Good. Controversial take, but his show sucked. You could tell CBS was really censoring him from the moment he jumped from Comedy Central to late night. Maybe he'll start up some new projects and we'll get to see that old Colbert biting satire again.
I've never understood why you would trust some rando contract worker to carry it in their personal car for you. Are you insane? In America? Land of mental illness and poverty? It's disgusting.
The balance. It ebbs and flows with the cultural landscape of the times. It determines which side prevails.
And just a hunch, I'd say it leans toward the ambivalent center most of the time. But as things get tough, it would become more activated and polarized.
I have a theory of society that is 30-30-30 based around a narcissistic spectrum. 30% of the population at any given time is narcissistic to some extent. They are conceited in their interactions with society.
We live in a time of decline. This is creating stress throughout the population. How people react to this stress shows their true character. The narcissistic leaning people, during these times of stress, look for scapegoats. If we just eliminate these types of people, we can go back to the good times. They are the fascists throughout history. When fascism and mindless violence rises during times of decline, it is due to this latent population, which is always there but only activated by the stress of decline.
The other groups are the 30% who are altruistic and cooperative. They interact with society by seeing what can be built by all and the value of different types of people. They have won the day too throughout history, but a society the averts disaster by coming together and rebuilding is just a society that continued to be successful. They are little noted as they do not bring the great calamities and destruction that get written down in the history books.
The final group are the 30% who are ambivalent. They don't engage with politics in a meaningful way and have little willpower. They see life as a fate to be endured. Whichever way the wind blows, they will follow, or at least, endure it.
The balance determines which side wins. It is influenced by the power structures of the day, the zeitgeist and the strength of propaganda and the leaders of each side. It's fairly clear which side is winning now and I don't see the altruistic side coming to save the day any time soon.
Often times, when altruism does prevail, it is because someone with great courage that is a member of the existing power structure leads their cause. There are no such people at this time. Our power structure has explicitly embraced greed and sociopathy for 50 years now. Everyone who is successful now has been a part of that system and is thoroughly corrupted by it.
You're just being hateful and not offering any solutions. Same as the dems. Also, you don't win votes by demonizing people. Anyway, you're fairly dense and reactionary. Not much different than them anyway. One day you'll probably join them once you realize your desire to hate isn't supported by the left.
No it's a candidate problem. Blaming citizens is the same as Republicans blaming people for being poor. They are ignorant because there are no good leaders inspiring people to be better. And it's of course because of money in politics. Decent people simply aren't put up to run. Only the most bootlicking frauds are allowed to run. Dems are owned by corporate donors just as much as the Republicans.
Consultants are paid to provide outside consensus. They strengthen the CEO's perceived smartness. They give it validity. McKinsey, because of its brand, provides the most value to a CEO in the boardroom.
Probably not. She didn't highlight it. Her main issue was abortion, which is divisive and/or indifferent to a lot of people. It's not something that should ever be the centerpiece of a campaign.
There was a brief moment when one nation was so wealthy that everyone could afford that.
Good. Controversial take, but his show sucked. You could tell CBS was really censoring him from the moment he jumped from Comedy Central to late night. Maybe he'll start up some new projects and we'll get to see that old Colbert biting satire again.
Testosterone reduces your ability to cry.
America's been adopting roundabouts in the last decade.
I've never understood why you would trust some rando contract worker to carry it in their personal car for you. Are you insane? In America? Land of mental illness and poverty? It's disgusting.
The balance. It ebbs and flows with the cultural landscape of the times. It determines which side prevails.
And just a hunch, I'd say it leans toward the ambivalent center most of the time. But as things get tough, it would become more activated and polarized.
I have a theory of society that is 30-30-30 based around a narcissistic spectrum. 30% of the population at any given time is narcissistic to some extent. They are conceited in their interactions with society.
We live in a time of decline. This is creating stress throughout the population. How people react to this stress shows their true character. The narcissistic leaning people, during these times of stress, look for scapegoats. If we just eliminate these types of people, we can go back to the good times. They are the fascists throughout history. When fascism and mindless violence rises during times of decline, it is due to this latent population, which is always there but only activated by the stress of decline.
The other groups are the 30% who are altruistic and cooperative. They interact with society by seeing what can be built by all and the value of different types of people. They have won the day too throughout history, but a society the averts disaster by coming together and rebuilding is just a society that continued to be successful. They are little noted as they do not bring the great calamities and destruction that get written down in the history books.
The final group are the 30% who are ambivalent. They don't engage with politics in a meaningful way and have little willpower. They see life as a fate to be endured. Whichever way the wind blows, they will follow, or at least, endure it.
The balance determines which side wins. It is influenced by the power structures of the day, the zeitgeist and the strength of propaganda and the leaders of each side. It's fairly clear which side is winning now and I don't see the altruistic side coming to save the day any time soon.
Often times, when altruism does prevail, it is because someone with great courage that is a member of the existing power structure leads their cause. There are no such people at this time. Our power structure has explicitly embraced greed and sociopathy for 50 years now. Everyone who is successful now has been a part of that system and is thoroughly corrupted by it.
In a lot of areas it's virtually non-existent. In my medium size'd city. A bus stop is about 2 miles away and comes every 50 minutes.
Nah, dialectics is a powerful tool for understanding reality.
That doesn't make this acceptable.
You're just being hateful and not offering any solutions. Same as the dems. Also, you don't win votes by demonizing people. Anyway, you're fairly dense and reactionary. Not much different than them anyway. One day you'll probably join them once you realize your desire to hate isn't supported by the left.
Always have been
Your arguments play into their hands. Continue to be baffled by the world you live in.
No it's a candidate problem. Blaming citizens is the same as Republicans blaming people for being poor. They are ignorant because there are no good leaders inspiring people to be better. And it's of course because of money in politics. Decent people simply aren't put up to run. Only the most bootlicking frauds are allowed to run. Dems are owned by corporate donors just as much as the Republicans.
It didn't used to be as bad as it is today a short while ago. It will continue to be worser for the rest of our lives.
That's not what I've read elsewhere. There's been a massive spike in poverty in Argentina since he took office. Something is funny with these numbers.
Consultants are paid to provide outside consensus. They strengthen the CEO's perceived smartness. They give it validity. McKinsey, because of its brand, provides the most value to a CEO in the boardroom.
I know it's a joke, but executive and analyst are oxymorons in the corporate world.
No, she didn't. You're delusional. Dems will continue to lose until they wake up.
Probably not. She didn't highlight it. Her main issue was abortion, which is divisive and/or indifferent to a lot of people. It's not something that should ever be the centerpiece of a campaign.