giver/summary.html. I would hardly count the giver as a utopia. It includes the government keeping all the citizens in the dark, taking away their ability to see color, and taking away everything that makes them unique. An ideal society does not take away people's identities.

[LostSoul3412]

The idea of a perfect society is going to be different from person to person, because everyone is an individual with their own thoughts and ideas. I can only tell you what my ideal world would be, and the world I would hope for humanity to achieve one day.

My ideal world is a world of absolute freedom, where the individual is not bound to the chains of society through expectations, laws, or standards. A world where money is obsolete, and were people follow their passions before their wallets. A world of the individual, not the collective. A world without governments oppressing their people through laws and rules, a world were the individual is free to govern their own lives without the rigid standards of the collective.

In lay terms, Anarchy. My ideal world would be a world of Anarchy, without government dictating my freedoms and my rights. Every man is born free, but laws keep him chained to the system of government.

[Fido]

LostSoul3412 wrote: The idea of a perfect society is going to be different from person to person, because everyone is an individual with their own thoughts and ideas. I can only tell you what my ideal world would be, and the world I would hope for humanity to achieve one day.

My ideal world is a world of absolute freedom, where the individual is not bound to the chains of society through expectations, laws, or standards. A world where money is obsolete, and were people follow their passions before their wallets. A world of the individual, not the collective. A world without governments oppressing their people through laws and rules, a world were the individual is free to govern their own lives without the rigid standards of the collective.

In lay terms, Anarchy. My ideal world would be a world of Anarchy, without government dictating my freedoms and my rights. Every man is born free, but laws keep him chained to the system of government.

I am a revolutionary, but I like Anarchist. They are the only ones to do anything. A mob is a whole pack of anarchists, usually hungry and pissed. Revolutionaries can't do nothing without crazy anarchists. God bless you boys. Tear it down and I'll make it better.

Laws are always going to fit somewhere between justice and control. The less near law is to justice the more near it must be to control. And people accept law out of fear until fear cannot be avoided, with law, without law, without justice, nor with justice. Fear turns people into anarchists. Hope turns people into revolutionaries. Resist.

[WorldCitizenMovement]

TreizeEnder wrote: bubbleyumm wrote: pfft
no perfect society.
no such thing.
we all have flaws,
and we all are unique.
if we were perfect
everyone would be the same.
no creativity left.
no good music,
no war,
no ... anything really..
You are correct in that their is no perfect society. Ants do have a very efficient and effective system of hierarchy and specialization, though. Also, they fill their needs willingly because they're recognize that self sacrifice is more rewarding than depriving resources from others solely for themselves. It is a system I feel humans still have trouble grasping. It is a very good example of society, though there is no such thing as perfection.

Your speaking as if ants consciously go about doing their instinctive tasks. Ants are not "willing" nor are they "cognizant" nor do they "sacrifice". They are creatures of instinct. They only produce what their genetic programming designs them to produce. However, I think there is an inherent problem comparatively viewing ants to humans. Ants seem to have such an orderly and efficient, or in this case, "perfect" and unchanging reality not solely because they exist only by genetic instincts but because their is no disorder; or anything within them as creatures that allows for disorder. Within nature there seems to be such a perfect equilibrium because there is a biological "agreement" so to speak that allows for survival; it exists between nature and predator and prey. For humans, on the other hand, I believe it is not only our intelligence and our physical makeup that allows for such dominance upon this earth, but the violent disorder that makes human society an even more efficient, more orderly, more organized, and more perfect creature than what we view as more perfect. The fact of our disorder allows for us to change, become more efficient, and more unique than the creatures we compare ourselves to. It may not seem like this, however, I believe the fact that there really exists no "biological" agreement between nature or equilibrium within human species allows for the development of a species more capable of survival. Unlike other creatures, the only survival mechanism they can depend on is their rudimentary instinct's. In essence, does this not make us more perfect then them? The higher capacity to survive.

[LostSoul3412]

Fido wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: The idea of a perfect society is going to be different from person to person, because everyone is an individual with their own thoughts and ideas. I can only tell you what my ideal world would be, and the world I would hope for humanity to achieve one day.

My ideal world is a world of absolute freedom, where the individual is not bound to the chains of society through expectations, laws, or standards. A world where money is obsolete, and were people follow their passions before their wallets. A world of the individual, not the collective. A world without governments oppressing their people through laws and rules, a world were the individual is free to govern their own lives without the rigid standards of the collective.

In lay terms, Anarchy. My ideal world would be a world of Anarchy, without government dictating my freedoms and my rights. Every man is born free, but laws keep him chained to the system of government.

I am a revolutionary, but I like Anarchist. They are the only ones to do anything. A mob is a whole pack of anarchists, usually hungry and pissed. Revolutionaries can't do nothing without crazy anarchists. God bless you boys. Tear it down and I'll make it better.

Laws are always going to fit somewhere between justice and control. The less near law is to justice the more near it must be to control. And people accept law out of fear until fear cannot be avoided, with law, without law, without justice, nor with justice. Fear turns people into anarchists. Hope turns people into revolutionaries. Resist.

Not necessarily. I consider myself an Anarchist out of hope, not fear. Any fear I have, I have because of myself, not of my views. For instance, I fear the day when I become to lazy to be a better person. I fear the day when I will lose my inner passions. But most of all, I fear the day I give up the fight.

Everyone has their views for their own reasons, and while I can understand where you're coming from, I am one man who is an Anarchist out of hope for a better world were the people do not need a government.

[Fido]

WorldCitizenMovement wrote: TreizeEnder wrote: bubbleyumm wrote: pfft
no perfect society.
no such thing.
we all have flaws,
and we all are unique.
if we were perfect
everyone would be the same.
no creativity left.
no good music,
no war,
no ... anything really..
You are correct in that their is no perfect society. Ants do have a very efficient and effective system of hierarchy and specialization, though. Also, they fill their needs willingly because they're recognize that self sacrifice is more rewarding than depriving resources from others solely for themselves. It is a system I feel humans still have trouble grasping. It is a very good example of society, though there is no such thing as perfection.

Your speaking as if ants consciously go about doing their instinctive tasks. Ants are not "willing" nor are they "cognizant" nor do they "sacrifice". They are creatures of instinct. They only produce what their genetic programming designs them to produce. However, I think there is an inherent problem comparatively viewing ants to humans. Ants seem to have such an orderly and efficient, or in this case, "perfect" and unchanging reality not solely because they exist only by genetic instincts but because their is no disorder; or anything within them as creatures that allows for disorder. Within nature there seems to be such a perfect equilibrium because there is a biological "agreement" so to speak that allows for survival; it exists between nature and predator and prey. For humans, on the other hand, I believe it is not only our intelligence and our physical makeup that allows for such dominance upon this earth, but the violent disorder that makes human society an even more efficient, more orderly, more organized, and more perfect creature than what we view as more perfect. The fact of our disorder allows for us to change, become more efficient, and more unique than the creatures we compare ourselves to. It may not seem like this, however, I believe the fact that there really exists no "biological" agreement between nature or equilibrium within human species allows for the development of a species more capable of survival. Unlike other creatures, the only survival mechanism they can depend on is their rudimentary instinct's. In essence, does this not make us more perfect then them? The higher capacity to survive.

An ant colony is the equivalent of an individual person, and it would be strange if parts of a human body did not work in harmony. We cannot always expect such harmony from society. We cannot expect society can remain unchanged while people change. To think of a state resistant to change as somehow perfect defies the ant analogy. If we think of government as the extension of the individual, and responsive to the needs of the individual, when our needs are not met by government it is time to find out why or to make a change.

[Fido]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Fido wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: The idea of a perfect society is going to be different from person to person, because everyone is an individual with their own thoughts and ideas. I can only tell you what my ideal world would be, and the world I would hope for humanity to achieve one day.

My ideal world is a world of absolute freedom, where the individual is not bound to the chains of society through expectations, laws, or standards. A world where money is obsolete, and were people follow their passions before their wallets. A world of the individual, not the collective. A world without governments oppressing their people through laws and rules, a world were the individual is free to govern their own lives without the rigid standards of the collective.

In lay terms, Anarchy. My ideal world would be a world of Anarchy, without government dictating my freedoms and my rights. Every man is born free, but laws keep him chained to the system of government.

I am a revolutionary, but I like Anarchist. They are the only ones to do anything. A mob is a whole pack of anarchists, usually hungry and pissed. Revolutionaries can't do nothing without crazy anarchists. God bless you boys. Tear it down and I'll make it better.

Laws are always going to fit somewhere between justice and control. The less near law is to justice the more near it must be to control. And people accept law out of fear until fear cannot be avoided, with law, without law, without justice, nor with justice. Fear turns people into anarchists. Hope turns people into revolutionaries. Resist.

Not necessarily. I consider myself an Anarchist out of hope, not fear. Any fear I have, I have because of myself, not of my views. For instance, I fear the day when I become to lazy to be a better person. I fear the day when I will lose my inner passions. But most of all, I fear the day I give up the fight.

Everyone has their views for their own reasons, and while I can understand where you're coming from, I am one man who is an Anarchist out of hope for a better world were the people do not need a government.
So you are fearless, and reject law. No person who practices self control needs laws or government. My problem with laws is that while laws once were a function of community they have become divorced, separate, and abstract. Yet, on some levels they have become the means to a suffocating social control. In communities across America, the churches, who are the most organized block of voters split the city councils between themselves, and the sheriff, prosecuting attorney, and drain commissioners and dog catcher, and, and, and. One small city near by has hundreds of statutes on its books, and if some of these are redundant copies of state and federal laws all are a threat to freedom, and a danger to the individual. The prime point of law is not only to trim the individual from his natural relationships of support, but to control the individual.
I see that law would be effective in support of natural moral behavior, and good for the control of those corporations or institutions that affect our lives. Rather than being the source of laws, churches should be subject to laws. Because we choose to not control business, business controls us. Because we do not control corporations with government the individual must be controlled all the more. No law will ever be better than the respect of person to person, which is the first and last guarantee of peace. To think this underlying respect can be destroyed and that peace will be maintained with law is irrational.

[Fido]

Sallust wrote: xsuite wrote: a perfect society is absoluteley possible but is extremeley hard to start. Has anyone ever read the book "the giver" by lois lowry. in that book a utopia is the setting. its really hard to explain so i suggest reading int spark notes>herehttp://www.sparknotes.com/lit/giver/summary.html. I would hardly count the giver as a utopia. It includes the government keeping all the citizens in the dark, taking away their ability to see color, and taking away everything that makes them unique. An ideal society does not take away people's identities.

I hope you accept this in the spirit it is intended..
The source of our identity is always our societies. The definition and consciousness of the individual is a changing quantity throughout history. In the last thousand years especially, and at the desire of the Roman Catholic Church the individual has become a legal quality, but also a spiritual quality, with all entering or denied heaven on the basis of individual actions. Considering the view of the individual that exists in many parts of the world today, and that existed almost universally in the first millennium, the efforts of the church have birthed a fruit in the individual we know as western culture and society. As I have preached elsewhere, to free the individual means the governing of industry, and of corporations, and of institution. Since government is itself an institution, the problem is Thorny. If business is to run government we are all in trouble, individually, and collectively.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: An ant colony is the equivalent of an individual person,

Yes, and ant builds it's colony through genetics i.e instinct, like we build our own bodies. Countries can not be built like that, but must be done rationally.

[TreizeEnder]

WorldCitizenMovement wrote: TreizeEnder wrote: bubbleyumm wrote: pfft
no perfect society.
no such thing.
we all have flaws,
and we all are unique.
if we were perfect
everyone would be the same.
no creativity left.
no good music,
no war,
no ... anything really..
You are correct in that their is no perfect society. Ants do have a very efficient and effective system of hierarchy and specialization, though. Also, they fill their needs willingly because they're recognize that self sacrifice is more rewarding than depriving resources from others solely for themselves. It is a system I feel humans still have trouble grasping. It is a very good example of society, though there is no such thing as perfection.

Your speaking as if ants consciously go about doing their instinctive tasks. Ants are not "willing" nor are they "cognizant" nor do they "sacrifice". They are creatures of instinct. They only produce what their genetic programming designs them to produce. However, I think there is an inherent problem comparatively viewing ants to humans. Ants seem to have such an orderly and efficient, or in this case, "perfect" and unchanging reality not solely because they exist only by genetic instincts but because their is no disorder; or anything within them as creatures that allows for disorder. Within nature there seems to be such a perfect equilibrium because there is a biological "agreement" so to speak that allows for survival; it exists between nature and predator and prey. For humans, on the other hand, I believe it is not only our intelligence and our physical makeup that allows for such dominance upon this earth, but the violent disorder that makes human society an even more efficient, more orderly, more organized, and more perfect creature than what we view as more perfect. The fact of our disorder allows for us to change, become more efficient, and more unique than the creatures we compare ourselves to. It may not seem like this, however, I believe the fact that there really exists no "biological" agreement between nature or equilibrium within human species allows for the development of a species more capable of survival. Unlike other creatures, the only survival mechanism they can depend on is their rudimentary instinct's. In essence, does this not make us more perfect then them? The higher capacity to survive.

In all honesty, this post was merely an experiment, if you will. I posted this forum to get a reaction out of people and see thier logic behind a "perfect" society or if there was such a thing. I figured even before I posted the topic that there was no such thing as a perfect society, however, I wanted to see other's ideas. I choose to support the side I didn't believe in in order to get an active discussion started. It's also why I was so vague. I choose the ants as the "perfect" society because they are seemingly more efficient than us at working under a common cause. They are a machine. It seemed better to me in many respects, so I choose it to be the dummy "perfect" society for the post.

The reason I wanted to see people's reasons behind a perfect society is because many Christians argue that God harbors the perfect society in heaven. I disagreed with my fellow church goers on the matter stating what I have early on in the post. Thank you for your input on the matter.

So now you need not criticize my ant reference to a perfect society as I never really believed in it.

From the kind Varelse.

[Doowstados]

Well, that was lame.

[Fido]

Reason wrote: Quote: An ant colony is the equivalent of an individual person,

Yes, and ant builds it's colony through genetics i.e instinct, like we build our own bodies. Countries can not be built like that, but must be done rationally.

There is a rational, that is, cause and effect in genetics, in that the genes equal the individual after time. We should look for the rational in society, and hold society to a rational standard. Yet there are many facets to society that are holdovers from an age of magic, and the age of children. We should always try to understand the logic in ancient relationships rather than test them with our logic. Then, if we are looking at modern facets of society we cannot always judge them in terms of expedience or efficiently.
I usually look at the government of the U.S. as something designed not to work. How many goals in the preamble of the constitution have ever been met? Business men of that constitutional age were as eager as those of our own to see business have a free hand, and the protection of government. Government was not made to serve two masters, and increasingly it serves itself, but since it is made up of the wealthy and well educated it is not exactly a hand to mouth existence. It is more like defensive salient of the class division.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: There is a rational, that is, cause and effect in genetics,

Evolution is more like trial and error, with plenty of error.

Quote: Yet there are many facets to society that are holdovers from an age of magic, and the age of children

We live on Earth not Middle Earth.....

Quote: We should always try to understand the logic in ancient relationships rather than test them with our logic.

Not onyl do you assume a logic based on your mystic beliefs, but worse, you seem to subscribe to fatalism as an actual philosphy.

Quote: I usually look at the government of the U.S. as something designed not to work. How many goals in the preamble of the constitution have ever been met?

So because it has failed to protect our liberties, it was designed not to protect them? The whole point of failure is that it doesn't happen through intent.

Quote: It is more like defensive salient of the class division.

What class division?

[Fido]

Reason wrote: Quote: Quote: There is a rational, that is, cause and effect in genetics,

Evolution is more like trial and error, with plenty of error.

The genetic development of an individual from his genetic blueprint is not the same as evolution; but even evolution has its logic, with non-evolution and errors both failing in the face of a changing environment.

Quote: Quote: Yet there are many facets to society that are holdovers from an age of magic, and the age of children

We live on Earth not Middle Earth.....

Yet many of us go to church, celebrate holidays, make common oaths, pledges, that sort of thing, and generally surrounding ourselves with ritual and ceremony

Quote: Quote: We should always try to understand the logic in ancient relationships rather than test them with our logic.

Not only do you assume a logic based on your mystic beliefs, but worse, you seem to subscribe to fatalism as an actual philosophy.

No, I look at educated people who often studied law and philosophy coming to the new world and applying their standards to the practices they could not understand; and then using their logic to destroy culture and people. To understand humankind, you must have some sense of where we have been. People in the past had institutions of a sort, relationships in reality, that served them well if you may judge by our present existence. Our future is not so clear, but the antagonisms within our society are not softening, and most of us do not feel well served by our institutions.

Quote: Quote: I usually look at the government of the U.S. as something designed not to work. How many goals in the preamble of the constitution have ever been met?

So because it has failed to protect our liberties, it was designed not to protect them? The whole point of failure is that it doesn't happen through intent.

The protection of rights has never been primary to the constitution. The protection of class division, and property, considered as a right is the primary purpose of the constitution. Since they have set their own standard in the preamble can we say their efforts were ever successful? If our true founding document, the Declaration of Independence were enforced in the constitution do you believe wars of adventure like the Mexican war, the Spanish American war, Vietnam, or the Iraq War II would be possible? Yet, is the direct support of property the best means of protecting property? Would property not be better protected by seeing property as the extension of the individual, and then giving the individual as an individual every respect. Property is the destruction of individual rights, which eventually destroys the mutual respect of people that protects property. Law is nothing but an impediment without respect.

Quote: Quote: It is more like a defensive salient of the class division.

What class division?

In simple terms, property. The owning of property gives special rights, which is an enforced inequality under a system of government which nominally depends upon equality. It is, to put it mildly, a contradiction.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: In simple terms, property. The owning of property gives special rights, which is an enforced inequality under a system of government which nominally depends upon equality. It is, to put it mildly, a contradiction.

Being extraordniarily happy is an 'enforced' inequality, after all it means that everyone else must become extraoedinarily happy or else you're no longer all the same. The logic extends to being extraordinarily sad - who cares? Why does anything depend on us all being identitical? That'd be both plain stupid and plain impossible.

[Fido]

Reason wrote: Quote: In simple terms, property. The owning of property gives special rights, which is an enforced inequality under a system of government which nominally depends upon equality. It is, to put it mildly, a contradiction.

Being extraordniarily happy is an 'enforced' inequality, after all it means that everyone else must become extraoedinarily happy or else you're no longer all the same. The logic extends to being extraordinarily sad - who cares? Why does anything depend on us all being identitical? That'd be both plain stupid and plain impossible.

It is not some particular anything that depends upon us all being identical, but rather, our liberty, and the expression of that liberty in true self government which is endangered by anything more than a natural inequality. The fact that we all have identical qualities as humans does not imply more than a rough equality, but when that particular political equality I speak of becomes endangered by gross inequalities of wealth and property, then property is endangered, peace is endangered, and the nation is endangered. Wealth governs my country, but who can say wealth is doing it well? Property rights make enterprise free, but they enslave the population. Will we accept that? We may not have a hereditary class of kings or lords, yet wealth and power are increasingly hereditary. This will never be the land where poor boys make good if it is always the place rich boys finish first. Wealth should go to merit and talent, and from there to the public purse.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: but when that particular political equality I speak of becomes endangered by gross inequalities of wealth and property, then property is endangered, peace is endangered, and the nation is endangered.

The problem is no whether we all have an equally high say in each other's lives (that's not freedom) but whether each person has say in their own life.

Quote: Wealth governs my country, but who can say wealth is doing it well?

It's doing it better than pretty much any other form of government, by simply governing less. The problem is that something 'governs' and is is not held back from governing private concerns. No class is fit to govern.

Quote: Property rights make enterprise free, but they enslave the population.

Enterprise is the result of the free choices of the popaltion over their own stuff, it doesn't enslave them because the process is entirely opposite to slavery.

Quote: We may not have a hereditary class of kings or lords, yet wealth and power are increasingly hereditary.

Power is again a problem with government, whilst why is someone choosing to give their wealth to whom they want a problem? What business is it of yours what someone else chooses to do with what they've created?

Quote: Wealth should go to merit and talent, and from there to the public purse.

Your opinion on where other people's wealth should go is irrelevant. Wealth naturally goes to the person who creates it, and it certainly shouldn't be expropriated by the state - especially not simply because you say so.

[shifter]

:think: A perfect society would be one where no one had any thoughts or emotions, and all of the world was the same, therefore there would be nothing to think bad of, if everyone was the same.

[Fido]

[quote="Reason Quote: "] Quote: but when that particular political equality I speak of becomes endangered by gross inequalities of wealth and property, then property is endangered, peace is endangered, and the nation is endangered.

The problem is no whether we all have an equally high say in each other's lives (that's not freedom) but whether each person has say in their own life.

Absolutely, democracy is control of our own affairs, and extremes of wealth that destroy equality also destroys democracy. Tell me how having fewer representatives per person than when this country was formed is as democratic as the democracy they enjoyed? The road this country is taking to hell is going away from democracy.

Quote: Quote: Wealth governs my country, but who can say wealth is doing it well?

It's doing it better than pretty much any other form of government, by simply governing less. The problem is that something 'governs' and is is not held back from governing private concerns. No class is fit to govern.

Yes, so much of government for us is anarchy for capital. Capital has a free hand, and as much or little of democracy as it wants. The Greek and Roman slave owners had democracy. Democracy is no guarantee of justice for all unless it involves all the people. Ours allows a louder voice for property and greater rights for property. Is there any reason to believe that our votes actually matter? The sort of democracy we inherited from the Iroquois sought consensus. We seek with our democracy the greatest allowable division, even for all we know, to the point of fatal weakness. Why? Because we do not have true democracy where each has control of his own affairs. Have you ever voted on minimum wage, or health care with government support. What is your vote on war or on closing the border. We vote for a fraction of our first government, and seldom get what we want. Tell me there is no way we could vote on these issues.

Quote: Quote: Property rights make enterprise free, but they enslave the population.

Enterprise is the result of the free choices of the population over their own stuff, it doesn't enslave them because the process is entirely opposite to slavery.

Non sense. First we are a commonwealth. Ultimately the nation holds title to all property, or else imminent domain, and the emancipation of our slaves would have been impossible, Second, the whole nation is at pains to defend every inch of property, but through control of government, the property class has consistently reduced its burden of the support of government, and loaded it onto the backs of labor. Property is getting a free ride, and has become a bank of wealth. This does not make realestate and homes cheaper. It actually reduces the supply of property at any time looking for a price, and that raises the price. And because it is cheap to hold onto, it becomes an object of speculation. This was not always so. The need to literally work for months to pay taxes makes people slaves to a government that will not support their needs or rights, and slaves as well to those trying to maximize profits at the expense of the larger community. How then does a man with depressed wages buy a home. He finds it necessary to get a mortgage for which he will pay about two times again the purchase price in interest. We are slaves to employers, banks and government. Since labor creates all value, how can this situation last?

Quote: Quote: We may not have a hereditary class of kings or lords, yet wealth and power are increasingly hereditary.

Power is again a problem with government, whilst why is someone choosing to give their wealth to whom they want a problem? What business is it of yours what someone else chooses to do with what they've created?

The government should be strong enough to defend our rights, and be just enough to not trample on our rights. But it is our government. The people are sovereign. Why then do so many people rich and poor think government does not serve them personally, nor the public with fidelity? Once more, labor creates value, even the labor of employers. Should this wealth remain hereditary even if it destroys with its influence the democracy that has been our strength? The country is ours. Profit is often guaranteed by the government, and sometimes low wages are encouraged with the subsidization of poverty at the public expense. Wealth is a matter of public interest, since wealth weakens the country when not equal. It cannot defend itself, but it has freedom of speech, and access to government. That means a living person, dispossessed of opportunity, and equality, which is his life, must suffer war, and face death to defend the wealth of kings. This is not democracy!

Quote: Quote: Wealth should go to merit and talent, and from there to the public purse.

Your opinion on where other people's wealth should go is irrelevant. Wealth naturally goes to the person who creates it, and it certainly shouldn't be expropriated by the state - especially not simply because you say so. [/quote]

Today it is irrelevant. But the path of history is strewn with societies who found equality and democracy were impediments they could do without until they caved in from outside pressure or became something entirely different from within. Take control of your own affairs. Demand equality and justice for your self and others. I have been a revolutionary, but the thought of all the frustration and hate alive in the heart of this nation being turned loose because some want to live first rate in a third world country we are becoming makes me sick. Never sow the wind. Is that what you want for america? Wars and revolutions may start nice and little, but they become monsters beyond control.